Old dilemmas in new robes: the dynamics of influence in the digital age

No one doubts that the development and spread of internet technologies have generated new possibilities for influencing people and communicating ideas, especially by increasing individual agency. But can these tools effectively bring about long-lasting change when the values permeating these practices take issue with the very concept of permanence?

In New Power, Australian political activist Jeremy Heimans and American non-profit leader Henry Timms propose a simple framework for better understanding what these new possibilities really are, how they are currently being taken advantage of – in both altruistic and sinister ways – by groups as well as individuals, and why their very existence changes people’s expectations of and behavior towards organizations and public figures. As they do so, the authors offer valuable, case-based perspectives on what this means for institutions and the people responsible for them as ‘an increasing thirst to participate’ drives public interaction with all types of organizations.

Throughout their book, Heimans and Timms constantly contrast what they call ‘old power’ and ‘new power’, the basic difference being that the former is threatened by participation while the latter feeds off of it. Of course, we could describe what they are saying using other terms, but the nomenclature they invent is somehow helpful in distinguishing different levels of influence and how they interact with one another. ‘Old power’ is formal authority, decision-making power concentrated in a single leader (or a select few) with those decisions taking place behind closed doors: the so-called ‘traditional’ or ‘top-down’ approach. As they rightfully claim, it is not acceptable for organizations to deny their stakeholders a voice. Consequently, the logic of ‘new power’ is to not only embrace the risk of letting those voices run wild, but also to ‘fan the flame’, giving people the agency they demand while finding innovative ways to harness this new source of energy for some of the changes the organization – or individual – wishes to bring about.

Timms and Heimans make a distinction between new power ‘structures’ and new power ‘values’ (transparency, openness, inclusivity, decentralization etc.) and they say that structures and values do not always coincide in a single organization. Implicit in this discussion is that new power values elicit the trust of today’s stakeholders more effectively than their opposite, or so-called “'old power values'. Among many examples, the authors point to Facebook. Although evidently one of the key providers of new power, Facebook is described as a ‘new power structure with old power values’, pointing to what many consider to be an absolute control on the part of Mark Zuckerberg and other company executives over how Facebook is managed, without enough real participation or input from users. Meanwhile – of special interest for this journal, and particularly intriguing given that neither author appears to hold serious religious views – Pope Francis is deemed a ‘new power model with new power values’ even though he leads one of the oldest institutions on the planet. They describe Pope Francis as a ‘shapeshifter’, meaning someone who helps an organization transition smoothly to society’s new expectations, a feat that requires ‘a tricky blend of tradition and innovation’. In their view, Pope Francis has ‘used his infallible old power credibility to unleash unexpected change’. What papal infallibility really means and eager exaggeration aside, the authors rightfully identify the Church’s perennial challenge to preach the same Gospel in uncharted seas, requiring both fidelity and creativity.

Nevertheless, the authors are quick to clarify that ‘new’ and ‘old’ do not necessarily align with ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’, although the book unapologetically emphasizes the benefits of the new (and assumes you agree with the authors’ mostly progressive political and cultural preferences, weakening the force of their arguments to some degree). However, while clearly preferring ‘new power’ – a symbolic term which indicates both a societal change that is necessarily taking place as well as a strategy to adapt to it – the authors eventually admit that the most effective approach actually lies in what they call ‘blending power’, allowing organizations to glean the advantages of both power styles. This is because ‘new power’ alone has some significant limits.

For one thing, the approach they promote challenges some basic ideas about leadership: indeed, leadership itself is definitely more complex when participation becomes the dominant value and, in some way, blurs the line between leaders and followers, between organizations and the people served by them. Heimans cites his own independent political activist group, GetUp, as an example: ‘The language of GetUp share(s) that spirit of group action. The “About Us” section of the website was not written in the voice of an organization talking to its supporters or subjects, but in the voice of the members’. In some ways, the possibility of being able to wield a certain level of influence without ever having a formal decision-making position – in a world increasingly suspicious of the presumed validity of official leadership roles – could be a sign of progress. It means that ordinary people with no vested interests can make significant contributions, if they put in the effort to speak up and if they know how to use the right tools. It means more personal control over one’s reputation, built up over time within the ‘sharing economy’, one’s fate no longer determined by the overriding opinion of those ‘at the top’. Indeed, perhaps the most valuable observation New Power offers is its understanding of the ‘audience’ as active engagers – ‘super participants’ as they put it – rather than passive receptors: people who can not necessarily be convinced, but whose own initiative is precisely the strongest asset for an employer or organization. Naturally, people trust what they have built themselves, feeling personally invested in it. This idea is not new, and yet organizations across the board still struggle to adapt themselves to this reality successfully.

But as Heimans and Timms observe, all of this complicates leadership, in good ways and bad ways. New power values do not favor allowing any one person to be in the spotlight for too long: ‘[Pope] Francis aside, leaders aren’t very popular these days’. We no longer put up with self-aggrandizement and are more sensitive to leaders being held accountable for the services they are meant to provide in a palpable way. Relatedly, much anti-authority sentiment and distrust stems from real experiences of power abuses. But for those who do find themselves shouldering a leadership position, however, new power can be frustrating, especially when one of its principles is to relinquish attempts at producing certain outcomes (because that is too controlling). For them, this feels irresponsible and, in this sense, it appears that ‘new power’ is simply less powerful. In reality, perhaps ‘old power’ was never as powerful as it seemed.

Another of the many examples used in the book is Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and subsequent presidency. Obama, who has been called the ‘first social media president’, famously proved the power of new power tactics when he became the first presidential candidate to adopt a social media strategy for his campaign. Nevertheless, the authors go on to criticize Obama for not delivering the long-lasting change he had promised once he was in office. The example raises a question: are new power tactics effective after all? Or are they only good for a flash in the pan? This could simply be the nature of campaigns, social media and otherwise, but does new power merely serve to win campaigns or can it actually be used to ‘seek solutions’, as the authors put it?

In the end, Heimans and Timms’ fascination with our digitally-transforming, cutting-edge society ultimately points to a timeless concern: what exactly is the role of authority in organizations (in business, politics, non-profit groups etc.) and to what extent is it necessary? Perhaps the most surprising aspect of New Power and the horizontal worldview it professes is its recognition of the inevitable and even desirable role authority needs to play at some stage, be it minimal. There is an objective need for some ‘old power’ elements, unpopular and unglamorous as they are: after all, decisions have to be made; order brings peace of mind. The real question is where to draw the line, and that is where things get interesting. There is a rising, legitimate demand for more agency on the part of stakeholders, which makes it all the more necessary to maintain a clear picture of what constitutes effective authority and what does not. Thus, the real issue is discerning where authority ends and personal autonomy begins. Surely that line shifts over time as circumstances change and technology develops, but the line will always be there.

Although the authors of New Power are not particularly concerned about the Catholic Church, we can wonder if their observations about the changing expectations of group dynamics also affect how people perceive their membership in religious groups. One of the more sobering statistics offered by the book as far as the Church should be concerned is the decrease in sustained membership in any given group. As a general tendency, people are moving in and out of groups and do not expect to make long-term commitments to any of them. Nevertheless, perhaps the Catholic Church is more ‘new power’ – in a positive way – than readily meets the eye, especially when we consider its origins. There is nothing more ‘grass-roots’, more member-driven, more transparent, more participatory, more decentralized, and more inclusive than the early Church. After all, inclusivity is a Christian value first – Catholic does mean ‘universal’ – and the early Christians enjoyed no privileges or favors from the authorities of the day to help them ‘spread the good news’. These attributes are all attractive for a modern audience, and the Church does not need to invent them, because they are on the record. Of course, the Church has managed to stick around for quite some time, and it has not been through power plays. Perhaps the Church’s best bet is not to hope in ‘power’ at all. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., ‘What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive… Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love’ (King 1967).

There really is ‘nothing new under the sun’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Helen Keefe
ISCOM
[email protected]