Candidates in the primaries argue about whether experience or leadership for change is more important for a president. What I learned when I spoke at Google headquarters last month is that the young professionals there recognize that profound social change is already taking place. They want leaders at work and in Washington who understand the evolving world and make them collaborators in creating a better future. Experience without foresight and purpose is a drag, not a value.
Starting in the 1970s, people like the Googlers have been growing up in a world that has shaped them differently from their parents raised in the 1950s and 1960s. Then, most families were headed by a sole male wage earner. Today, typically both parents work, and more families are headed by single women. Then, large national corporations promised lifetime employment. Now, global companies can't promise employment for a defined period and employees are no longer loyal. Then, managers were almost all white men and the leadership model was paternalistic. Now, young professionals reject autocratic leaders and have worked for all types of bosses. Then, only researchers and financial companies used computers. Now, computers and the internet have transformed work, products, personal interactions, access to information, and knowledge creation. Then managers knew subordinates' jobs better than they did. Now, with the rapid advance of knowledge, subordinates often know more. Today, what people seek in their leaders is authenticity, transparency, and a clear sense of meaningful purpose. Experience is secondary.
The result of all these changes has been the emergence of a new social character -- one that I call "interactive," in contrast to the "bureaucratic" social character that dominated the last century. Interactives tend to identify with sibling-like peers rather than paternal models. They see themselves as independent, free agents and many treat big companies like Google as a place for post-graduate education before going out to join an entrepreneurial venture. They are experimental at work and with life styles. At an early age, they begin building networks and are at ease connecting with people all over the world. They want leaders to add value by increasing opportunities for them, not telling them what to do. When I described interactives, my listeners at Google recognized themselves. All the presidential candidates had visited Google. And almost all the Googlers said they most liked Barack Obama. I asked why, and the answer was that he understood the challenges of the global economy. More than the other candidates, he seemed a natural global networker. Obama emphasized America's need to provide opportunity, not by walling off the country, but by supporting education and innovation. They saw him as the kind of leader who would bring people together to work on problems. They agreed with him that government had a role in funding scientific research, especially to protect the environment and gain energy independence. They liked his promise to develop 21st century infrastructure, including broadband access for everyone. They applauded his promise to make government more transparent so people could track earmarks and contracts. In his language and appeal, Obama seemed to be inviting them to be collaborators, not followers. He communicated foresight, understanding of the forces of change, and gave them hope that collaboration within America and across national and cultural boundaries was possible.
These are the young people best equipped to make America competitive in the global economy, to create wealth and provide jobs. They see Obama as the leader America needs.