Mediashock, and the accidental leader

Until not so long ago, the idea that changes in media were changing every element of society was a pretty esoteric idea. Nowadays it’s a part of almost every conversation.

Because some pretty strange things are going on.

This seismic pulse of media change has created chaos, anxiety and confusion on all sides, and we are only just at the starting line of piecing together an understanding of what has happened and what continues to happen.

For me, this is one of my greatest areas of fascination - trying to understand both these recurring waves of media-driven change, from the printing press to the social web, and also the sense of shock and confusion they generate within people.

This ‘Mediashock’ is a huge topic, and I spend a lot of time thinking, and writing about it.

One element that has been preoccupying me this week is the idea of understanding who is best placed to win in these periods of extreme change.

Who is best evolved to this specific phase of Mediashock across society – whether it's a type of leader, brand or media organisation?

Is it all about skill?

In some cases it will be the best prepared, or those with the best mastery. Those with the deepest pockets, to prepare for every scenario. Those with the deepest bases of talent, with their fingers on the pulse of technology change. We hear about massive investments in labs and R&D. Shadowy political figures with deep mines of emotional and psychographic data. Businesses or organisations that are ‘social’ or ‘mobile’ or ‘data-driven’ by design.

Of course all of those things are great to have. But there is clearly a major element of dumb luck. Let me turn, for a second, to the inevitable example of politics.

Are we led by digital master-minds?

If you are looking for a poster child for the volatile power of the digital age of politics, you will tend to turn to Trump. But it is notable that on a personal level, this is a man whose grasp of the dynamics of the internet (or ‘the cyber’ as he is known to refer to it) is extremely sketchy. He almost never uses email. His tweets break every convention of how the medium is used, and sometimes trend towards total drivel. If he is a master of the Internet, is accidental.

And he’s not alone. Boris may have the peculiar genius of Dominic Cummings in the back room and a journalist’s flair for news cycle domination, but thus far the secret of his success is not a deep grasp of digitisation but a thick hide and a flair for political entertainment. And what about the other player in Trump’s impeachment proceedings: Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, is not only an actor and comedian but has immediately hired a rockstar as his key deputy.

That’s three extraordinary rises to power from politicians that would have been pretty much inconceivable in the pre social-content era. And it is it a testament to their mastery of the complexities and etiquette of the digital age? Not at all. They have a set of characteristics that simply make them well evolved to this moment – the grasp for simplicity; for the illusion of confidence; for the entertaining gene; for the ability to generate content and a rate faster than the search for truth.

Is this accidental leadership a new thing for this era?

Absolutely not. If you haven’t ever thought about this, it may be worth turning your attention to Calvin Coolidge – one of the most popular Presidents in American history, but an accidental President in every sense. He had the good fortune to preside over an extreme period of prosperity and to make himself scarce before the Wall Street Crash.

He moved into a White House shamed by his predecessor, Warren Harding, who allowed all kinds of decadent excess, including a radio. Coolidge hated the radio. In fact he was famously taciturn, an uninspiring speaker, and was relatively unknown in the country at large.

Yet Coolidge’s relationship with the radio transformed his popularity, and through the State of the Nation speech, the very nature of the presidency. The attributes that had so undermined him on the campaign trail — his low, grave voice, his ponderous delivery, and his puritanical attitude towards rhetoric, came across on the radio as authority, gravity, trustworthiness and simplicity of delivery. What could have destroyed him in another age, certainly in this one, propelled Coolidge to incredible popularity.

Accidental leadership - in business, as in politics

These are characters who are accidentally perfectly attuned to the Mediashocks of their age, and have had the right characteristics, at the right time, and in the right place.

And you can see the same thing happening in business too. There is no doubt that the age of TED talks, and conference platforms, and LinkedIn personal branding has created a different environment for CEOs and business leaders – and some different characters are rising to the surface. The ‘leader as publisher’ – generating a groundswell of attention through inspiring rhetoric, impassioned storytelling, or controversial fight-picking.

Brands and accidental leadership

I think perhaps the same is true for brands, and for businesses. There is a desperate and often well-merited scramble to acquire the capabilities required for the digital age. Deep, in-house digital and data capability. Experimentation in Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Virtual Reality. Acceleration in eCommerce. Frankly the list is endless, and whilst the choices may be pretty tough, many of these capabilities will have to be acquired to guarantee future success.

But maybe, as we’ve seen in politics, brands should be thinking just as much about their characterisation as their capabilities. What are the personality spikes and peculiarities that will give them accidental mastery of the changing world around them?

Some of these personality attributes may be extremely worthy and sustainable, future proofing a business against incipient changes in consumer behaviour and attitudes. A brand’s principles in their approach to business sustainability for sure is a key evolutionary attribute. Their attitude to transparency of operation and communication. Their ability to connect people inside and out to a sense of purpose and a clarity of direction.

But maybe, just maybe, some less elevated, more accessible attributes will be important too?

Their ability to generate noise, news and grab attention. Their ability to make people laugh, smile, and forgive some of their weaknesses. Their ability to capture the right tone, simplify, decrease anxiety, and help people to make sense of the world around them.

So, who's going to win?

You can pick some of the winners and the starting gate. I'll put pretty much anything you care to name on Amazon, which I think is just one of the most useful businesses you could even imagine, and is showing signs of developing a stronger personality too.

But for sure there will be some ‘accidental winners’ that come out of nowhere. As a brand, it's definitely a good time to think about not just what you need to be able to do to survive in the next phase of Mediashock - but how you want people to feel about you.