Life and literature is full of the conflict between the “Warrior” and the “Bureaucrat”. General Grant could not fit into the peacetime army or civilian life either. But when war came, his ability and achievement won him Lincoln’s confidence. Grant then fulfilled this trust and won the war.

When war broke out, General McClellan was seen by all as the man to win the war. He was the public’s idea of a real soldier. Smooth, smart, a great recruiter and organizer. But he and none of his smooth successors until Grant and Sherman had the right stuff that only a real warrior had.

So what is this short history lesson got to do with social software?

If social software has the power that I think it has, it will “Out” the bureaucrats for what they are and shift organizations away from self serving to actually serving the stated mission of the enterprise.

How might this happen? It will show the difference between meeting the needs of the mission and meeting the needs of a career. It will highlight the difference between people who have something to say because they know their stuff and have a passion for the work and those that have no real voice and only a passion for themselves.

Most bureaucratic authority is merely the result of the position - the skill and effort that took the person there was usually skill as a bureaucrat. Such people tend to have a “voice” that is distinctive. They tend to be well-behaved, rule-keeping and mistake-avoiding and of course smooth-talking. General Haig is a good example of the Pentagon/White House soldier.

There are others who may have that position but who have earned it by their innate skill and by their record of achievement. I label them “warriors”. General Patton, Col David Hackworth would be the “Warriors”.

The Warrior wins the battle, has high morale in his unit, runs the best region in the bank, really can teach and make a difference in kids’ lives, is a godly man whose life is an example for his parish. Would give his life for his country etc. But they tend to have little or no power in large organizations. Except in wartime or times of exceptional crisis, the General Grant’s, the Churchill’s and the Mandela’s are excluded. The great teacher never runs a school. The great priest never becomes a bishop. The patriot never becomes President.
The Bureaucrat’s achievement is that he is an expert at climbing the slippery pole. Climbing the slippery pole is actually the real achievement in most large organizations. Making internal deals and looking after the club is the work. These are the skills and this is the achievement that is rewarded. It is the bureaucrats who serve themselves that tend to have the positions of power.

That is why they hate the idea of Social Software. Why? What social software is doing is “outing” the bureaucrat. Most often, if an organization is using social software well - it drives debate and conversation. Good ideas and good people rise naturally to the surface in such an environment. The Warriors start to have more influence. The Bureaucrats tend to lose influence because they have poor skills related to the task rather than to the organization. These are exposed by silence or evidence of their technical frailty.

I say all of this not as a moralist but as a man entering old age who has been around a bit. I think that this is the way of the world. But my hope is that the transparency that comes with the use of Social Software and the reality that all those under the age of 25 use it all the time and will force it into organizations - may actually shift the balance of power away from bureaucratic achievement to real achievement.
“By their works, shall ye know them” (Matthew I think) This is becoming important again.