About the author: Chris Perry is the chairman of Futures at Weber Shandwick, a global communications consultancy. This article is adapted from the new book, Perspective Agents: A Human Guide to the Age of Autonomy.
A year ago, while flying to the World Economic Forum in Davos, I held a copy—of all things—a newspaper. Headlines foretold a world in turmoil, a tapestry of crises spanning war, climate change, and recession. But a different, less visible crisis was embedded: the inclination of the C-suite to navigate novel problems with old methods. This past year brought new challenges—and with these new trials—business leadership appeared unprepared.
New to Davos, I wondered: If the masters of the universe were ill-equipped to guide us, who would? On the ground, the criteria for leadership had changed, while the attendees and agenda had not. Dissonance was everywhere, with the frequent critique that leaders missed and misinterpreted consequential events.
A year later, it’s clear that those sentiments of impending economic doom were misplaced. The global economy grew by an estimated 3.1% in 2023. The S&P 500 rose 24.2%. The Nasdaq-100 delivered one of the best full-year performances in its history, with a gain of nearly 54%.
Why did we lose our confidence? Miscalculations ranged from culture wars to character attacks and campus spats. Realized by our “algorithm”—which contains legacy models blending with new ones—expert insights were and are being overrun by hot takes and a swath of voices in the physical world and metaverse. As a result, we were misled economically. The need to transform leadership is becoming clearer as we continue our transition into a more autonomous world.
Consider headlines from the year.
Social conflict. The risk of civil conflict escalated. We witnessed over 630 mass shootings in America— many of them taking place on college campuses and K-12 school grounds. Experts are worried unregulated social media algorithms increase the threat of a civil war.
Contagion. An extraordinary intelligence oversight led to the brutal murder of Israeli citizens. The ripple effects transcend a kinetic war. Information wars rage alongside military conflict. AI-powered TikTok is now a major front shaping public opinion on the war and beyond. The public response led to a surge in antisemitism and mass protests defending inhumane acts; dissent spread across campuses; and university presidents resigned. According to a recent YouGov/Economist poll, 20% of respondents aged 18-29 think the Holocaust is a myth.
Polarization. An ex-president with 91 federal indictments leads the Republican field. More than half of Biden supporters say those who support the Republican party are a threat to American life and 47% of Trump supporters say the same about Democrats.
Contested power. Elon Musk’s mission to ensure the long-term survival of humanity includes building companies of the future spanning transportation, clean energy, AI, and more. Yet adversaries distort his agenda, preying on inflammatory statements and personal flaws through memes tailor-made for algorithmically driven social networks.
Emotional resilience. Taylor Swift became the first artist to win Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. Some equate the fandom she’s constructed to a living, breathing metaverse. Analysts estimated “Taylornomics” would add $5.7 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023. Despite world-altering developments from power-wielding men like Trump, Musk, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Time editors chose Swift because she became “the main character of the world.”
Themes of civil conflict, intelligence failures, social movements, cult-like beliefs, and cultural juggernauts gained traction in the public mind. The traditional algorithms we’ve long relied upon to make sense of our world are evolving constantly with technology.
No longer is our algorithm akin to a basic code running on finite media platforms with controlled messages, and no longer does the public place trust in established messengers—newspapers, broadcasters, and institutions. The gatekeepers and trusted narrators of information have been expelled.
The stakes of this tumultuous era are no longer a competition for attention. We’re engaged instead in a battle for perspective. Individuals, collectives, and bots clash on digital battlegrounds, each pushing different versions of reality. While algorithms shaping dissent aren’t new, AI’s ability to mass-produce personalized content will soon fuel instability. We urgently need new ways of looking at the world.
Looking ahead, people and leaders of the world, it’s time to:
First, transform leadership. The conductors of a well-rehearsed orchestra must instead become explorers charting unknown territories. The leadership compass now points toward uncharted lands, demanding creativity, adaptability, and a willingness to venture into the unknown. Beyond methods to see differently, there is room to upgrade cognitive resilience.
Second, recreate the fact-finding process. In this new landscape, the fact-finding process resembles an artisan crafting a unique piece of work. No longer can we rely on mass-produced, one-size-fits-all solutions. We need to gather information like an artist selects their colors: carefully and with intention, understanding that each piece contributes to a larger picture.
Last, recreate broken algorithms. The traditional algorithm of understanding and trust needs updates and attention. We must build new ones with fresh perspectives and innovative approaches. Code and data must be woven into a novel tapestry from diverse threads of human experience, technology, and understanding. Not just a task for the tech-savvy or the elite, this will be an endeavor for collective society.
As we head further into an era of autonomy, technologies that inform us will operate without human intervention, and humans will define truth independent of institutional direction. This journey is not just about regaining a sense of direction; it’s about reshaping how we perceive and engage with the world around us. We can only create maps if we know the territory. It raises the question if leaders are truly willing to look in a new way.
Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron’s and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit commentary proposals and other feedback to ideas@barrons.com.
Read the full article here
