In a recent MSNBC.com article, ‘Sherlock’ sequel slips, but still tops box office, reporter David Germain writes that “Sherlock Holmes is facing his worst enemy: declining crowds at theaters as this year’s domestic movie attendance dips to the lowest in 16 years.”

This decline in audience is resulting in low box office numbers for the majority of Hollywood films as budgets continue to escalate and originality plummets. Reading between the lines, it is obvious: Hollywood is scared.

While several sources in the article point to marketplaces problems and the recession, all one needs to do is look at how much money Hollywood is pumping into Congress to get them to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)—$91 Million or roughly the budget for Martin Scorsese’s film The Departed—to understand just what they are afraid of. They are afraid of the Internet and what it represents.

SOPA is focused on piracy because as one article suggests: Hollywood lost $6.1 billion in 2005 due to bootlegging and internet piracy (Piracy ‘costs US studios $6.1bn, BBC News). There is a great discussion on Quora about measuring the effects of piracy and it is worth a glance to see what the impact is. $6.1 billion is not a small number. If that is indeed a true measure of the effect of internet piracy and not an exaggerated number based upon greed and fear, then I can understand why Hollywood would want to fund SOPA.

However, I argue that the number one problem Hollywood is facing is not piracy, but originality. According to a moviefone.com blog post, 2011 set the all-time record for released sequels in a year: 27 (roughly one-fifth of world-wide releases)! Five of the Top 10 Box Office films are sequels, three of them are in the top three, and three join a franchise with at least four other films.

Much like the music industry losing the battle with the Internet in the late 90′s and early 2000′s, it’s time for Hollywood to remake their industry. Not out of greed and fear, but out of a love for the craft and for cinematic experiences. There are actors and directors working today that have embraced the power of the internet. They are funding independent projects, using their clout for the benefit of the trade, and creating an internet experience which embraces the love and passion needed for the survival of cinema.

What’s really the problem? A dying system holding onto it’s last straw.

What’s the solution? Fund the ultimate remake: The re-imagining of an experience which continues to morph and evolve thanks to the marvels of modern-day technology.

It’s time for Hollywood to adapt or die.

I am one month into the pursuit of my master’s degree in organizational leadership and already I am having the experience I was hoping for:  my mind is being blown, my thinking is being challenged, and the words of my friend Russell Mickler are making more sense after each class.

This week’s reading from Level Three Leadership:  Getting Below the Surface by James G. Clawson is all about the changing times and how these changes affect leadership.  As our society moves from bureaucracies centered around organizations and office-oriented power structures, to infocracies built upon information and individual power structured around people and their proximity to customers, leaders may find themselves swimming against a very strong current of change (Clawson, 2012).

What are leaders to do?

How will they adapt to the changing times?  Here is a thought from Clawson:

“The new leaders will be learners who are open to new ideas and who value change.  The new leaders will be trustworthy, respectworthy, and changeworthy.  They will value what others can do, and they will know how to highlight and build on those capabilities.  In the face of changes ahead, they will be clear on who they are and what they stand for” (pg. 50).

Building upon the idea of valuing change and new ideas, Clawson continues defining the new leaders of tomorrow:

“They will be designers and initiators, always looking for a better way, always willing to fix things that aren’t yet broken, but with a specific purpose in mind.  The new leaders will be and/also thinkers instead of either/or thinkers” (pg. 50).

Change is not easy.  It takes a lot of guts to look at your life or career and admit you are deficient in one or all areas.

For the past few years, my attitude regarding my work has led to burnout and boredom.  The overall excitement of discovering new possibilities was replaced with predictable and lack-luster work.  I stopped thinking there were new things to learn.  I became a stagnant and grumpy 32-year old man.  I thought I knew all of the answers, but eventually realized I didn’t know the questions.  I came face-to-face with my arrogance and finally understood the truth:  I don’t know everything.  I barely know anything.

This brings me to the very simple phrase I am learning to live by:  ”I’m not sure, but I’ll try to figure it out.”

As I am figuring things out, I have come across a few websites and videos that have completely blown me away and gotten me excited for the possibilities of change:

Address Is Approximate from The Theory on Vimeo.

What’s blowing your mind and getting you excited to change?

I recently discovered the psychological source of my problem with procrastination: I suffer from what-if-itis. Or in non-medical terms, I’m a scaredy cat.

I delay progress because of a simple series of thoughts that run through my mind before I get to work: “What happens if [title of creative/technical project] breaks? What do I do? What do I tell others? How do I not panic? What if [unrealistic problem that mostly won't occur] occurs? What if?”

I can trace back this psychological syndrome to a few instances when technical failures were met with panic from leadership causing them to push, yell, and attempt to save face. With this response, the only logical way to act is to start yelling at the people beneath you, run around like a chicken with its head cut off, and pray that the problem fixes on reboot.

Surely there is a better way to embrace failure that does not scar people for life?

Embracing Failure With Timely Response

This morning, Craft & Vision gave away a free photography eBook and discovered a problem with their shopping cart. What did they do? They disabled the ordering process and left a simple note: “MESSAGE: THIS FREE DOWNLOAD IS TEMPORARILY ON HOLD. WE’RE WORKING OUT AN ISSUE WITH OUR SHOPPING CART. WE’RE SO SORRY. STAY TUNED – CORWIN”

Internally, I’m sure they are scrambling to resolve the issue. There may be tense words. Frantic phone calls being made. But I expect the issue to be resolved shortly and chances are no one will be scarred in the process.

When something inevitably goes wrong, you can admit there is a problem and work hard to fix it, as fast as possible, with minimal collateral damage.

Or you can deny there is a problem. Yell at your employees. Kick the dog. Kick the can. Play a round of Angry Birds. Get some coffee. Get motivated. Find inspiration. Look in a tech catalog for a better solution. Read resumes of potential employees to replace the ones that screwed up. And realize your customers no longer care and don’t want your product or service anymore.

Business is risky.

Response is necessary.

Timely response is imperative.

The moral of the story

You can be a scaredy cat, but you still have to get the work done. Then, if and when the [life altering product or service] fails, you respond timely and fix the problem.

I must admit there is something entertaining about Twitter and the Occupy movement: from a distance, they have created the ultimate spectator sport. You don’t need to actually participate in the movement in order to be perceived as an authority.

Over the weekend, my Twitter stream was full of commentary on Occupy Portland. Comments ranged from “get them out,” “enough is enough” and “if it were up to me, I’d get them out by force” to people live-tweeting a live video stream and actual on-the-ground reports. I’m not a numbers guy by any means, but I would say a very small percentage of the actual commentary was done by people on the ground.

What happens when a small percentage of the commentary is based upon factual, objective, eye-witness reports? Conjecture, subjectivity, confusion, and false authority.

I appreciate my friend Aaron Hockley’s images from the field because he was actually there. He didn’t give his bias, he just took some photos that told the story of the eviction of Occupy Portland.

Truth be told, I was a spectator this weekend with regards to Occupy Portland. I am as guilty as the next person. I was not on the ground, but I also chose not to offer my opinion, until now.

Scalable Change

The question that I ask is this: Is social media an effective tool when it comes to affecting large-scale change?

As someone that researches and uses social media and networks a lot, people cite the 2011 Egypt Revolution as proof that social media can produce change. While it was successful in coordinating the people of Egypt, is social media scalable in a country the size of America where there is no central location that people are drawn to? According to Wikipedia, the area of Egypt is 387,048 square miles and the area of the United States is 3,794,101 square miles. It makes sense that Facebook and Twitter led to a central physical location in Egypt, because Egypt is roughly 9.8% the size of the United States, and it is physically possible for people to gather in one place. However, given the size and diversity of America, there has not been a central location in America for the Occupy movement, and I argue that is why the message has become diluted and not as effective as it could be.

Decentralization Of A Movement

It has been fascinating to watch the different Occupy movements spring up across the states through an effective usage of social media. They have been everywhere from Vancouver, WA and Denver, CO to New York City and Washington, DC. They have gotten attention, they have created debate and discourse among all walks of life, but the message appears to be losing steam among the 99%.

According to OccupyWallSt.org, this is the description of their movement: “Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.”

What has become of the leaderless resistance movement? It has become parodied because of their voting gestures, it has become a mockery because of the fringe movements that are more interested in handouts then affecting long-term change, and most importantly, it has become a movement that has lost its centralized voice.

Leadership is Crucial for Change

The Occupy Movement is a leaderless movement and that is why it is losing steam. In the absence of leadership, people lose desire and enthusiasm for change and revert to previous behaviors.

While it is commendable to be a leaderless movement, long-term change takes vision, commitment to action and daily passion to inspire the masses and recruit new voices.

Without leadership, the vision will fall apart, the commitment will cease, and the inspiration to recruit new voices and maintain the existing followers will evaporate due to external situations, such as weather, dissent and miscommunication.

Two View of Leadership Communication

In Stephen Denning’s book, The Secret Language of Leadership, he sets out two views of leadership communication:

• Traditional Approach: Define Problem >> Analyze Problem >> Recommend Solution
• Narrative Approach: Get Attention >> Stimulate Desire >> Reinforce with Reasons

The Occupy Movement started with the Narrative Approach to leadership. They got the attention of the American people, but they haven’t been able to stimulate desire for new recruits and reinforce their opinion with solid reasons.

Continue the Occupation

In order for the Occupy Movement to survive, I think there are several crucial elements that must be addressed:

1. Leadership is critical. In the face of physical decentralization, the presence of leadership is that much more important.
2. Continue to get the attention through multiple means. Physical protests in public spaces is only one method of generating attention. A Facebook friend has done a tremendous job of generating interest by creating artwork and using social media as a platform of debate. It is through his continue work that I keep an active eye upon what is going on. In order to stimulate desire, we must use our collective creativity in an infinite number of ways. Check out Bryan Helfrich’s work at opentheorydesign.com or view his design, Occupy Your Mind, on Wikimedia.
3. Understand that the problem is systemic in nature and that change will not be instantaneous. We are a culture built around immediacy. We expect immediate change to problems that have taken years to develop. While there are short-term solutions that can deal with today, if we don’t deal with tomorrow, the problems will only get worse and more difficult to deal with.
4. Recruit multiple voices in diverse environments for different purposes. Not everyone is willing to leave their job to protest, but that doesn’t mean that they are against the movement.

How are you going to go beyond being a spectator and engaging in this movement? For myself, I am learning more about how to be a transformational leader built around inspiring change in others. I aspire to be ethical in my treatment of others, transparent in my successes and failures, and focused on getting beyond the dictatorial views of immediate gratification.