Author Maynard Webb, Hearsay Social CEO Clara Shih, TV personality Amber Mac, Knodes CEO Ron J. Williams, Percolate co-founder Noah Brier, and Syracuse University's Executive Director of Digital and Social Media Kate Brodock discuss with readers as our Generation Flux salon series continues.

Learn more about Generation Flux here:

Technology, especially within the digital realm, makes it easy for an entrepreneur to promote her professional experience AND her professional personality. In a business world increasingly dependent on connections, such outreach is critical. However, because technology makes it easy for 24-7 connectivity, leaders face endless competition. If you sleep too long, the game may change.

The explosion of tech as a communication or leadership tool demands that you develop a separate, very different style for communicating using various technologies, not only one for social media, for example but a different voice for each type of social media--your Twitter voice, your Yammer voice, your Facebook voice, your Branch voice. These separate styles are just part of the modern manager's skill set. If developing these voices takes more time than the tech saves, then tech makes leadership harder for you. If it comes natural, then tech is a valuable leadership tool.

Over the last two years I've thought a lot about management. As Percolate has grown it's been increasingly important that we both use technology in a smart way to implement systems that will help us scale and also not use it as a crutch that can allow people to avoid confrontations and the face-to-face conversations every organization needs.

I've believed for some time that the biggest challenge in scaling an organization is not how to you keep people communicating (technology has already solved that problem) but how do you use technology to help create a serendipitous organization where people passively encounter new ideas.

PS - Best technology decision we made at Percolate was to ban computers at meetings unless it is absolutely necessary. Creates shorter meetings where everyone pays attention.

It has never been easier to get information from all parts of an organization, and from outside sources. It has never been harder to parse through all the information and identify what is most important. Do people look to leaders for different kinds of cues, given all the technology? Or are they just looking in a wider variety of places?

The things that people don’t like about work—toiling away so many hours in office buildings, commuting to work, and ceding control to a company—no longer have to be facts of work life. Technology has evolved to the point that many of our practices and methods around work could change radically. Advances in cloud services, Internet telephony, wireless technology, and mobile computing can be applied to change work and make it better pretty quickly, and pretty easily. Social technologies, which enable us to know exactly what our long-lost friends are doing in their spare time, can help us better understand what is happening in our businesses. There are so many ways to take out the pain points and allow the soul food to be put back in.

Maynard: How important do you think face-to-face interaction is for leadership? Does technology provide an appropriate facsimile?

Maynard: I couldn't agree more. While face-to-face interaction is important, I don't think it's an around-the-clock requirement to lead. In fact, one of the things I like best at Konnekt (my company) is that we are able to use technology to connect when necessary (our team is spread out/lives in three different cities), but we don't waste time dealing with typical office politics, long-winded meetings, and other experiences that can often result in wasted time. Instead, we're always focused on work. Just this morning we had our weekly team meeting via Skype - instagram.com - and despite the hundreds of miles between us, it's enough "screen-to-screen" time to have creative conversation/collaboration - but still get the job done.

Agree with Maynard - technology has powered massive strides in automation of rote tasks previously done by unskilled workers. It's now no longer reasonable for many companies to run with multiple levels of hierarchy. Instead, workforces are flattening, and leaders are now required to be even more connected to their companies than ever before, another area that technology can help with.

Good question Robert. I would say face to face is the best of all ways to communicate, but that technical advances from Polycom PictureTel, Cisco, and Hewlett-Packard and free services like FaceTime, Skype, and GoToMeeting have revolutionized how we meet with people who are not in the same building. I don't think they can wholly replace meaningful face-to-face connection, but I think it can help us build a culture that is built around measuring outcomes, not attendance.

Absolutely agree, Amber! Study after study demonstrates that people who work from home are more productive than their office counterparts as they have fewer interruptions, as they aren’t distracted by chitchat, coffee breaks, birthday parties, fantasy football pools, and all the black holes that suck time out of every day in the office. Amazingly, office employees admit to wasting two hours a day outside of lunch and scheduled breaks. It adds up: businesses lose $600 billion a year in workplace distractions.

Not a surprise, Maynard. I do spend some time in traditional work spaces, and I have to say, it's a relief to get back to my own office where I'm not distracted by anything (well, except for Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and all that stuff - but hey, that's my job ;).

Circling back to Clara and the flattening of orgs. Absolutely! I'm amazed with the new technologies that enable this. Badgeville uses principles of gamification to connect, engage, encourage, and motivate people to perform and provides transparency into how everyone is doing. And instead of waiting for the dreaded annual or semiannual performance review, managers can use something like work.com to give continuous feedback, coaching, and recognition at anytime, not just at an artificially appointed review period.

Hi all, joining in after a long day! I have several thoughts, but my first reflects on my own experience as CMO of Girls in Tech (a global organization for women in technology and entrepreneurship).

I've been part of the organization for 5 years now, and have grown into a leadership position while the org itself has grown to almost 30 chapters around the world.

We're an entirely virtual organization, so, in many ways, technology has helped me/us connect to our growing chapters, move the org from one that was grassroots to one that's much more organized, connected each of our chapters, promote ourselves, etc etc etc. Truly, I wouldn't have been able to do this without technology.

However, it doesn't come without difficulties...

And Amber, I love that you brought up working remotely (which I do for Girls in Tech, and do whenever I can for SU)... I'm an avid listener on The Social Hour and you're always ringing in from anywhere!

Kate: Thanks so much, am looking up more info about your organization now! Funny enough, I have never met my co-host Sarah Lane in person (we've worked together in some capacity for years). However, we will meet on Friday for the very first time - although, thanks to Skype, email, and social media, I feel as though I know her better than some of my colleagues who live in the same city.

I do think, insofar as leading with technology, that there is a lot of pressure to "stay on." In other words, since you're not always face-to-face, communication skills in the digital age are key. This means replying promptly to emails, crafting a solid online presence, and using the latest collaborative tools.

How does everyone manage this pressure?

Clara - A note on your last comment. One interesting thing there is when you said "leaders are now *required* to be even more connected to their companies."

I completely agree with this, and see this as a clear positive, but certainly something that many leaders needed to and still need to!) adjust to significantly, as it's a large departure from past thinking. Some love this shift, while others are much more reticent.

Do we think leaders who don't embrace this shift will suffer? How have they already suffered?

Amber - I FORCE myself to shut down. Literally. And I've really grown to enjoy it and find it 100% necessary to function well (onforb.es)

I was thinking today about being leaders who embrace technology and DO want to have a connected organization... how does everyone handle those members who don't hop on board? Does it break the whole system? Does it mean your leadership effort was a failure? Are there ways to plug the holes?

Kate - absolutely - leaders who are not connected to their orgs will suffer because they will lose the best talent. The best job candidates are looking for companies that will not only nurture their talent and challenge them but also provide rich mentoring and access to senior leadership. Maynard right that we need to give constant feedback to our teams - and we need to keep in touch and build relationships with them. Recruiting is a battlefield - there's no reason to lose on the home front.

I think you lead the way and show people the possibilities and hope they come around. If you have it right there will be enough momentum and it will work out, if it isn't right currently, you can either decide the time isn't right or get some additional thought leaders to champion the idea.

Kate: I think it can hurt the whole system, for sure. Interestingly, I think it also depends on what type of business you run and what type of culture exists. For example, within my company (which consists of a small team, six people), it's essential that everyone uses technology because we serve clients in the digital space. Without tech, we are broken from the inside out (because we also depend on so many online tools for communicating).

A lot of times, it's not about the technology either. The right people or units in your organization need to be communicating and connecting in the first place...Simply adding the technology won't fix things like silos or reticence to opening up.

The leader's job is then to identify the core behaviors that may need improvement, in order to make a more tech-connected process effective.

Loving the conversation happening here...how do you think technology will change the employee/employer relationship? I think in the future, it will make more sense to work on a project by-project basis, similar to how crews work on movies: the best team is organized, and it is made up of individuals who work together for a set period of time and then, upon completion of the project, go their separate ways.

Sorry to get to the party late! To quickly weigh in on the initial question and echo some of what's already been expressed by Noah and others, the collaborative leverage that tech brings is enormous. It is a force multiplier for a team if used properly. A big challenge that I see is channel selection; knowing what kind of feedback or input is going effective in what channel within your org. Some things that you could say in 140 characters might be better said with a subject line and some prose...or better yet with a face and some eye contact on Skype. Understanding what channel for what managerial exercise is its own skill set. Add to that the complexity of every person's individuals communication idiosyncrasies and you've got work to do.

Ron: Great point about channel selection. Also, with technology evolving so quickly, it's difficult to stay loyal to any one service. Just when you master one great tech tool that helps you lead, another pops up that is faster, smarter, slicker. Keeping on top of collaborative software is like watching a Steve Jobs keynote: "Just one more thing..." (For example, I'm loving this Branch convo, but am wondering if I'm using it to its full potential!) This leads back to Robert's most recent article on #genflux, it's absolutely key in this time of chaos to adapt quickly to stay in the game. For me, this means sometimes we use technology that is new and unfamiliar to our team, but we learn to make it work - if it makes us work smarter.

Amber: I've been wondering if we're using Branch to its full potential, too! Branch offers us the option of branching comments off into new conversations -- that has happened a little during this salon series and I'm planning to play around with that function a lot this weekend, reading over these salons I have ideas about some new directions they could head in. I'll definitely invite you to the branched convos so we can both see how things develop.

Many people I know (including me) suffer email fatigue. I no longer feel that email is a productive use of my time, I only use it because in many situations I still don't feel I have a viable alternative. I also wonder how my bosses feel about the volume of email they have to deal with each day. How do you feel about email and its role in your organizations? Are you part of that mysterious tribe which regularly knows Inbox Zero? Do you think email will continue to play a major role in your organization? In a recent essay, Nick Bilton suggested email's stock may be down: "Since technology hasn’t solved the problem it has created with e-mail, it looks as if some younger people might come up with their own answer — not to use e-mail at all." .

I think we all can suffer from email fatigue, but we shouldn't underestimate the power of email. The best interaction is face to face, but that requires both parties (or all parties) to be in the same place at the same time. The next best interaction is to hold a synchronous conversation over the phone or video. What I like most about email is that it is asynchronous and lets you provide answers when you have the time to do so. I used to hate listening to voice mail calls, and email is certainly way more efficient. Texting seems to be an interesting blend of near real-time and less overload than email.

I think Our ability to manage business technology has not kept pace with our creation of new technology. In many organizations there are still two camps--technophiles and technophobes--and if they aren’t at war, they are at the very least wary of each other. In too many organizations, the ‘‘business side’’ comes up with a plan and throws it over the wall to the ‘‘technology side’’ for implementation. Because technology is so embedded in the way things work today, these two sides should have been sitting and planning together from the very beginning.

See my recent post - End The Management-Tech Disconnect In 5 Steps | fastcompany.com

Maynard, *sigh* I feel like this is the story of my life. Just this week I literally spent ALL DAY on Monday simply emailing... one got filed, 3 more came in. I think an important part of the equation is what you mentioned, is understanding that you can put some restraint on the response time and make it more convenient, but you can't expect that from the other side. You can only manage your side of the equation.

Faisal, I agree, and what I also see is that, in implementation (getting buy in from users) the "technology side" is often the one carrying that weight too, and they less equipped to address the "business" case of why it's important... it becomes a tutorial right out of the gate, and adoption rates tend to be much lower.

Kate, yes indeed! I think an essential part of transitioning to 'convergence' of business and technology side requires both left-brained (analytical) and right-brained (creative) talent and culture. You may like reading - fastcompany.com.

And at the end, it is always about 'VALUE' creation (-not always easy to do).

Kate, it does seem like the incoming is often overwhelming. Happily, the delete button is very effective… I like to scream through my inbox frequently, taking care of urgent answers, putting aside ones that I want to dive in depth into when I have more time and deleting lots that don't require a response. When I get to quiet times and can focus on my mail, I generally send out the ones I want to first so I don't get lost in the inbox jungle…I think in many things, personalized curation from all the streams of information we get (and going to get more of) is going to be a great opportunity for a killer product.

Just on email (should this be a branch?) - Anjali, I am a fan of Inbox Zero: inboxzero.com and have gone from an inbox constantly in the 100s to one I clear down to under 50 on a weekly basis.
There isn't 1 magic bullet solution in my view, its a combination of things e.g. archiving, quick-delete folder but the best element was the concept of triage. If you are realistically never going to drive an action off that email, delete or archive it now rather than continuall incurring mental debt re-re-re-reading an email sitting in your inbox.

And Maynard, agree on the streams - I think we are starting to see tools that do this e.g. Hootsuite, Flipboard.
The biggest frustration for me is all the organisational knowledge that gets lost in email, buried at the bottom of individual's inbox or email archives. I am trying to steer our people to use a social networking tool for knowledge based exchanges - so those conversations are available and searchable by others in the future (we are trialling Yammer, Podio and Basecamp)
Hopefully we are soon to see the day when email is only used for asynchronous, transactional exchanges and that social tools and video conferencing take over other non face-to-face interactions.

There's a neat tool called Mozzo Analytics (still testing it out) that focuses on organizing the "crucial" pieces of information that come into your inbox and then get filed.

mozzoanalytics.com

The key for me on all of this is to keep things organized, filed and "clean".....my inbox on good days only consists of action items, and once something's been acted on, I file or delete (love that delete button!).

@Ivan and @Kate, I love your guys' thinking. I wind up frustrated that I've flagged a number of emails as important and then just wind up with a pile of flagged emails...but some are important for TODAY-goals, while others are tied to NEXT WEEK or NEXT MONTH-goals. Let's say a new partnership opportunity has popped up that I flag as crucial. I'd like my inbox to become smarter in an objective-oriented way; dynamically re-sorting incoming AND existing emails on the basis of strategic priority AND timing (like application or travel plan deadlines). I'd pay for that in a heart beat.

Getting back to the original question: A core rationale for traditional organisational structure is to flow information efficiently through an organistion. I believe technology blows up this rationale - and does it in a way where the leader has the opportunity to converse in a much more personal and direct way, without the chinese whispers.

So in that way I think technology makes a leaders job easier, although if you are not wired that way, it does take a while to find your "channel(s)" (as noted above) that best fits and then master it.