James Drogan

One has three choices when it comes to Web 2.0.

1. Ignore the phenomena.
2. Accept what others say it means.
3. Think about what you observe of the phenomena and draw your own conclusions.
   

I've opted for the latter.

Web 2.0 has changed the relationship between the time since an event occurred and the number of sources that report on that event.

Communications has gone from "This is London." made famous by  Edward R. Murrow to real-time reporting of events from innumerable sources.  Now I grant you that developments such as the telegraph, radio, and television were steps along the line indicated in the diagram.  But I also think there would be little argument that Web 2.0, and I'm particularly thinking here of user-generated content aided and abetted by the ubiquity of the Internet, has dramatically accelerated the movement downward and towards the right.

What are the implications?  We trusted Murrow, but I doubt that we have extended our trust to all the sources that currently provide us with much data, less information, even less knowledge, and a miniscule amount of insight. 

In this sense, interpret, decide, act, and learn loop (SIDAL) we trusted Murrow to do much, if not all, of the hard work for us.  We trusted Murrow to look out for us, to have our best interests in mind, to report to us the truth.

Now, I sense, we can no longer spread this trust amongst so many sources.

We must take on the SIDAL tasks and we may well be ill-equipped to do this.  It is hard work, and being opposed to hard work, we cede our responsibility for these tasks to the media, the pundits, and the bloggers.  We do it not because we trust them, but because we dislike the hard work necessary to do this ourselves. 

Or we can learn how to perform SIDAL and invest the energy and time necessary to become good at it.  Thereby we become better informed and better able to discharge our responsibilities as citizens.  The latter half of the previous sentence implies that citizens are able to exert leverage to cause the government and the markets to to implement the recommendations that flow from our efforts.  That may be a big stretch.  This, of course, provides causes us to wonder whether our efforts to become SIDAL proficient are investments well spent. 

I call your attention to  "If It’s Fit to Blog, Is It Fit to Print?" by Clark Hoyt in the December 9, 2007 issue of the New York Times.  This is an excellent example of the impact of Web 2.0 and the difficulty inherent in the SIDAl processes.

"With good judgment, little else matters. Without it, nothing else matters."

This from an item on today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page.  It should be read putting the comparisons between two of the Democratic predential candidates aside.  Rather it is the notion of judgement as the critical factor in leadership that needs to be considered.

One might observe that judgement comes from experience, and that experience frequently arises from lack of judgement; "I told you the stove was hot."  But judgement is more than having accumulated experience, for in accumulating experience one cannot be sure that anything was learned.  The world is awash with examples of experience coupled with poor judgement.

Bennis and Tichy give us some indication of the characteristics of judgement; "Wisely processed experience, reflection, valid sources of timely information, an openness to the unbidden and character..."  Yet, what is judgement, especially good judgement?  How is such a thing recognized?

Certainly the definition of  good judgment is shaped by culture, values, and vision.  Globalization, therefore, will likely make our understanding of judgement more difficult.  The rise of special interest groups will likewise cause us some problems in assessing good judgement.

Bennis and Tichy say, "...we're not sure how to teach it."  I agree.  Maybe the best we can do is to create environments for learning where the students is exposed to examples of good and bad judgement, and must learn and not expect to be taught.

Mankiw's blog brings notice this morning that "Matthew Weinzierl and I will be presenting The Optimal Taxation of Height at Boston College."

The questions being investigated is: 

"Should the income tax system include a tax credit for short taxpayers and a tax surcharge for tall ones?"

 It seems to me that the efforts of these two gentlemen could be better spent on looking at something with the  potential of impacting the human condition, then an adventure in silliness.

Re Conversations with Dave. 

I’m a fan of Gill Corkindale who writes, amongst other places, at Harvard Business Online. Her latest is on O’Neal.

The Merrill Lynch Mess (MLM, not to be confused with MSM which has, insofar as I can tell, done a poor job at telling the MLM story) aligns well with previous conversations we have had regarding organisclerosis (did I remember that word correctly?), incentives, oversight, and power.

Boards, regulatory authorities, MSM are not, it would seem, doing their jobs. Ethics has become simply a word, and is not a fundamental value. The notion of someone overseeing a write-down of some US$8 billion and walking away with US$160 million, albeit without honor, is symptomatic of deep-rooted, harmful behavior in too much of industry, especially financial services.

To turn an old phrase on its head; we are a nation of men, not of laws.

In anticipation of your next questions – what do you recommend – I would answer leadership and perhaps a different way of naming leaders, especially of authorities having oversight. Is it really a wise thing to have cabinet secretaries (e.g., Paulson) come from the industry over which they are expected to exert some authority? Should boards be comprised of people nominated by the chairman?

This brings me to the current political scene. Of all the talk in MSM regarding the size of the candidates’ war chests and their policies for this or that, there is little conversation, it seems to me, as to their leadership capability and capacity. Policies are just so much fodder without an ability to lead, not manage, but lead. We’re getting little glimpse of the candidates’ characteristics in this critical area.

I have previously argued in this space for the importance of education as the basis for all else we wish to achieve.  I have also argued in favor of innovation and pointed out the gap existing between business and higher education.  I have indicated my regard for collaboration and the rise of COMs (composer, orchestrator, and maestro) as a means of dealing with increasing complex systems and the compression of time.

Irving Wladawsky-Berger has brought many of these ideas together in an elegant fashion in Some Thoughts on Multidisciplinary Innovation.  I believe he argues for change in approach across a broad number of fronts.  He does this not from some aerie of academic isolation, but from the point of view of a person with considerable experience at riding the waves of change in the global business world.

Irving is on my feed list becasue of the value of the insight and ideas he brings.  This article is an example of this value.

I highly recommend a read.