Thought leader: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work|{{image|thought leader|png|''I See a Quadrant'' {{vsr|1929}}}}}}{{d|Thought leader|/θɔːt ˈliːdə/|n}} | {{a|work|{{image|thought leader|png|''I See a Quadrant'' {{vsr|1929}}}}}}{{d|Thought leader|/θɔːt ˈliːdə/|n}} | ||
One who spends {{sex|his}} time on prediction — articulating theories, plans, strategies, technologies —to anticipate where things are going, and almost none explaining after the fact — the ''absence'' of fact — why they were wrong. LinkedIn is unusually susceptible to thought-leadership because [[it is not the done thing to call bullshit in a professional setting]]. | One who spends {{sex|his}}<ref>It ''used'' to be largely men, but is less so as time wears on.</ref> time on prediction — articulating theories, plans, strategies, technologies —to anticipate where things are going, and almost none explaining after the fact — the ''absence'' of fact — why they were wrong. LinkedIn is unusually susceptible to thought-leadership because [[it is not the done thing to call bullshit in a professional setting]]. | ||
While the legal industry has changed out of all recognition in the last 40 years — anyone still use a [[Dictaphone]], or communicate by [[fax]]? — but in none of the ways legal [[thought-leader|thought-leaders]] predicted. It just changed by increments, through tiny, unconcerted, self-interested decisions. It iterated. It [[Evolve|''evolved'']]. | While the legal industry has changed out of all recognition in the last 40 years — anyone still use a [[Dictaphone]], or communicate by [[fax]]? — but in none of the ways legal [[thought-leader|thought-leaders]] predicted. It just changed by increments, through tiny, unconcerted, self-interested decisions. It iterated. It [[Evolve|''evolved'']]. | ||
Revision as of 13:24, 8 October 2022
|
Office anthropology™
|
Thought leader
/θɔːt ˈliːdə/ (n.)
One who spends his[1] time on prediction — articulating theories, plans, strategies, technologies —to anticipate where things are going, and almost none explaining after the fact — the absence of fact — why they were wrong. LinkedIn is unusually susceptible to thought-leadership because it is not the done thing to call bullshit in a professional setting.
While the legal industry has changed out of all recognition in the last 40 years — anyone still use a Dictaphone, or communicate by fax? — but in none of the ways legal thought-leaders predicted. It just changed by increments, through tiny, unconcerted, self-interested decisions. It iterated. It evolved.
The JC’s prediction: the legal industry will continue to evolve, defying all expectations and confounding all predictions of the latter-day seers, visionaries, professors and change instigators. This is, of course, hardly a bold prediction. Rather, it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious. Of all the myriad of possible vectors a complex system could move in over an extended period — multiple vectors — the odds of it following any single one that you described in advance are infinitesimal.
You have as much chance — less, come to think of it — of correctly predicting the flight path of a deflating balloon.
One thing is certain: the fundamental condition for every industry-shaping iteration is that it enhances “fitness”: not society’s fitness, nor the industry’s, nor the market’s, nor the firm’s, nor the client’s — it enhances the fitness of the person making the decision.
See also
- ↑ It used to be largely men, but is less so as time wears on.