82,891
edits
Thought leader: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{g}}A twat. See our guide to LinkedIn self-penned job descriptions. No-one who actually ''is'' a thought leader would dream of describing herself as one.") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|work|{{image|legaltech quadrant|png|}}{{image|thought leader|png|''I See a Quadrant'' {{vsr|1929}}}}}}{{d|Thought leader|/θɔːt ˈliːdə/|n}} | ||
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'']]. | |||
The one constant throughout has been the facile four-box quadrant, beloved of industry visionaries, routinely advanced in support of whatever hue of fantastical futurism happens to be in season at the time of asking. What populates the quadrant changes, as surely as autumn turns to winter and peak expectations turn to ash, but the idea persists. | |||
The JC’s prediction: the legal industry will ''continue'' to evolve, drily, defying all expectations and confounding all predictions of the latter-day seers, visionaries, professors and change instigators. This is not a bold prediction but a ''statement of the bleeding obvious''. Of all the myriad of possible vectors a [[complex system]] could move in over an extended period, the odds of it following any single one that you happened to describe in your thought-piece are infinitesimal. | |||
You have as much chance — more, 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 proposal will be that it enhances “[[survivor|fitness]]”: not society’s, nor the industry’s, nor the market’s, nor the firm’s and ''certainly'' not the customer’s — but ''of the [[Agency paradox|person making the proposal]]''. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Consultation]] | |||
*[[Evolution by natural selection]] | |||
*[[survivor]] | |||
*[[LinkedIn]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||