Thought leader: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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|legaltech quadrant|png|}}{{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.


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'']].
[[LinkedIn]] is unusually susceptible to thought-leadership because [[it is not the done thing to call bullshit in a professional setting]].  


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.
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'']].  


You have as much chance — less, come to think of it — of correctly predicting the flight path of a deflating balloon.
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.  


One thing is certain: the fundamental condition for every industry-shaping iteration is that it enhances “[[survivor|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''.
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}}
{{sa}}
*[[Consultation]]
*[[Evolution by natural selection]]
*[[Evolution by natural selection]]
*[[survivor]]
*[[survivor]]
*[[LinkedIn]]
*[[LinkedIn]]
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 13:51, 21 March 2024

Office anthropology™
Legaltech quadrant.png
Thought leader.png
I See a Quadrant (von Sachsen-Rampton, 1929)
The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click ᐅ to expand:
Work anthropology

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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 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 “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 person making the proposal.

See also

References

  1. ↑ It used to be largely men, but is less so as time wears on.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Thought_leader&oldid=84104"