Three Theses
#50 Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority.
I wrote an entry about Society 2.0 because of this statement. It made me really question the design of our societal structures and organization. I wonder though, will there still be a place for abstract thought if we only value hands-on knowledge? I think both entities have merit, for without either, consequences exist. Without hands-on knowledge, I wonder if anything would get done. Without abstract knowledge, would we have advancement beyond the practical?
#34 To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.
This one spoke to me. It made me wonder about the separation between personal and professional lives, which led me to personal and professional identities. If the marketplace becomes a community conversation and companies must listen to the communities in order to survive, would the lines between the former separation become blurred? Consequently if companies listen to these conversations and make adjustments to their identities, will such changes then impact the personal and communities identities? In essence, will the reactions of either side influence change not only to themselves but also to the other to which they were reacting?
#18 Companies that don't realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.
According to the saying, "Two heads are better than one," the more thought power, the more knowledge product. I would agree that this people-to-people network is extremely powerful. Look at the VT/PSU football game - people talked (not face-to-face) and the community reacted. If companies don't engage in this process, then I would agree; they are missing the bandwagon. However, that statement warrants caution. I worry about "group think." The structure of the community will determine the power of the knowledge generated. If the community is one where multiple perspectives and conflicting dialogue are valued, then the ceiling effect of the knowledge is much higher, most likely that of a vaulted ceiling. If however, a person or small group dominates the conversation, then the ceiling effect might be one of an old farmhouse.
I wrote an entry about Society 2.0 because of this statement. It made me really question the design of our societal structures and organization. I wonder though, will there still be a place for abstract thought if we only value hands-on knowledge? I think both entities have merit, for without either, consequences exist. Without hands-on knowledge, I wonder if anything would get done. Without abstract knowledge, would we have advancement beyond the practical?
#34 To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.
This one spoke to me. It made me wonder about the separation between personal and professional lives, which led me to personal and professional identities. If the marketplace becomes a community conversation and companies must listen to the communities in order to survive, would the lines between the former separation become blurred? Consequently if companies listen to these conversations and make adjustments to their identities, will such changes then impact the personal and communities identities? In essence, will the reactions of either side influence change not only to themselves but also to the other to which they were reacting?
#18 Companies that don't realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.
According to the saying, "Two heads are better than one," the more thought power, the more knowledge product. I would agree that this people-to-people network is extremely powerful. Look at the VT/PSU football game - people talked (not face-to-face) and the community reacted. If companies don't engage in this process, then I would agree; they are missing the bandwagon. However, that statement warrants caution. I worry about "group think." The structure of the community will determine the power of the knowledge generated. If the community is one where multiple perspectives and conflicting dialogue are valued, then the ceiling effect of the knowledge is much higher, most likely that of a vaulted ceiling. If however, a person or small group dominates the conversation, then the ceiling effect might be one of an old farmhouse.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Three Theses.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/3609
Leave a comment