Thought Leadership – what does it mean?

For me the term ‘Thought Leader’ has been hijacked from its intuitive meaning (someone who leads on thought and thinking) to become used as a surrogate for “Trusted Advisor” and also someone who effectively manages their reputation.For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known [...]

Share

For me the term ‘Thought Leader’ has been hijacked from its intuitive meaning (someone who leads on thought and thinking) to become used as a surrogate for “Trusted Advisor” and also someone who effectively manages their reputation.For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known and respected are you a Leader? Maybe these are necessary characteristics but surely not sufficient.A Thought leader in my book will be someone well differentiated from a trusted “Thought Follower”.This means that every true “Thought Leader” must also be an iconoclast in their field. Most Blogs for example are full of interesting content but nearly all reflecting the thoughts of others or opinions about thoughts of others. The Thought Leaders will be the one’s who are challenging much of the current thought, not simply regurgitating it.When Einstein said that we won’t solve the problems of today by the same thinking that created the problems, he was obviously suggesting that  in order to solve the chronic problems of the day we need to think differently and from a higher, wider or different perspective. Not “more of the same” thinking or “this worked for me thinking” or the “solution is obvious thinking”.It’s interesting how many of my “Thought Leaders” are, or were, Physicists. It was Bohm for example who devised a way (Bohm’s Dialogue) of allowing new thoughts and new solutions to emerge from a group. It was Deming who identified that Western Management not worker malaise was the biggest threat to continual improvement in Business. It was Eli Goldratt and his Theory of Constraints that  helped manufacturers remove broken links from their value chains and improve performance and profits. Each of these Physicists were looking at issues from outside of the current paradigm. And of course Einstein was a Physicist as well.So how many people calling themselves “Thought Leader” could also be described as “Iconoclast” coming up with thinking that challenges the grey cells? For me a Thought Leader will be someone – if they do nothing else- makes you stop and think! Also an Iconoclast Thought Leader is unlikely to be “thinking with the majority” and therefore will not always be popular.Oh and someone has just asked me “Are you a Thought Leader”? Well I’ll let you decide. Here are some of my recent ramblings intended to make you think about your thinking and to signpost possible different directions that your thinking could take in order to find new solutionshttp://barrymapp.com/2009/07/it-strikes-me-that-a-lot-of-wh/http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/iconoclasts-stand-a-very-good/http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/thinking-in-different-ways-2/http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/what-makes-a-“creation-company”/http://barrymapp.com/2009/08/how-rewards-sabotage-creativity/http://barrymapp.com/2009/10/unintended-consequences-what-do-very-large-bonuses-attract/http://barrymapp.com/2009/11/bonus-culture-proud-to-win-a-cabbage-not-the-cash/http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/235/http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/three-new-words-for-the-21st-century/http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/lessons-for-science-from-the-mesmer-experience/http://barrymapp.com/?s=thought+leader

share save 171 16 Thought Leadership   what does it mean?

Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path

In this piece I introduce some more differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0, and in the next piece (now that I have finally found how to put tables into wordpress) I will be drawing up a table that summarises examples of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0 Math 1.0 can be considered [...]

Share

In this piece I introduce some more differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0, and in the next piece (now that I have finally found how to put tables into wordpress) I will be drawing up a table that summarises examples of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0

Math 1.0 can be considered to be a special case of Math 2.0, where certain aspects of reality are ignored for the purpose of making things black and white and therefore easier to manipulate and compute.

Math 1.0 is helpful in specific circumstances like simple counting and manipulation of number, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing of pure number, and for making approximations, and is also useful in statistical manipulations where it is valid to manipulate data away from its context. Math 1.0 thinking successfully delivered a rocket to the moon but has failed to deliver insight into most chronic problems affecting humanity today. Math 1.0 thinking is part of the problem!

Math 1.0 is not valid in the domain of measurement nor when ‘counting’ is actually for the purpose of measuring ‘things’. And yet we use Math 1.0 with measurement all the time!

Using Math 1.0 as the ‘logic vehicle’ for interpreting changes in measurement data is a major reason why we have witnessed so many decisions by leaders and politicians in the last few decades that have turned out to be wasteful and that have exacerbated rather than solved ‘problems’. This happens when the Math we learn at school (Math 1.0) is applied into the world of measurements. And a science based around this maths re-inforces it as a science of reduction and ‘ism’ (“ism” happens when a discipline comes to believe its working model of the ‘world’ as true rather than ‘useful in defined situations’). So the belief (as true) in the mechanistic universe and the use of Math 1.0 as a sturdy, reliable and incontrovertible companion has led the traditional Newtonian scientist up the proverbial garden path and is still being led there daily. Multi-billion pound projects based on the assumptions of a reductionist science leading absolutely nowhere, whereas situations that could be drastically improved based on a science thinking in terms of systems and Math 2.0 are not being allocated the same research money.

To fully appreciate the meaning and consequences of data measurements, a good understanding of Math 2.0 and its application is required. If we care to look, we will find that the scientific, political and business literature is littered with examples where statisticians (who we would think would know better) have fallen into the trap of applying the thinking of Math 1.0  to the situations described best by Math 2.0, thereby giving us misleading ‘expert’ information and advice

This venn diagram shows the relationship between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0:

img012 297x300 Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path

share save 171 16 Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path