The Task of the New Leader

I will admit that I have been burned out on technology recently, having come through some rough tech experiences over the past year in my business.  I have been frustrated by things like server outages, software compatibility, hardware failures, and even business associates with terrible email and social media etiquette!  At the same time, I have always been fascinated by the intersection of technology and humanity, and this course (ILD 831: Technology and Leadership) offered a way to get out from under some of the practical stresses and look at tech in a broader way.  A recurring theme for me throughout this course has been the question of how technology has shaped (and is shaped by) humanity over the last 500 years, and of course, more recently, how the digital and network revolutions have exponentially accelerated many of these changes.

Early in the semester, we tackled the idea that network technology has “flattened” the world.  Friedman (2007) and Florida (2005) attacked the problem along the general battle lines of technodeterminism and social constructivism.  Friedman suggested that technology eliminates knowledge/social gaps while Florida asserted that it actually increases those gaps because of the contextual structures in which the technology is or is not being used (spikes of activity).  I believe that both approaches have merit and that the interplay between them is where the task of leadership is most daunting.  That is, leaders in the 21st century must be able to understand how technology shapes language, epistemology, cognition, and social relationships, while at the same time, building social/organizational systems in which technology’s positive impact will be maximized.

Tools of the Trade

Looking at individual pieces of technology, our class delved into discussions of how digital tech works, how it is applicable in today’s organizations, and what future innovations may look like.  My classmates and I reviewed the features and functions of many digital tools to unearth what works, what doesn’t, and in what context.  This exercise demonstrated that not all apps are created equal.  Not all social media outlets have Facebook’s sticking power, and many utilities aren’t worth the MBs they take up on your drive.  Leaders may find themselves causing more harm than good if they are simply trying to keep up with technology adoption.  I’m sure we’ve all experienced a poorly planned technology rollout and grimaced as we watched frustrated users rebel against the new time tracking or project management system that middle management put in place.  For me, this underscored the point that not all tech is good tech, and just because we can doesn’t mean we should (…force technology on our schools or organizations).  What we should be doing, though, is moving toward an implementation of technology that enables “us” to share knowledge, generate new ideas, and move forward under the power of the collective intelligence.

Knowing and Learning

Weinberger (2011) and Shirky (2008) both emphasize that technology has indeed reshaped human epistemology.  Aside from the technical functioning of the “net,” these authors carefully demonstrate the new shape of knowledge, the new heuristics we’re developing to “filter forward” and “find stopping points.”  Weinberger (2011), in particular, carefully outlines how the net is limitless, lumpy, sticky, and democratic.  In true media ecology tradition, Weinberger outlines all of the ways that networked knowledge and “social epistemology” (Turner, 2012) change because of the technological framework that is now common to so many…in developed countries, at least.  Husband’s (n.d.) concept of Wirearchy furthers our understanding of networked knowledge, specifically the ways in which social norms are transmitted.  This is of particular importance for leaders and organizational members, since our concepts of power, deference, and authority are inextricably bound up with our social norms.  Thus, we find that within networked societies, the very notion of power and authority has changed, along with the ways in which we value the knowledge of the so-called “experts.”  We are now collectively more expert than any one expert, no matter how credentialed.  The ramifications for understanding power dynamics in a digital-technology-based world are long-reaching and provide fertile ground for future scholarship.

The Haves (internet) and Haves Not

While “the net” is generally thought to be completely ubiquitous, estimates suggest that less than half of the world’s population has access to the internet (Internet Live Stats, 2016).  The split between access and non-access is much like Ong’s (1982) distinctions between oral and literate cultures.  Though, because of the nature of technology, specifically connected, mobile technology, many of Ong’s (oral v. literate) psychodynamic characteristics collapse and new iterations emerge (Jarc, 2014).  Within these discussions, I proposed that “internet users” at a fundamental cognitive level are more similar than different.  Within the 40% of people on the planet that have access to the internet, however, there are immense gaps in usage habits, connection speeds, preferred devices, and content consumed; these differences could potentially lead to huge gaps in collective intelligence, and must be considered in the move to artificial intelligence, collaborative working, and disruptive business models.

Because of the uncertainty in the future of digital technology, there are many ethical considerations to consider.  To my point above, access to technology, and the rights that users have regarding connectivity are critical.  Reviewing the ethical considerations of technology allowed me to think about thinking about the morals of technology.  That is, as new questions and problems arise, so to must new ways of thinking about what’s “right.”  I dove into the world of net-neutrality and encountered compelling arguments on both sides of the discussion.  Most importantly, perhaps, is the challenge of developing critical meta-level analysis of the tools, the users, and the content found in the connected world.

Looking Ahead

Finally, we must reflect on (and implement) technology and leadership in aggregate.  Leaders need to develop technical skills and digital literacy in order to lead by example.  We need to keep a finger on the pulse of digital innovation while filtering forward (Weinberger, 2011) useful innovations and passing on problematic ones.  All this needs careful situational/contextual analysis, and as such, I believe that leaders must continue to develop emotional and social intelligence.  A leader’s EQ will be on display as they teach the machines how to learn and work alongside human teams.  Leaders can no longer rely on title and hierarchy for power; authority must come from the ability to coordinate nodes within the networked workforce.  No one is quite certain where technology will take us in 10, 20, or 30 years, but good, thoughtful leadership will help make sure that society grows more prosperous as a result.  There have been/will be challenges and pitfalls, and it’s up to us digital natives to help future generations learn from our missteps.

This is the task of the new leader.


Florida, R. (2005, October). The world is spiky. Atlantic Monthly. 48-51.

Friedman, T. (2007). The world is flat, 3.0. London: Picador.

Internet Live Stats (2016). Internet users [webpage]. Retrieved from

Husband, J. (n.d.) What is wierarchy? Wirearchy [website]. Retrieved from

Jarc, J. (2014) Mobiliteracy: Applying Ong’s psychodynamic characteristics to users of mobile communication technology. Communication Research Trends, 33 (1), p. 21-26.

Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word.  New York: Methuen

Shirky, C. (2008).  Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations.  New York: Penguin Press

Turner, S. (2012). Double heuristics and collective knowledge: the case of expertise. Studies in Emergent Order, 5, 64-85

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.

Leading in the Future: Identifying and Adapting to Technology’s Rapid Evolution

According to some estimates, more than 90% of the world’s data has been generated in the last 5 years. Of course, this is a difficult to define measure that calls to question the nature of recorded knowledge. However, the point remains that in just a few short years, humanity (and machines) have started to generate unfathomable amounts of data about everything from our health to our shipping preferences, travel habits, schedules, and our love life! Throughout Too Big to Know, Weinberger (2011) stresses the abundance of knowledge available in a networked world. I believe that the exponential trajectory of technology and data growth will continue for many years to come. Our generations will exist entirely in technological and social flux; change will become a fundamental aspect of our epistemology.

As leaders, teachers, and innovators, it is important that we understand how media and technology evolve indistinguishable from the social/cultural incubators in which they develop. This semester, I’m teaching one of my favorite classes, “Mass Media Communications” in which a constant recurring theme is the media economic cycle (Vivian, 2008). We’ve used this throughout the semester as a framework for investigating how various media works, and why it impacts society in the ways that it does. Vivian suggests that there are 6 broad steps that each medium goes through (if it’s successful): invention, entrepreneurship, industry, maturation, and the defense of infrastructures. I believe that we can apply this framing to the future of digital technology so that we can be aware of all the ways in which it can/will impact our organizations or students.

Invention and Entrepreneurship

For example, invention and entrepreneurship continue to disrupt the ways in which we do business. As the “tool assessment” assignment demonstrated, there are hundreds, if not thousands of new tools and technologies emerging every day. Many of these will not make it past the entrepreneurship stage for a variety of reasons. We must develop a refined sense of digital literacy so that we can effectively filter forward (Weinberger, 2011) the valuable tools from the junk. Effectively handling the barrage of innovation will (has already) become a duty of the responsible contemporary leader.

Growth of Industry

When a technology reaches significant enough adoption, you can see the supportive cocoon of industry grow up around it.

Image from:
Revolutionary People from the Renaissance

After Gutenberg invented the printing press, the demand for ink, paper, metals, and skilled pressmen increased (and in the case of the press operator, came into existence!). As the industrial revolution mechanized printing, those demands continued to grow into a complex network of professionals, materials, production methods, and consumption habits. As leaders create and implement strategy for organizations, thinking should include analyzing the opportunities present in the emerging industry. What are places in which you can expand market share or increase the competence of your team? Of course, technology – specifically networked systems – are filled with links (and few “stopping points”) which are permission free and always available to the public (Weinberger, 2011). In this way, leaders can become facilitators of knowledge, helping to build the right networks, fostering optimal cultures and posing good questions.


I do not believe that the digital age has matured yet. I feel like we are digital teenagers, racing down the “information superhighway.” Sure, we follow most of the rules, but still make some rash, irresponsible decisions. Weinberger’s (2011) suggests that the net is (and may forever be) unresolved (p. 174). Organizations are adopting technology for the sake of keeping up, or creating a Frankenstein’s monster of new systems in old infrastructures. Commercial banking, for the most part, still operates on foundational systems from the 60s and 70s while at the same time, trying to disrupt business models with innovations like blockchain. This video from Corning shows off some of the ways in which technology will eventually become more naturalized. The ways that we use technology today still feel foreign. UX is getting better, but many systems still have a learning curve, parlance, and set of knowledge needed to use them. I think a hallmark of media maturation is its total normalization (and ubiquity) to a point where the technology disappears. Leaders can continue facilitating systems design and digital literacy in order to make using technology less of a novelty and more of an extension of ourselves.

Defending Infrastructures

Finally, leaders must be keenly aware of the ways in which the “next big thing” will disrupt our operations. As noted above, by staying aware of changes in surrounding/supporting industries, leaders can try to predict where innovation will appear. With strategy and some luck, we might be able to put ourselves and our organizations in a strong position to defend the infrastructures that support us. At the same time, I believe that a good leader also knows when to let go.



Vivian, J. (2011). The media of mass communication. (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.

Ethical Questions in Net Neutrality

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Generally considered the “inventor” of the World Wide Web.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was hard at work crafting a series of tools that would help revolutionize modern communication.  While working at CERN in Switzerland, Berners-Lee developed HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) and HTML (hypertext markup language) that enabled him to publish a set of basic “web pages” to the public from a server in his office.

These two protocols became the backbone of today’s World Wide Web, and are the foundation for many network-based tools such as Facebook, Netflix, Spotify, and Google.  Development like these, according to supporters of net neutrality, were possible because of the open, democratic, and decentralized sources of power in the emerging internet.  In a blog post directed to the members of the European Parliament in 2015, TimBL (as he’s often called) wrote, “The Web evolved into a powerful and ubiquitous platform because I was able to build it on an open network that treated all packets of information equally. This principle of net neutrality has kept the Internet a free and open space since its inception” (Berners-Lee, 2015).

Opponents of net neutrality would argue that in fact, more innovation, more new technology, and stronger infrastructure investment would occur if only the pesky government would leave major telecom corporations alone and let the power of the “free market” rule the direction of the net.  Proponents and detractors both offer compelling arguments for a democratic, fair, and open internet, but ethical issues begin to emerge when the conversation shifts to policy design and implementation.

What Exactly is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality is the idea that “the internet” – comprising many protocols such as http, FTP, email (IMAP/POP/SMTP) – should be equally accessible for all users. Further, all publishers or networked services should be equally available to all customers.  The neutrality of the network has been put to the test recently as major telecom providers and ISPs (internet service providers) have begun to develop plans to “throttle” network bandwidth (at its own whim), or provide preferred access to pay-to-play sites and services.  When these large conglomerates provide preferential treatment to certain sites, others struggle.  When bandwidth is throttled by the ISPs, not all customers experience the same internet.  In this arrangement, it won’t be long until we’re careening down the slippery slope of open market greed and corruption.

Feds to the Rescue.

In 2015, facing huge public outcry, the Obama administration’s FCC (Federal Communication Commission) set up a series of regulations designed to preserve network neutrality and prevent large corporations from exercising profit-driven decisions about network performance and content.  CNN Money poetically reported that “The FCC just granted itself the power to defeat a raging, fire-breathing monster: the monopolistic network owners who can kill Internet freedom by blocking websites — or by creating an Internet fast lane for the privileged, few, rich tech companies that can pay for it” (Pagilery, 2015).

Feds on the Attack.

As the current administration settles into Pennsylvania Avenue, net neutrality protections may suffer a quick and painful death at the hands of new FCC Chair, Ajit Pai.  Pai, according to tech website Cnet, is the “man who will dismantle net neutrality ‘with a smile’” (Reardon, 2017).  Chairman Pai has been a long opponent of government oversight of the internet, suggesting that any such oversight would unnecessarily choke corporate operations, limit infrastructure investments (e.g., fiber & broadband), and ultimately harm consumers by way of higher prices and limited choice.  Of course, defenders of net neutrality (the current author included) recognize that these telecom behemoths already have the monopolistic clout to out-invest any competitor and very quickly seize self-interested control of the delicate ecosystem of an open network.  When a handful of companies controls the distribution channels AND the content, we all lose.

The Moral Authority?

According to scholar Norbert Wiener, we can begin assessing the ethics of technology by identifying and clarifying how the technology (or related actions) affect society (Bynum, 2001).  In the net neutrality discussion, this can be difficult because there are few (if any) demonstrable correlations on either side of the argument.  That is, we can’t necessarily prove that a truly open network has more or less ethical utility than one with tiers, ISP gatekeepers, or “zero-rated” services.  We also cannot demonstrate that all corporations that may exert control in a non-regulated network are inherently evil and looking to destroy civilization in search of profits.  However, examples already exist that telecoms are policing traffic, discriminating against certain protocols, and favoring preferential content providers.

Once we’ve clarified the underlying issue (here, I believe: who’s in control, the government or the telecoms? or, is government intervention ethical?) Wiener’s model suggests that we attempt to apply existing ethical frameworks to the problem.  A teleological framework seems appropriate, as both sides are ultimately promoting an open network for the benefit of innovation, user experience, and healthy economy. More specifically, a utilitarian approach that suggests the greatest good for the greatest number would demand a network in which no site/service, user, or packet of data is favored over another; this type of network, I believe, requires some intervention and cannot be left to trickle-down technology (Balkan, 2013).

The open and global nature of the internet means that every node in the network operates at a unique level of utility.  A casual Facebook user might certainly appreciate faster connectivity (via ISP sanctioned “fast lanes”), but the small business owner who can’t afford to buy in to the ISPs “specialized services” might lose valuable customers that experience slow load times on his website.  Thus, we begin a discussion of relative utility and the value that each user adds to or receives from equal participation in the net.  This is murky ethical territory. Within the context of the social contract framework, the casual (utilitarian) Facebook user might be willing give up a few megabytes per second of connectivity (individual liberty) for the sake of a network regulation that ensures equal opportunity for everyone on the network.

The nature of the open, borderless, limitless network (Weinberger, 2011) also means that ethical decision-making must adopt a global, if not universalist approach (Bynam 2001).  In contrast to the consequentialist approach mentioned above, perhaps the nature of the net calls for a deontological framework that does not attempt to account for the many possible outcomes, but rather, judges the morality of the action on our duty to preserve equality and fairness on the internet.  A majority of engaged internet citizens seem to believe that equal access is “right.”  Only 1% of more than 800,000 comments made to the FCC online were found to be “clearly against” Net Neutrality.


The net neutrality discussion presents a wide range of ethical concerns.  Judging the decision on potential outcomes is philosophically impossible (and irresponsible).  Applying moral relativism to decisions of network regulation is difficult because of the global nature of the network itself.  In my opinion, I believe that a deontological framework is most helpful for tackling this discussion.  I believe that equal access (not just access) to all of the internet is a right, and that defending that right is morally right.  Corporations and ISPs have rights too, of course, but when they are given free reign to control, filter, and eliminate data from the network, they begin to infringe upon perhaps the more basic right of equal internet access.  In this case, I think the access right is more fundamental than the profit right. In that way, minimal government regulation provides a great good for a huge number of internet users.



Balkan, A. (2013). Trickle down technology and why it doesn’t work [web log]. Retrieved from:

Berners-Lee, T. (2015). Net neutrality in Europe: A statement from Sir Tim Berners-Lee. World Wide Web Foundation [website]. Retrieved from

Bynam, T. (2001). Computer and information ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Pagliery, J. (2015, February 26). FCC adopts historic Internet rules.  CNN Tech. Retrieved from

Reardon, M. (2017, February 14). Meet the man who’ll dismantle net neutrality ‘with a smile’. CNet. Retrieved from

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.

Technology is Leveling the Organizational Playing Field (but not always).

The age of the networked economy is upon us, and with it, comes a slew of issues for leaders to address in their organizations. Digital, network-enabled technology has been sufficiently positioned in the center of many human interactions, from personal relationships to complex economic structures. This near ubiquity (at least in the modernized countries of the world) has led to new ways of interacting with co-workers, sharing information, and understanding power.

A fundamental advantage of a connected workforce is productivity and collaboration. Weinberger (2011), among scores of others, asserts that networks can generate larger quantities of quality innovation than any single (so called) expert. Information can be brought to bear from all corners of humanity and analyzed by individuals with limitless perspectives and life experiences. In my opinion, however, this broad assertion fails to account for the a broad socioeconomic heterogeneity of internet users.

Growth of global internet users since 1993:

Internet Live Stats (2016) estimates that only 40% of the world’s population has access to the internet, up from less than 1% in 1995. The same site shows that in contrast, nearly 89% of those living in the US has access to the internet (in some form). My point here is that there is still a significant part of the globe that is not yet connected (or as connected) as we might believe. And those of us that are connected – despite contentious Facebook arguments in the last 6 months – are living lives that are more similar to one another than different. I think this is important in the discussion of globalization and the connected global workforce. Like all forms of communication, digital communication is subject to all sorts of cultural norms, biases, and media literacy. I think it’s important to understand just how different our experience of connectivity are from a majority of the rest of the world’s.

That said, it is very evident that even within the more “mature” user base of, say, the United States, there are still huge gaps in levels of experience, proficiency, and digital fluency. In a multi-generational digital workforce, it may be critical for leaders (titular or otherwise) to assist team members with limited technology experience or lower levels of proficiency. In this way, I think the leader continues to shoulder the burdens of facilitating learning beyond the content of the work. Teaching/implementing technology, I think, presents an important opportunity for developing organizational culture. That is, how are employees taught to use technology in their roles, how are norms and expectations communicated, and how do co-workers deal with each other in light of digital acculturation (Jarc, 2015).


In this same sense, digital workers may use the same tools very differently. The information presented by Smith (2015) illustrates a few of the ways in which different users manipulate their digital experiences. For example, Smith outlines the differences between smartphone users who execute job applications on their devices and those who are using smartphones for “analog” tasks like calling (I mean really, who even does that anymore?!). Importantly, users across the spectrum expect different things from themselves and their technology. This can cause problems in networked teams, when individuals want or need to communicate in dramatically different ways. So, even if we are connected, we are connected in different ways.

Finally, I think the broadening of the networked workforce raises interesting questions about the nature of power and how individual nodes within the network make sense of relationships with others. Husband’s (n.d.) definition of wirearchy addresses part of this question. For Husband, power in the network is “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority, based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology” (para. 8). I think that this is a fine definition of a self-governing structure, but I wonder if this definition can play all the way through the end of the human transaction. As a colleague points out in her blog this week, sometimes teams need someone who can overtly assert power, make a decision, and drive teams out of counterproductive ruts. In terms of the networked workforce, with its heavy reliance on tech, does the best, most proficient tech user assume this role? If I can, say, type faster, or produce reports more quickly or research more efficiently, will others begin to look to me as the leader of the networked team? For me, this discussion of perceived power is an incredibly important one, and one that I will certainly continue thinking about!



Husband, J. (n.d.) What is wierarchy? Wirearchy [website]. Retrieved from

Internet Live Stats (2016). Internet users [webpage]. Retrieved from

Jarc, J. (2015). Parlance, perception and power: An inquiry into non-standard language use in digital media (master’s thesis). Retrieved from Proquest:

Smith, A. (2015, November 19). Searching for work in the digital era. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.

Bilateral Asymmetric Consilience and Networked Leadership

^(Million-dollar academic jargon right there, isn’t it?)

Much of the labor that is done in today’s digital economy is intellectual.  Economists point to intellectual capital, psychologists promote emotional intelligence, and management gurus flaunt terms like knowledge management and organizational learning (though, apparently not as much as they used to).  Certainly, work is still done and “stuff” is still produced, but technology, networked thinking, and machine learning are perpetually encroaching on the realm of work and labor.  This shift to acknowledging  “intellect as the key productive [economic] force” (Brennan, 2009) brings with it myriad questions about gaining knowledge, making sense of information, and gaining expert or referential power (Johnson, 2005) among workgroups and social networks.

Weinberger (2011) – in a nod to Marshall McLuhan via his profile of Jay Rosen’s long form/web form blog – proposed that the network itself is responsible for the emergence of new knowledge and new ways of thinking.  Just as literacy re-oriented humanity’s working memory and cognitive capacity, so too has the proliferation of the “ecology of temptation” (p. 117).  The net is limitless.  It has no edges.  Lines between experts and laypeople have been almost completely erased as content becomes more and more democratized.  We are forever bombarded by links to one more resource and it becomes difficult to determine where to stop (and sufficiently trust the information we’ve discovered).  This presents a challenge for workers, teams, and leaders, as we struggle to “filter forward” (p. 11) the information we need to do our jobs.

Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky developed many ideas about the ways in which we take mental shortcuts in order to make sense of the information that overwhelms us on a regular basis.  The gaps in what we know about a given situation or problem are filled in by our brains by way of “heuristics and biases” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).  For example, we use “representativeness” (p. 1124) to make a judgement based on how well we believe something fits an existing category of things that we already know about.  We use what we (think we) know to make cognitive leaps, but these leaps aren’t always correct.  Uncertainty is amplified in the networked ecosystem, and, as we have in physical space, we must learn to deal with that missing information and figure out ways to find “stopping points” (Weinberger, 2011) and trusted information sources.

The new digital heuristic model is complicated by the fact that so much of our knowledge generation is social.  If, as media ecologists like Weinberger and Rosen suggest, knowledge is moving from paper and our heads to “the cloud,” our ability to make sense of complex information now relies heavily on what others know and what we know about others.  In an effort to shed some philosophical light on the topic, philosopher Steven Turner (2012) explores the notion of “double heuristics” and “social epistemology.” Turner suggests that “that individuals, each with their own heuristics, each with cognitive biases and limitations, are aggregated by a decision procedure, like voting, and this second order procedure produces its own heuristic, with its own cognitive biases and limitations” (p. 1). In this way, learning and sensemaking are inherently social; epistemology that’s ideally situated for the networked digital ecosystem.

Turner (2012) uses Michael Polanyi’s example of a group assembling a puzzle to demonstrate the collective heuristic. The optimal method of solving the puzzle (i.e., gaining new knowledge) would be a system in which “each helper will act on his own initiative, by responding to the latest achievements of the others, and the completion of their joint task will be greatly accelerated” (Polanyi, 1962).  This requires social interaction, but Turner (2012) argued that the true nature of knowledge here still comes form the individual.  There’s one piece that fits and only fits those adjacent to it, and that is the individuals’ contribution.  In contrast, he proposed the notion of “bilateral asymmetric consilience” (p. 11) as a means of generating knowledge that can only spring forth from the interaction of two knowing entities.  The example he uses is that of a doctor and patient.  Both have knowledge (bilateral) of the presenting symptoms, but in different ways (asymmetry).  Only when patient and doctor collaborate on identifying the disease does the answer emerge (consilience).  The doctor knows the frameworks in which such symptoms might exist (“expertise”), but the patient knows which are present for him.  Together, their interaction has produced and verified knowledge about the patient that could not have previously existed independently.

In his theory of Wirearchy, Husband (n.d.) stressed the importance of social interactions (networked) as a means of developing social norms and specifically power.  He asserted that “command-and-control” (para 4) hierarchy is losing ground to the more effective methods of “champion-and-channel” (para 5) leadership.  This echoes Turner’s (2012) discussion of planned science and the idea of top-down, individually biased leadership decision-making.  The command-and-control model leads to information bottlenecks that are not needed in organizations with evolved social-epistemology systems.  I believe that in such environments, a leader can assist in the development and distribution of heuristic learning.  We can develop systems in which “bilateral asymmetric consilience” might occur; generating knowledge (or hopefully wisdom) that no leader, no matter how specialized, could have ever predicted or planned for.  Experience and expertise will continue to hold value, I believe, but will shift to become tools in the facilitation of collective learning.



Brennan, T (2009). Intellectual labor. South Atlantic Quarterly, 108(2), 395-415.

Husband, J. (n.d.) What is wierarchy? Wirearchy [website].  Retrieved from

Johnson, C. E. (2005). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science.  Minerva, 38(1), 54–73

Turner, S. (2012). Double heuristics and collective knowledge: the case of expertise. Studies in Emergent Order, 5, 64-85

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books