Thinking big and speaking small

by William Buist on January 17, 2009

Societal change.

When societies gather they often do so because of a big idea. When we look back through history societies have appeared or disappeared (and been reformed) when a big change has happened. The change isn’t often catastrophic and may take a generation or two, but in historical terms that’s still seismic. As an example, the industrial revolution fundamentally changed society, for ever, over the course of just a few decades.

In those times the loudest voices are not always the ones to listen too, popularity, particularly of ideas, might not be a good guide.

I was reading CK’s Blog tonight which highlights this in her post : Actually, great minds (don’t) think alike. Her point is that:

… the voices that have started movements, led scientific breakthroughs and developed technological advancements were small at first. But they sure had big ideas that gathered momentum.

I think that’s right, and as she goes on to say, that means that some of the quiet voices of today are talking about the things that we will see tomorrow and are being dismissed and distrusted by those around us. Perhaps some of these are embedded in our predictions for 2009.

The noisy told us that the failure of a bank in the UK (Northern Rock) and the difficulties of sub-prime mortgage lenders were a temporary issue, the quieter voices went unheard, for a while.

Mother Theresa achieved much yet never forced her views on others.

The learning here is that we need to be careful not to dismiss those who say things quietly to small audiences. Increasingly, authority on the societal web is being given to those whose following is large, who strive to build a larger band of those who seek out their content for it’s wisdom, because the wisdom of crowds helps ensure that it has quality too. It is a good measure, but a harder one is to find the quiet voice of authority and recognise it for it’s value.

Societies honour those whose quiet, unassuming work over time brings benefit to others, how will we do that in the Societal Web, for do it we surely must.

Twitter this… Click here >>

  • Its not uncommon that people to gravitate to those who shout the loudest. I also think Ego plays a big part, especially in the case of current financial crisis climate where aggressive lending habits was the norm, the 'quieter voices' as were generally not the ones calling the shots so to speak.

    I also agree that "we need to be careful not to dismiss those who say things quietly to small audiences". This is evident in the current 'Social Networking' wave where specific types of (products/services) of those with the biggest followers are perceived as experts, whilst those with smaller followers are not; in this situation quantity or quality takes over, this makes me question the value of what the person is actually offering and whether the person really cares about the crowd that they accumulate.

    The worst case scenario is where we fail to set some standards and boundaries in the attempt to avoid repeating the patterns of the dot.com era. There are some reputable online businesses and people that I rave about and trust, and then there are some that I know very little about and there are those that do not interest me at all. Just because its the web, it doesn't give people the authority to go and sell something.

    Without boundaries the web is an 'open marketplace' changing all the time at an incredible pace, on one hand people collaborating to make it better, and on the other people existing, its where the ones who merely exist are fine with the 'circus' of all things that we would never of looked twice if we had to physical leave our seat and actually walk down the road and make a purchase, or made an appointment to visit 1:1

    No, not all of the biggest crowd pullers are not necessary the best, its important to keep an open mind and not be drawn in by the bells & whistle.
  • These are great comments, thank you Julie. I certainly agree that
    there can appear to be a correlation between ego and volume.

    One challenge is to determine if those with a big following have
    gathered them through the volume of their invitations, or the quiet
    recognition of their wisdom.

    On 10 Mar 2009, at 23:03, "Disqus" <notifications-
  • William, I doubt if the individual consciously cares how their following has increased, as long at it has grown, because the goal has been achieved. Unknowing to the Individual who are wooed by the big numbers the how (volumes/wisdom) becomes less important to everyone. Using the 80/20 rule would suggest that:

    (80% recognition, 20% invitation) = 'Celebrity' status
    (20% recognition, 80% invitation) = 'Not yet established'

    To determine "if those with a big following have gathered them through the volume of their invitations, or the quiet recognition of their wisdom" is to measure the flow of push/pull.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: