Comments on: Nick Carr on Innovation

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:11:21 +0000

Rob, You said it better than I could. I agree but… unless writers try “much harder” to add value, to help make sense out of the complexity that business is facing fewer and fewer people will pick up any journals, books, and blogs. I know bright executives who’ve stopped reading because, “it’s just more blah, blah, blah.” (When it’s not an outright fraud spinning high sounding nonsense.)

BTW I got something good from Mike’s post. Click on his name to see his hard work and good sense.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:40:45 +0000

Laurence,
I think you’ve hit upon the problem with good business writing. On the one hand, what you really need are specifics. Mantras and platitudes don’t help get things done. But most people are in such different situations, writers can’t give specific advice. So, the solution is to explain to your readers how they can figure out how to apply the knowledge you’ve given them to their own case. That requires some specifics (and I think those are the kind you are looking for – right?) but I think that is tough for most people to write.

First of all, you really have to know what you are talking about. If you don’t understand it on a deep enough level then you can’t give your readers what they need. Hence the rise of business-by-platitude. It’s easy. And it makes you sound really smart without really saying anything.

Secondly, even if you did explain things on that level, I’m not sure a majority of readers would appreciate it. I feel like there is a vicious cycle where BS gets popular, which just promotes more people to write BS. Not that Nick’s article is BS, it’s just lacking in specifics. The great thing about blogs though is that sometimes these types of discussions get picked up and commented on and eventually the whole story gets filled in for the people with the patience to follow it.

By: Mike DeWitt

Mike DeWitt — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:29:36 +0000

Rob, Great find! I couldn’t resist putting in my two cents worth. I’m not sure my comments will meet Laurence’s test of specificity, but we all agree on the dubious advantage of first-mover status!

Cheers,

Mike

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:08:26 +0000

I’m back. My comment above was a little harsh. Sorry.

But I stand by the wish for more specifics and less generalities. And Nick is spot on about first mover advantage. It’s fiction not fact.

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:51:22 +0000

I’m dashing out for an assignment but I had to stop when I read that “companies need to be prudent — even conservative — in where and how much they encourage innovation.”

Please tell me that in the article the writer of that general, ambiguious and obvious advice tells readers specifically how to find the line between “prudent” and not prudent, between “conservative” and flamboyant with innovations’ decisions.

As in your post on accountability the real challenge today is finding the line between enough and too much, between one extreme and the other. And any writer/thinker who doesn’t have something specific that helps find that line ought to just shut up, IMHO.