Intellectual dishonesty…

I LOVE this post Scott. THANK YOU for stepping out and saying publicly (and oh-so0eloquently) what many of us are saying among ourselves.

Social media gives us the power to communicate with a broader audience than any of us ever imagined. We can share so much value!

Now we have people taking advantage of that medium to create buzz around themselves by being sensational – for the sake of their egos and I guess their bank accounts.

What a sad sad state. Social media is going the way of the press and analyst community – focusing on stirring the pot to get ratings/hits and viewers – aka money. All at the expense of their audiences, who are trusting these experts with their businesses and their lives. That’s so sad.

IMHO it’s just as sad that some of our so-called gurus don’t really have the experience to be on that pedestal (if any of us do, indeed belong on a pedestal at all). Some created a cute word or phrase, another grabbed onto an idea at random and rode it to fame – without the hands on experience in real businesses that’s necessary to go the distance.

I believe that anyone who acts in a leadership position has a responsibility to deliver information focused on exceeding our audiences’ needs – not promoting our own careers. That means digging deep into our experience and sharing valuable, well-founded insights and experiences that can be applied to our audiences’ worlds.

When we give up that responsibility (and our integrity right along with it) for money or fame – we cross a line. After that – we all know what we become. The only question is our price.

Thanks for the great post my friend!

reb

You’ll be crucified for saying such things.

We’re supposed to be changing the way people do business here! =)

Actually, I know some businesses that would benefit from executives being limited to 140 character memos!

Criticism is easy. Constructive criticism requires in-depth knowledge of the system and the tools that work best in it.

Like having a speaker at a plumbing convention who doesn’t know the difference between a street 90 and a regular one but insists on talking about how all the plumbers need to change how they work in order to optimize for increased authenticity in a transparent and engaging way. =)

As I was reading your post, I was physically nodding my head after every point so eloquently and thoughtfully made. Before typing my comment I read Rebel’s reply and found that it said EXACTLY what I wanted to offer — only better than I could’ve said it myself.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rebel -

Thank you, my friend…you have so many great points here…and I’m just appreciative of your contribution, smarts, and integrity.

AND…I can’t wait to hold your new book and share your joy!! It’s gonna be huge!

Scott

For those who may not be aware…Seth Simonds is one of the true heros of Social Media!

Tens of thousands of followers…but…MORE IMPORTANTLY…he truly “gets it”…and it shows. THAT’S why we follow him…and wait to read what he writes next.

And, he’s exactly right…it’s EASY to be a critic. Which is why so many critics have attained stature on Social Media.

In my first book, I described why I insisted it was in my contract that I would be called a “movie reviewer” rather than a “movie critic.” To me, the term “critic” meant that I had to find something WRONG to criticize…but, “reviewer” meant I would pass along to the audience what I thought…

Seth Simonds is a “reviewer” in the truest sense of the word. Read him…and reap.

Scott

Ken –

The fact you took the time and made the effort is so incredibly important. THANK YOU so much…I truly appreciate it!!

Scott

I read this blog and I don’t know what to make of the comment left by Mr. Simonds. First why would Scott be crucified when it’s the truth??

That comment says, “Constructive criticism requires in-depth knowledge of the system and the tools that work best in it.”

In-depth knowledge of the system?? I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that honesty and integrity are ALWAYS the best business practice. To suggest that following the advice of these buzz-chasing gurus that change their ideas more often than they change their underwear is irresponsible.

I think this is a powerful post.

I tried to book him for our conference and I can tell you he is VERY expensive. Love the quote by John Stossel – he got it right.

Scott – you must have been reading my mind. As one who enjoys working with true disrupters, it’s disturbing to find that many don’t know how to be disruptive honestly (as you note) or productively. Disruption is needed to help us think creatively, to find new solutions — not to gain attention. And, many times, disruption is caused by some, seemingly innocuous acts not grandstanding.

Kourtney -

Thank you SO much for your engagement. While I wouldn’t presume to speak for Seth, I hope he doesn’t mind me mentioning that our personal communication regarding this post has been overwhelmingly positive and encouraging. He’s re-Tweeted it and encouraged his followers to think about its message.

I would hope Seth was suggesting — with more than a dash of irony — that the problem would be generated BECAUSE what was in the post was the truth.

Again…thanks!

Bret – I agree…that Stossel line is something we’ve all thought…he was the first one (that I’m aware of, at least) to actually verbalize it in mainstream media. Thanks for being engaged here — I really appreciate it!

Anne Mai – Thank you so much. I LOVE your website and your work…it’s brilliant.

A point that occurred to me because of your comment — and I wish I would have considered it more in the beginning — is that we can see the true motive by observing the focal point of the disruption. Rosa Parks ( to use a blatantly obvious example) certainly disrupted things when she wouldn’t go to the back of the bus…but I have never thought for a second that she did it to become famous, sell books, or draw attention to herself. (Ironically, all of those things can happen as a by-product, anyway, when the disruption creates meaningful change.) I can’t imagine a more honest or sincere act of disruption than what she did that day in December 1955.

Now, however, we see an evolving “disruption culture” – even, perhaps, a “disruption economy” – where a small band of individuals draw great attention to themselves for espousing this philosophy…without having to endure significant consequences for its implementation.

It seems we are of a similar mind here — we all need to be highly aware that dishonest disruption can be detrimental…personally and professionally.

Love ya Scott – respect your perspective – and here’s a question:

Who decides what limits and boundaries the creative thinker is supposed to honor?

One could argue that Picasso painted outside the accepted boundaries of his craft.
Henry Ford operated outside the rule book for manufacturing.
Your book Distinction took me outside the fence of conventional wisdom. Heck you even took on Good to Great.

Being different just for the sake of being different sometimes leads to change as the crazy idea begins to resonate with real people.

Telling the sculptor that she can’t get music out of clay sounds like a logical assumption, but you can certainly point to many amazing things that began as illogical heresy at the time they were introduced.

“The world is not flat”
“The earth is not the center of the universe”

I say, let the dreamers dream and the crazy people shout their strange ideas from the mountain top.

Very Good Post! What’s true for social media & marketing “gurus” is equally true for consultants, integrators and the like, in the high tech world. Maybe SK was right, “the crowd is untruth!”

Social media is relatively new and there are many, just like me, that don’t claim to be experts. We don’t WANT to be experts. So, we listen to others we trust and follow their advice. We are their willing students.

If you pretend to be an accomplished sculptor, and you tell a student that she can get music out of clay, and she wastes her whole life trying to do just that — instead of creating a masterpiece from her own talent and ideas with your INSPIRATION and INSIGHT — what exactly does that make you?

Jim -

…same here…I was thinking of you when I posted this, because I know I’ve been exceedingly critical of others here lately…and I don’t want it to be a habit!

However, I am certainly NOT trying to censor anyone’s right to “shout strange ideas,” as you indicate. I LOVE strange, creative, disruptive ideas.

What I’ve become overwhelmed….and disgusted…by is the so-called contrarian, who seeks mostly personal attention, rather than make a contribution for the benefit of the followers he or she claims to engage.

And, my guess is that Picasso wasn’t trying to maneuver other artists to abandon their styles and follow his. Look, I agree we have to challenge the status quo…shake things up…make a difference. The new book I’m working on is on that track.

However, when it becomes clear that what’s being said is a blatant attempt to steal the spotlight rather than contribute to the conversation…I’ve got a problem with that…

>>>an evolving “disruption culture” – even, perhaps, a “disruption economy”

Well, you know that I have primarily covered eBooks. For the longest time, the Accepted Wisdom there was that ePub was a Good Thing and would lead writers to the Promised Land. I believed that for some time too. But it wasn’t until I stepped back to really examine that, that the scales fell from my eyes and I was the first to blow the whistle on that crap. It made others examine it too and now many of the ones who were cheerleading ePub are now on the side of the line that I drew on the ground — and no one unequivocally thinks ePub will help anyone.

I’m still waiting for everyone to catch on to what an unprecedented book robbery Google is undertaking, but that too will come as I keep yelling about it.

Anyway, in my case, I’ve wound up disrupting the disruptors.

And that’s what I think you’ve done with this excellent post too. What no one seems to ask in the race to the find The Answer is, “Is this *true*?” You did that with your first post on this topic and now you’ve followed through. Excellent, Scott. This is why I Follow you on Twitter and check in here every day. Keep up the great work.

Mike – here’s part of what I love about how you think and write. Because I follow you, as well, I know you don’t just “cover” eBooks — you are passionate about them. And never once — NOT ONE TIME — have I EVER felt that you were grandstanding your positions merely to draw attention to yourself.

Do you get a lot of attention in your field? Yes…absolutely. Yet, even those of us who haven’t met you in person know your passion – and priority – is not self-directed. I don’t know why it works this way…but, the audience just KNOWS.

We need our thinking to be disrupted. We NEED disruption gurus! (Like you.)

All I ask, however, that the focus is directed on what is “true” and not on individual aggrandizement. You are an example of how it should be done.

I’m grateful for your insight and friendship.

I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to chime back in. I can’t help myself:)

Disruption helps us grow, in business and our personal lives. But there’s positive disruption, and then there’s negative disruption.

Positive disruption creates inspiration and value. With this type of ‘out of the box’ thinking we fly higher.

Then there’s negative disruption, which I call drama. The last thing we need in business are drama queens as leaders. Spare me please. Unfortunately, some of our ‘gurus’ are leaning toward becoming drama queens and kings. That means it’s time to reel things in. Seriously.

As for where we draw the line – seems to me the intent behind each of these disruptive forces is very different. So I think we have an answer there.

We follow the intent.

Thanks for the great discussion all, and for being such a gracious host Scott!

reb

Scott,
I could hear you say what I read that you wrote! I’m inclined to remember the ee cummings rule of thumb and grammar/punctuation. You have to know the rules before you can dismiss them for art.
We must look to social research. All of the studies I’ve encountered indicate that we humans NEED social interaction for our physical, mental and brain health. A disclaimer: I wrote Face To Face: How To Reclaim the Personal Touch in a Digital World so I’m a big believer in meeting others. In F2F, I mentioned the long time existence of the Lobby Con. That’s the non-meeting during the convention that takes place informally over a “beverage” that result in information exchanges, new ideas and laughter.. the glue that binds us. That simply cannot be replicated by webinars or teleporting.
There are was too many “experts” —and people we encounter in our every day lives— who start a conversation by making bold (and odd) statements to advance a discussion. To me, that is a confrontive, cheap, cheesy way to connect, converse and build relationships. It’s all Shock Shlock.

AMEN! I’d say more, but I don’t think I need to do so.

[...] McKain wrote a post on Friday that got me going, Intellectual Dishonesty. It’s an eloquent rant concerning the growing negativity and sensationalism created by [...]