Of late, news organizations seem to be struggling for quality thinking, going deeper than the surface. One example:

The last days have seen headlines celebrating a victory for “the people” over Bank of America, and the bank’s planned and retracted ATM fees. The most common analysis from most media was that it was a triumph for the people, rising up against big banks and demanding change. I believe that is not the core of the story.

Bank of America changed their plans, not just because there was public and negative clamor. They changed because their peers took a different course. Other large banks decided not to charge flat ATM fees. Those decisions at other banks created an option for consumers, and that’s why B of A had to reconsider. Consumers didn’t vote with their feet and leave B of A, but that option existed because the other large banks offered an alternative.

The truth is… the other large banks were the primary cause for the policy change at B of A, not consumer uprising. There was no restoration of significant democratic power. Which news organizations are doing any of that analysis? More importantly, which news organizations are helping our masses do any such analysis?

The outpouring of sentiment and observations surrounding the death of Steve Jobs has continued unabated. I, unfortunately, will continue that extension.

Perhaps the greatest contribution from Steve Jobs, in my view, is the passion and unrelenting commitment in his life to converging humanities and technology. It was a commitment evident in his personal life, in the software he inspired, in the product design he envisioned, and in the company he built. Apple will be forever a company that embodies this convergence, at least we should hope.

In all the things that all of us do, if we could but be mindful of that convergence of the humanities and new technology. Separately they hold great potential and some peril. Converged they offer nothing but promise.

Let’s do it in memory of Steve Jobs.

I had made notes to write about Apple, and the company’s value in setting standards for other business enterprises. The death of Steve Jobs is now the bigger concept.

The Apple web site said it better than anything else I have read or heard… Apple is a company that only he could have built. It’s so true, we should repeat that sentence and ponder the wisdom there.

Apple is a reflection of Steve Jobs, and only founders have that opportunity and that luxury and that burden. He carried it admirably and proudly at times, at other times clumsily. But he never didn’t love it.

Now the company moves to its next iteration, always — we would hope — with the Steve Jobs vision in its DNA, but it must become the next Apple, pardon the pun. Its real challenge will be to build upon the foundation and the vision of their inspiring leader/founder, but becoming something perhaps even greater, even more innovative, even more standard-setting for the rest of us. Steve would like that.

I have been drawn to brain hemisphere research for some years, beginning with Julien Jaynes in the 1970s, Betty Edwards in the 1990s, and Daniel Pink in the current decade. The implications of understanding the hemispheres in our liquid computer for work and life are expansive, and as yet not fully tapped.

I recently saw the TED talk by Jill Bolte Taylor, and it was incredibly moving. Here is a brain scientist who experienced a major brain injury, and both lived to tell as well as to process its implications for us. If you’re able, take the 18 minutes to listen to her experience. It is powerful

But if you do, take more than 18 minutes afterward to reflect on the implications for your life. Your brain. Your place in the universe.

It’s well worth the effort.

A colleague posted the desire to read a book by George Prochnik titled, In Pursuit of Silence.

I had a nearly visceral reaction to that title. OMG (as my kids say), is that a book I also want to read or what? I immediately bought the digital version, and it awaits me making the time.

So why this absolute attraction to someone advocating (I assume) silence? After all, the book could be sub-par, for all I know. I’m guessing Mr. Prochnik posits the reality that we live amidst too much noise. Do we all instinctively know that?

A thought… pending what I learn from the book, I have lately been in the habit of periodically “choosing” silence… turning off noise, from a variety of sources.

It seems a welcome refuge, and therefore telling.

More thoughts on this to come.

In these days of the exploding volume of words and information, deceptive communication is even more despicable. The examples come from all sides, all points of view. Here’s one:

Referring to the advantaged and wealthier segment of our citizens as “job creators.” Anyone in business knows you, in fact, are in business not to create jobs, but to generate revenue and profit. If you can do so without adding staff/jobs, you will. Simple as that. And many do. Decisions will be driven based on revenue potential and profitability, not on job creation. Job creation is a secondary gain. If it serves profitability, it will happen. If not, it won’t. However, to characterize an entire set of people as primarily “job creators” is a miscasting of their role in our economic engine.

It is a great denigration of language and the art of communication to engage in this masking and deception… no matter where it comes from.

A recent business and academic journal raised the issue of whether the push for speed-to-market was precluding thoughtfulness in business, asking if we are thinking too little.

It occurs to me that thinking too much is not the polar opposite of thinking too little, at least not in business. Could we really suffer from thinking too much, especially in these days of such small thinking?

Perhaps the temptation is to simply think too long. We can have good thinking, deep thinking, quality thinking and simply do it with appropriate speed. Perfection is said to be the enemy of the good, but it is also the enemy of speed. Even thoughtful speediness.

We can move quickly and thoughtfully. It shouldn’t have to be an either-or dilemma.

Even some deeply committed technologists (people like Jaron Lanier, the attributed inventor of VR)  are asking “big” questions about how we’re all using social media… how it’s affecting relationships, communication patterns, time spent, quality of work and life, etc.

There are no quick and easy answers, and blanket viewpoints perhaps pose the greatest danger to quality thinking.

One element seems, to me, fundamental. As the power of technology and its capabilities advances, it is crucial for us to be people of control and discipline. We are, after all, the ones who can make decisions about how we spend our time. We can be very deliberate and thoughtful about which media we choose for our communications. We carry the responsibility for evaluating how and where we spend our time. We can select and de-select the digital arenas where we will participate, and how we will participate there.

The explosion of digital and social media potential provides us with greater opportunities and challenges for thoughtfulness, discipline and

Not so long ago, medical ethics commonly raised the question when evaluating certain treatment and/or procedure decision dilemmas, “Just because we can, does that mean we should?”

I suggest we pose that same challenge to some of our decisions around technology use.

Just because we can make a cellular phone call from just about anywhere, does that mean we should?

Just because we can text just about anyone from just about anywhere does that mean we should?

Just because we can avoid a difficult conversation by sending an email, does that mean we should?

Just because we can bury our eyes on the small screen to avoid seeing what’s occurring around us, does that mean we should?

Just because we can plug in earbuds and tune out people and sounds around us, does that mean we should?

Just because we can dash off an email faster than putting pen to paper and flexing our handwriting, does that mean we should?

The advances in technology have outstripped our thoughtfulness about protocols, levels of respect, human intercourse, and desired impact on others. Let’s try to catch up, shall we? It begins with conversations with each other. Let’s have them.

This blog began with a clear focus, at least for me… to say something meaningful, articulate, and provocative of new thinking.

It lost momentum, not because there was nothing to say that fit those criteria, but because new focal points in my work life absorbed the time I would have devoted here.

Work life is back in balance… and time is newly re-committed to this enterprise.

I so resolve.