For years, I have complained about the technocratic approach many people have to business or even government and sought to place the individual at the center of the equation. Unfortunately, not being Don Quixote, there was little I could do from inside the company walls. So I struck out on my own into what I thought was unknown territory only to discover that it has been occupied for centuries by our various and numerous belief systems.

Without sounding like a complete crazy person, I’d like to posit that all belief systems are simply road maps to self-realization. Likewise, I would like to posit that the European experience of uncertainty reduction was based on property but that in the last century or so the rest of the world has caught up with the West’s most basic uncertainties without having property-based systems. Consequently, we are at the start of a new era in which the individual can chose to no longer be an industrial-era cog in the wheel but to be just themselves. However, this choice is not an easy one because the economics are difficult.

Yes, an individual might be able to provide their community with enough value that they make a living wage and maybe even something more. But many will not. This is where information technology and property laws can help.

Already, we see that the line between capital, productive assets, and private property, non-productive assets, is blurred. Your example of AirBnB is just such a case, private property being used for commercial purposes when it isn’t supposed to be creating all sorts of legislative challenges. Many other examples of the collaborative consumption economy support this blurry line view. Consequently, there is an opportunity – if not a need – to extend the legislative concepts afforded productive assets to non-productive ones. In doing so, every action undertaken by an individual on the Internet would be their productive asset, capital, and allow them to derive a revenue from being who they are. This simple change in legislation would oblige those mega-corporations who now benefit from a winner take all advantage to compensate their sources of data instead of using them for free affording a redistribution of the benefits created by the community.

So as you can see, it is possible to achieve the vision you argue for while still remaining faithful to the property-based system we have created but making it work for everyone.

The work I do with business leaders only allows me to take the first step, self-realization for the benefit of their community. The second step requires legislative changes and technology solutions. However, the first step is fascinating in and of itself. After all, how can lead others if you can’t lead yourself.

Perhaps they can evolve by becoming more intelligent .. more human, more aware, more empathic and differently decisive .. by acknowledging and using the new conditions that are inexorably swallowing and penetrating us.

Yes to Steve Denning’s better analysis .. combined with and accompanied by a better more holistic understanding that the ultimate purpose of organized human activities is about the betterment of human society and the human condition, not JUST making (more) money for shareholders / owners at th expense of everyone else.

Nice article. I agree that “a new synthesis of the prevalent technocratic logic in politics, economics and management with a deep understanding of the human condition” could be helpful.

But do we need to wait for that? Could better use of existing analytic tools go a long way to escaping the traps that you allude to? See for instance: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/05/26/clayton-christensen-do-we-need-a-revolution-in-management/.

In effect, do we need, not less analysis, but better analysis?