Just because the religious institutions were enforcing ethics doesn’t mean that they were working from their heart. We see this today in fundamental religions; their hearts full of fear, refusing to honestly assess and examine what is behind their anxieties, they mentally (head) manipulate their religious ethics to make sense to their fear-based needs. Whether it was before the scientific revolution or after, there has been an imbalance of heart and head. The pendulum does indeed need to swing… more toward the heart (when WAS the last time it was there?), and then find a balance.

OK, that said let me raise a few counter points, or points for discussion anyway:

You’ve made several general statements that I’m not sure I’d fall in line with:

“The Richter Scales weren’t legally obligated to attribute all of the photographers, but it was the ethical thing to do” (not sure that it’s a “fact” that it would have been clearly the ethical thing to do. I’ve seen lots of discussion around the web about whether or not this was with opinion going both ways)

“the blogosphere itself has made it abundantly known that linking is essential to the survival and acceptance of one’s blog.” (First off, “the blogosphere” is an ever evolving concept. Perhaps once links were demanded by everyone participating in the “blogosphere”, but I’m not sure that same demand is still there today. I look at what blogs my wife reads, or what she blogs about and rarely are links included in the content.)

I’d also say that “complex arguments” is both a heart AND head issue. I’ve seen many blogosphere blow-ups, for example, that surround a company being forced to make hard choices that involve many issues that bloggers don’t, can’t, or won’t see and then assume that the company is simply being foolish.

Overall, you’re absolutely right that a balance has to exist and extending your point, companies must train their employees to recognize the importance of policy AND common sense in their daily decision making process.

The reality is, however, that this issue won’t be resolved until we start to rethink how to evaluate employees. This is the same ROI of community discussion that comes up a 1000 times, but until we have an ability to quasi-objectively evaluate a group of employees based on their subjectively critiqued work output, we’re going to have a problem with the balance.

Great discussion!

The Fortune 500 or 1000 could certainly learn a thing or 12 from them.

To my mind even tho they’ve made a coupla bonehead moves they are still the Shining Light of the Web2.0 Universe + something Every Co. who has Customers should take a close look at!

)

70/30 input (head/heart)

30/70 output

I agree there and that sentiment resonates…but the notion of balance is tricky. Too often the assumption is made that balance means 50/50. It doesn’t have to be 50/50.

Head arguments form the basis of decisions I make for my company, but with refinements and adjustment from the Heart department. It ends up being somewhere between 80/20 and 70/30, but that’s not the interesting part.

What is really compelling is that the 20 or 30 percent of that decision that comes from the Heart is really the most powerful part of the whole interaction. Customer remember the humanness of a transaction more than they remember the logic, legality, or linearity, however well reasoned or justified. We try to remember this when we call a customer to sell, or to request payment of an invoice, or just to see how it’s going.