Saturday, January 04, 2003
I'm convinced that business success in the future starts with the question, What should I do with my life? Yes, that's right. The most obvious and universal question on our plates as human beings is the most urgent and pragmatic approach to sustainable success in our organizations. People don't succeed by migrating to a "hot" industry (one word: dotcom) or by adopting a particular career-guiding mantra (remember "horizontal careers"?). They thrive by focusing on the question of who they really are -- and connecting that to work that they truly love (and, in so doing, unleashing a productive and creative power that they never imagined). Companies don't grow because they represent a particular sector or adopt the latest management approach. They win because they engage the hearts and minds of individuals who are dedicated to answering that life question. [para.] This is not a new idea. But it may be the most powerfully pressing one ever to be disrespected by the corporate world.Judge Alex Kozinski: Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit certified an interesting question to the California Supreme Court in the ever-popular "sex.com" domain name dispute. The question concerns whether, under California law, Internet domain names are "property" for purposes of the tort of conversion (essentially, civil law's version of theft). It includes an exceptionally well written, entertaining and persuasive dissent by Judge Kozinski, and the entire order is highly instructive on the process of certifying questions from the Ninth Circuit to the California Supreme Court. You can read it here (PDF). As interesting as all this is to me, it is less interesting than the fact -- evident in the three-worded link above, pointing to pertinent How Appealing posts from yesterday -- that within three hours Howard's initial post had resulted in email from Court of Appeals law clerks, California appellate practitioners and Harvard law students (among others, I'm sure) answering questions and offering opinion about issues raised by the certification order. Again, I think the weblog format is utterly unique in its ability to engender discussions like this in the legal field, discussions unhindered by geography or the particular professional, governmental or academic institution the participants call "home." Of course, the credit is not simply the technology's. Howard's knowledgeable, open and droll writing encourages dialogue. Note too that conversation is not hampered by the fact there are no comments at How Appealing. Given the judicial status or affiliation of many of Howard's readers, the ability to comment through email, with anonymity if desired, actually must encourage colloquy. Diet Vanilla Coke: Last but not least. Needs no further explanation. Simply bliss. See you in a few.
Unless otherwise expressly stated, all original material of whatever nature created by Denise M. Howell and included in the Bag and Baggage weblog and any related pages, including the weblog's archives, is licensed under a Creative Commons License.