James Surowiecki's recent book focuses on the problems faced by groups (namely, cognition, coordination, and cooperation), and exactly what makes good decisions possible (that is, diversity, independence, decentralization). Like some other consilient books I've dabbled in, Surowiecki draws from a bunch of academic and popular work, and uses it to neatly package his ideas for human consumption. In his favor, I really like that he doesn't stretch his research too far. The main idea seems more richly documented and better sculpted than in books like Blink and The Tipping Point. As an added bonus, his writing is more free from chummy background stories--i.e. not all research needs multi-paragraph introductions. Instead, we get a nice solid edifice of ideas--thank you, James.
If anything were missing, I'd say Surowiecki could have been a bit more bold in offering his own views. The writing flows so nicely from the research that a bit more conscious effort to bracket his own prognostication and advocacy wouldn't hurt.
But, alas, one side effect of his thoughtful exposition is that he isn't as entertaining and personable as, say, Steven Johnson. One bright exception was the few pages discussing the "gangster-film theory of business". As a model of the corporation, we have The Godfather, Part II with the powerful Corleone dynasty directing a huge network of businesses (on both sides of the law). Heat provides a model for the agile, intimate workings of small-enterprise. And then we there are groups like in Reservoir Dogs, performing a simple one-off project and disbanding afterward. So perhaps none of those are models of success, but it's great stuff nonetheless.
