Keywords

In the last chapter, I discussed why Tech companies in particular are especially prone to acting and being Socially Irresponsible. We also discussed the major difficulties in changing their behavior.

In this chapter, I want to approach the matter from the complete opposite end. I want to talk about the nature of the Socially Responsible Organization.

There is no end to the critical qualities that an organization needs to possess before it can be said to be Socially Responsible. But surely one of the most important is its fervent desire to do as much as humanly possible to anticipate and thereby thwart as many of the unanticipated and unintended consequences, and thereby the inherent dangers, of its products and services.

To say that such a task is onerous is putting it mildly. It calls for the broadest possible set of skills and talents imaginable. It demands nothing less than Inter and Transdisciplinary thinking of the highest order. More than the vast majority of organizations realize and thus are able to embody, the following disciplines and professions play a key role in whether they are able to come even close to attaining it. In the best of all worlds, it means having the following cast of players with advanced degrees and experience in major positions. Since this is beyond the capabilities of most organizations, it requires an Advisory Board with as many of the chief players on it as possible:

  • Clinical Psychologists

  • Child Development Experts

  • Organizational Psychologists

  • Legal Experts

  • Political Scientists

  • Crisis Management Experts

  • Medical Experts

  • Journalists

Given that the products and services of an organization are capable of being used in ways of causing severe emotional harm to its users, especially the young, elderly, and more vulnerable members of society—Social Media are again the primary culprit—Clinical Psychologists play an indispensable role in anticipating such dire effects. Indeed, what are the critical Warning Signs that one needs to monitor carefully that precede the likely occurrence of harmful events? Hopefully, with appropriate warnings, one can thereby act preemptively thus preventing them from happening. Once again, what does it say about the emotional and Ethical fiber of an organization as in the case of Facebook that it knowingly caused harm in its relentless pursuit of profits “at any cost” [pun intended]?

This is not to say that Clinical Psychologists are prefect by any means in uncovering potential problems, but that properly engaged, they are invaluable in ferreting out the potential ill effects of an organization’s products and services. In effect, Chap. 2 made use of Clinical Psychology by means of a deeper analysis of the disturbed reasoning responsible for the arguments/claims for not getting vaccinated.

(To be perfectly candid, while I’m a Fellow of The American Psychological Association for my work in General Psychology, and I’m a lifelong student of Psychoanalytic Thought, I am not a Clinician.)

Similarly, since all Technologies have the potential to affect children, whether they are its primary intended users or not, Experts in Child Development also play an invaluable role. The point is that in today’s world, children have access to and are affected by everything around them, especially if it’s not intended for them and therefore off-limits.

Organizational Psychologists are equally critical. The Culture of an organization is crucial in explaining why Unethical Behavior is not only accepted, but allowed to flourish.

To emphasize an earlier point, the Culture of organizations is so powerful that it accounts for up to 80% of their behavior. It’s so commanding that it forces people to go along with attitudes and behaviors that clearly violate their most sacred and deeply held convictions.

Political Scientists, Sociologists, and Legal Experts are vital in ascertaining whether the products and services favor certain members of the public while systematically disadvantaging others, not to mention portraying them in unfavorable terms. Will they promote division and divisiveness? Will they set family members and longtime friends against one another? Do they promote racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice and the maltreatment of others? As in the case of Social Media, do they feed on and amplify our worst instincts and insecurities?

In terms of Crisis Management, will the products and services not only cause enumerable crises for the communities and larger society of which they are a part, but for the members of an organization as well, especially those who are willing to speak out and contest its business practices? I say more about this in the last chapter.

Given that future Pandemics are virtually guaranteed to occur, Medical Experts can help prepare an organization for their disastrous effects on its members and the communities in which they live and serve. Even more, they can help identify the ways in which an organization can contribute to containing versus furthering the Pandemic.

While these only touch on the wide variety of academic disciplines and professions that are vital in ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of the users of an organization’s products and services, they are sufficient to show the general nature of what’s required if an organization is to have any hope of even recognizing, let alone curtailing, the unanticipated consequences and ill effects of its products and services.

One of the most vital players are Journalists. Indeed, if I had only one key recommendation to make, it would be to hire an Ex Investigative Reporter to conduct intensive interviews with as many members of an organization as possible. The goal is to uncover as many potential crises as possible for which they and their organization will be held responsible, and thus portrayed in the worst possible light and thereby judged harshly. In other words, properly used, Journalists serve as key Early Warning Signals of potential crises. Failing to attend to such Signals is the cause of far too many crises. Facebook is once again guilty as charged.

Indeed, a recent cover of The Week showed a highly unflattering picture of Mark Zuckerberg holding a can of gasoline with the letter “f” emblazoned on it, thereby pouring gas on a fire symbolic of Facebook’s “incendiary influence” on the world.Footnote 1 For another, in prominent op-eds. The New York Times called explicitly for the resignation of Zuckerberg.Footnote 2 It’s completely beyond the pale as to how anyone and any organization can survive such horrid portrayals and strident demands for change.

I’m the first to admit how daunting the task described in this chapter is. I’m aware of no organization that even comes close to doing all of the above. Indeed, even if an organization is more than willing, it’s generally too much to do all at once. One has no choice but to start slow and build as many coalitions as one can both inside and outside of an organization as possible.

The Chief Legal Officer of an organization is not only the natural starting point, but a key internal Stakeholder. Charged as they are with protecting it legally, they are often the senior most officers that are privy to the full range of potential crises and threats to which their organization is subject. Indeed, as much as possible, it’s their basic job to protect the organization from them.

Unfortunately, many organizations and their Chief Officers do not see it this way. And so they stumble from one crisis to another until the organization finally implodes, taking all those who depend on it down with it.

Postscript: Meta Mistakes: It’s All in a Name

Facebook’s rebranding itself as Meta only proves further how completely out of touch it is with even the most minimal understanding of human behavior. If it were more in touch, it would have contemplated a very different set of names. For names are more than just convenient brands. They are major signifiers to the world of the basic soul and spirit of an organization.

In terms of the Myers-Briggs Personality Typology Inventory, the names that the different Types would give to an organization provides further evidence with regard to the nature of the Socially Responsible Organization. The names flow directly from their main concerns.

Short-Term Technical or STs are concerned primarily with the continued profitability and thereby the very existence of an organization. To help ensure their continued survival, they strive to provide as many detailed rules as possible for the safe and reliable use and operation of their products and services. To guarantee that they are indeed used as intended, they collect enumerable statistics with regard to how people actually use them. In this way, they specify more rules as needed as well as undertaking efforts to educate their users. Indeed, as a general consideration, they believe that all problems can be addressed by specifying as many detailed rules as possible. The names that best suits them are Dependable/Reliable Inc., Safe and Steady, or something to the like.

Long-Term Technical or NTs are concerned primarily with identifying serious unmet needs and inventing innovative products and services that satisfy them. The key word is “Innovative.” They want nothing more than to be out front of everybody and thereby “stake their claim to being first.” The names that best suits them are Innovation Inc., Out Front, or something to the like.

With its emphasis on ever expanding connectivity, Meta certainly falls within the scope. But the thing to note is that it only does it for NT, not for the other Personality Types.

Long-Term Human-Centered or NFs are concerned with products and services that serve the collective good, especially those that bring us together and thus bridge and heal the enormous divides between us. The names that best suits them are Community First, Working Together, All In Together, or something to the like.

Short-Term Human-Centered or SFs are concerned primarily with products and services that help them to achieve their personal goals, especially those which help heal whatever divisions exist within their immediate families and close circle of friends. The names that best suits them are We’re Family, Here For You, Trust, or something to the like.

To reiterate, the names we concoct reveal a great deal about us. They are not trivial in the slightest. Ideally, one would choose a name that would appeal to all of the Types. It would be something like Working for You.

Finally, what does one do when the name of one’s company matches latest variants of Covid 19? Delta and Omicron are primary cases in point. Talk about the need for Crisis Management!

Reflections

Can you identify an organization that you consider to be Socially Responsible? What do you know about it, especially how it got that way? Was it that way from the very beginning? What does it say about the education and values its founders?

Conversely, what organization(s) would you identify as being Socially Irresponsible? What do you know about them such that they are that way?