A.I.—It’s a Gold Rush

Clearly there is much anticipation in regards to artificial intelligence (A.I.).  Depending upon your system of orientation, the anticipation is for profit to be made or of problems to be mitigated. So, we have to ask: Is there really gold in them-there hills?

The Context

This is happening within the context of capitalism. The capitalist society’s system of orientation is a mechanistic materialistic world wherein the environment (Nature and society) is comprised of objects to be manipulate and exploited in service of one’s own material gain—it is called self-interest maximization, profit, wealth accumulation.  It is a system of orientation void of morality since it is all about ‘me’ getting ‘mine’ with no regard for the impact on any ‘we’—in fact there is not ‘we’, especially in the neoliberal version.  Thus the captains of industry—those in authority—are forever seeking the next profit making thing, which is often the latest disaster to exploit or technology to use as the means to this end, with little to no regard for the adverse effects upon people and society—using instruments at hand to get what they desire.

Collateral Damage

For a very large swath of people in society, the commercialization of A.I. means the increased commodification of people—something tantamount to people’s manipulation and exploitation on steroids. It seems reasonable to see this as a logical extension of the mechanistic materialistic system of orientation, upon which capitalism rests. In this context, A.I. is essentially a machine (an instrument) for use in profit generating endeavors as are people (units of labor).  Given that machines are driven, why else would business leaders speak about ‘driving for results’.  Clearly, the terms we use are telling of our (unconscious) system of orientation guiding our decision-making and behavior, which includes what we value.  

If a cost doesn’t show up as a line item on the balance sheet or income statement, then it is an external cost (a.k.a. collateral damage in the pursuit of profit) and thus the lack of concern for and responsibility to society.  There are so many externalities when technology is a tool for manipulation and exploitation in the pursuit of profit and power.

A.I. Could Mitigate Soft-Skills Dilemma for Management & Reduce Costs

When people cease to be just units of labor and act out of their inherent humanness,  expressing what is felt, then managing/leading requires a very human core-to-core relationship between the leader and the led; a difficult task for those managing the machine and driving for results. Many managers, even leaders, in the business organization find it difficult to access their capacity for soft-skills—those associated with both social and emotional intelligence—to effectively work with subordinates who present very human (i.e. emotional) issues.

However,  A.I. replacing people will fit well with such business managers/leaders, since A.I. doesn’t express feelings, or a need for meaning, or a requirement to have basic human needs met.  Accordingly, with fewer people and their associated costs, A.I. could likely reduce the expenses/cost of labor and its associated items. Less expenses means greater profit, which is the intent of business. So, it’s all good! Or is it?

Past Patterns are Telling

How can we be confident that the enthusiasm and all-out excitement for A.I. is about the prospect of profit making without regard for any unintended adverse consequences to people and society?  All we have to do is do what an AI algorithm would do; use the pattern in data of the past to decide an action—note to decide is to predict that the chosen action will yield a desirable outcome.

Here are a few patterns from the past: a) the fossil fuel industry continues seeking profit unabated by the well-established detrimental impact upon the viability of life on this planet; b) the Internet technology afforded the commercialization of social media in the manipulation and exploitation of its users; and c) the gun industry continues seeking to maximize profit even while society is experiences ever-increasing frequency of gun violence and death.  All of these illustrate the manipulation and exploitation of people treated as objects–viewed as collateral damage and external costs—in the pursuit of profit.  What’s the likelihood that  A.I. in the hands of the business-minded (a.k.a. profit maximizers) would yield a different pattern?

As reported by Public Citizen

“Right now, businesses are deploying potentially dangerous A.I. tools faster than their harms can be understood or mitigated. History offers no reason to believe that corporations can self-regulate away the known risks – especially since many of these risks are as much a part of generative A.I. as they are of corporate greed. Businesses rushing to introduce these new technologies are gambling with peoples’ lives and livelihoods, and arguably with the very of foundations of a free society and livable world.”

It has even become evident to the business friendly press that the foreseeable `problems from AI’s commercialization are multiple.  A short list of these include: 1) manipulation through misinformation; 2) unemployment–life destruction through job loss; 3) bias from big-data itself; 4) the future is constrained by the past– limited creativity since A.I. is mere machine training using big-data which is of the past; 5) rarity of out-of-the-box thinking– likely A.I. can only foresee what the past would suggest; 6) people’s capability for decision making will go the way of people’s capability for cursive writing has gone due to keyboard use.

Let’s just consider this: While the decision-making process involves the use of information, if not knowledge/understanding, to decide a course of action, it also requires the use of values to assess the moral soundness of each possible action.  To a great extent this calls upon the morality and humanness—the care and concern of others—of the decision-maker. Though A.I.’s (machine) learning uses Big Data, which likely includes the correlations/associations or thoughts inherent in the patterns in the data, does this mean that an A.I. algorithm is or can be thoughtful in the same sense as a human being?

What’s more likely, that for those people whose job is lost to A.I. that: a) the leaders of the organization will find more meaningful if not creative work in the organization for them to do or; b) that the leaders will discard them as they would any other no longer useful tool? 

Internal Impact Upon the Organization Overlooked

What about innovation (from within), which requires the inventiveness of people who are doing the organization’s work?  After all, they possess the most knowledge about the work!  It must not be overlooked that people are capable of creating new knowledge to the extent that the leaders of the organization facilitate/enable collaboration between/among them, the sharing of knowledge (more accurately sharing understanding of knowledge), and dialoguing about ideas.  If, however, A.I. replaces many people then, even though robots can exchange information with other robots, one must ask, can new knowledge emerge through collaboration, sharing knowledge-based understanding, the dialogue on ideas among robots? 

Of course, the organization would not be void of people, just those whose job can be replaced by A.I.  For those remaining, what about the lack of trust that is enacted through the elimination of co-workers in the organization? What is the effect of mistrust upon organization to maintain its competitiveness and remain viable?  What benefit to society would be such organizations?  Just imagine the organizational culture and climate in such organizations!

A Wise Thing to Do: Perhaps We Should Stop and Think

Let’s challenge ourselves to critically think about the prospects of A.I.  Perhaps the following could be a starting point for exploration, perspective gaining and understanding:

• Who (or is it what) created A.I.?  Was it people/human creativity or just an organically emergent A.I. algorithm, without direct human involvement, from which it was created?

• Is A.I. really an equal replacement for human intelligence (H.I.)? If so, why is such a replacement necessary? In the replacement: What’s gained?  What’s lost?

• A.I. versus the human mind (H.M.): Should this be?

• In the A.I. replacement, what of the H.M.: with A.I., should we discard any development of the mind? Why?

• The H.M. can change/transform itself to the benefit of humankind.  Can A.I. do the same? If it can transform itself would this be one guided by a deep sense of connection to the living world?

• What could be the benefit of A.I. for humanity?  How can A.I. aid in our development as human beings?  As a society?  What should be the benefit of A.I. for people, for humanity?

• If A.I. development could benefit humanity, then who has the wisdom to administer over continued development and use? 

• What are the parallels between A.I. and nuclear weaponry? Should A.I. be developed? 

What Kind of Manager/Leader

Whether you are a unit supervisor, department manager, division director, vice president or president you no doubt are responsible for the functioning and performance of said entity.  So the question is, what kind of manager/leader are you?

The response categories for this question, if posed as multiple choice, are from the commonly used management/leadership books.  Specifically, which of the following best aligns with your go-to practice: a) laissez faire hands-off :b) authoritarian command-and-control; c) transactional reward-punishment-based; d) transformational vision-change based; e) servant leader-based?  

Bias in Self-Views

Many people will choose the category that they themselves would want to be managed/lead by, and if asked in an interview, they’d choose the category they think the interviewer requires.  It is also (very) likely, the response many provide aligns with the style they believe themselves to be—better than average–which may not fit with reality.  How many of us  feel we are a caring, honest, trustworthy, fair and better than average, and correspondingly an in-kind manager/leader? 

Note: Statistically speaking, assuming a human trait/behavior is approximately normally distributed—wherein the average is the center of the distribution—half of the population would be below average and half would be above average. Thus the tendency of many casting themselves as above average—effectually more favorably in comparison to others—contradicts this statistical fact thus indicating self-assessment bias.

If those who are egoistic, dishonest, untrustworthy, and generally uncaring actually acknowledged this about themselves, the few who had the courage—the inner strength–would make the necessary changes. Unfortunately, to such people image is everything, so they are quite adept both at denial and at charismatically presenting the very opposite facade to others, especially for career advancement.

Advance in the Organization’s Hierarchy

The fact of the matter is that there is a higher percentage of psychopathic behavior evident among those residing in the executive suite than is represented in the general population.

Perhaps some might ask: How could this be? 

Because behavior must be understood within a context (as argued here and here), I must counter with: In a capitalist culture/environment wherein self-interest maximizing is raison d’etre how could it not be? That is to say, with the incidence in the executive suite being 3 to 5 times greater, the evidence points to career paths to the executive level are paved by those with such traits.

Perhaps, at least in the (capitalist) corporate-world, the lesson tacitly learned is nice-guys/gals do finish last!

Context for Optimal Collective Functioning

Ever heard the adage (attributed to Ken Blanchard) none of us is as smart as all of us? Translation: The collaborating minds of many people is better—more effective toward understanding, knowledge creation and problem solving–than all complying with the thoughts of one person. If we all adhere to the thinking of one person, then only one of us is necessary—hardly an optimally effective group! 

Groupthink—often seen as compliance—occurs when the group decision-making process discourages, if not disallows, individuals to think critically and question.  Another relevant quote, this from George Orwell (1984), “power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”  Groupthink does this very thing!

The optimal functioning of the collective—be it a, group, a team, a department, a division, the corporation–rests upon the degree of realized interdependence among autonomous, self-initiating and free-thinking people comprising the collective. Accordingly for best performance, leaders must create the context—both physical and psychological space—for the constituent self-initiating members to realize their humanness and in so doing continue to embrace learning as they manifest their unique talents and creativity for the benefit of all.

The context provided for the group/collective by the leader is through the formal and informal organizing structure, which is greatly influenced by the system of orientation (i.e. mechanistic worldview versus living systems worldview) held by those in-authority. The former being mind-numbing and thus life inhibiting and the latter life sustaining, if not enhancing.

What We Often Experience

Let’s first consider managing/leading people as objects, as units of labor/skills. In this scenario, managers/leaders often are heard saying they are tasked with driving their group/team/department/division/company to goal attainment.  We must recognize that the  language we use can be telling in regard to our orienting view of reality.  So when people speak of needing to drive goal accomplishment they are expressing their mechanistic orientation—it is machines that are driven.  Accordingly, individuals as units of labor/parts of the company (i.e. profit-making machine) need to be acted upon/moved to act as the one-with-authority desires.

In this mechanistic context, the best way to move an object is with the application of a force, and in this case the force is in the form of the prospect of reward/punishment. That is, the application of Skinnerian behaviorism—which is mechanistic—via a stimulus-response mechanism.  This approach is in line with the implied employment contract, if you do what I want you to do then I will give you what you need (i.e. means to live life)! The corresponding punishment flip side of this proposition is, if you don’t do what I want you to do then I won’t give you what you need!  Clearly, offering of a reward/incentive can’t be separated from its opposite, the prospect of being punished, of not getting the reward.

In this scenario the manager/leader is the one motivated: that is, motivated to get the task done and the employee is the one acted upon (incentivized) to move in the manager’s desired direction (note that moving another is not synonymous with motivation of the other).  This approach aligns with both the authoritative and transactional styles of leading, which is position-based not relationship-based; it is a power-over others (as if property) way of managing/leading.

What Is Rarely Experienced Yet Needed

As argued here, organizational development greatly depends upon human development.  Moreover, organizations need leaders because the organization is at base a collective of people—it is the people who need the leadership experience (as argued here).

It is further argued again here, that the leadership that could best afford human development, and thus organizational development—and in turn a more sustainable world–is human development intended leadership which requires a caring, empathic, authentic, and morally-principled way-of-being.  After all, because we can only speak of leadership in regards to people, it ought to be personhood-based not position-based!

Perhaps we could begin thinking more deeply by exploring a few questions. What kind of person (that is, what way-of-being) would best be for a manager/leader to afford optimal functioning of a collective of people?  What approach to leading would enable power-to people thus enabling critical thinking and creative thinking?  What approach would foster the intra and interpersonal relationships essential to whole-person/human development, thus enabling higher level performance; that is, human productivity and in turn organizational productivity? What kind of management and organizing structure would turn the job into a joy? What way-of-being by those in-authority is needed for modeling-the-way for the members of the organization?

What You Need To Be

The above points to the essential need for people to be managed/lead in such a way so that they are enabled to be the self-initiating free-thinking persons who are interdependent with the other self-initiating free-thinking persons they are in collaboration with as members of the collective (i.e. group, team, department, division, company). That is, people as self-initiating persons are to be respected as such and supported in their development, not treated as objects to be manipulated and acted upon.

Accordingly, organizations need leaders of people who acts upon the understanding that the potential of the organization greatly depends the collaboration among the people and more specifically it emerges from the human productivity of these relationships.

So how would one manage/lead the collaboration of self-initiating people (not objects and units of labor)?  What way-of-being would afford this?

Unfortunately All Too Similar Prognostications

The Doomsday Clock has been recently set at 90-seconds. Why 90-seconds?  Let’s name just a few interrelated reasons: increased probability of nuclear escalation from a Ukraine war that continues without noticeable significant talks for peace; unabated warming of the climate thus diminishing the viability of a life on this planet; continued loss of biodiversity; continuing  pollution of air and water; disregarding the need to mitigate the emergence of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.  As Rachel Bronson, Ph.D. (president and CEO, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) said: “We are living in a time of unprecedented danger, and the Doomsday Clock time reflects that reality. 90 seconds to midnight is the closest the Clock has ever been set to midnight, and it’s a decision our experts do not take lightly.”

Yet, given this frank reality, few have been paying attention. Could it be that people are so consumed by the rat race (possibly even addicted?), in the day-to-day getting and spending to meet their basic needs?

Humans aren’t inherently consumed by or addicted to things, rather such behavior is a (tacitly) learned behavior in relation to that thing.  It is learned behavior through constant practice/experience—habitual behavior.  The constant practice and experience of capitalism has by design made for an un-attentive, if not apathetic, citizenry.  Most all industrialized societies are in different degrees capitalistic.

In the U.S., essentially since the early 70’s–following the blueprint put forth in the Powell Memo—the captains of business & industry (a.k.a. professional management class, the business-minded class) have successfully captured (and defunded) the public sphere. Effectually, making the political class a class of business-minded sycophants, turning main stream news and healthcare into profit seeking enterprises, remaking public education into a test-taking training space yielding an uncritical thinking citizenry, and turning higher education into an economic hardship for most.  In short, keeping people concerned about meeting their basic human needs—see  so they don’t have time to place focused attention to what’s really happening to them.

Management’s use extrinsic motivation (a.k.a. reward/punishment, operant conditioning) techniques as the way to incite desired behavior among those they have legitimate power/authority over is capturing us as individuals as well.  That is, many of us experiencing extrinsic motivation management practices which Ryan and Deci (2020) found that over time we internalize these extrinsic motivating sources.  The implication of extrinsic motivation becoming internalized is that individuals come to believe that the external sources are internal—that the motivation is coming from within them—when in reality the motivational stimulus is coming from outside of us, thus supplanting the emergence of inherent need for development—we become alienated from our very own humanity.  No wonder so many of us don’t experience the vitalizing spirit and joy from the work we do—and sadly we are unaware as to why.

Having captured society’s institutions, if not much of society itself, capitalism’s intent of wealth accumulation through each atomized individual pursuing unlimited material growth has created a general disregard for life itself.  Business as usual translates into societal suicide. 

It is long overdue that we think critically about what is actually happening and to do what we can to make this world a very human world, and reject the capitalistic “what’s-in-it-for-me-world’.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people aren’t even paying attention or capable of thinking critically. For them the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is no different than the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club. 

Reference

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices and future directions. Contemporary Educational psychology, 61, 1-11.

Sustainability, But of What

Sustainability is something we often read and hear about, especially lately.  More to the point, many are concerned about, if not interested in acting to reduce and/or remove the factors that diminish the sustainability of a healthful environment.  If you aren’t among the concerned many, then likely you are among the willfully blind or willfully ignorant.

We Are Human

Why has the use of analytics seemingly become the key tool of those in management? Why the unfettered use of analytics?

Avoid Change in the Extreme

The only thing constant in life is change—Heraclitus. With change being constant in life, change is not avoidable through life.

 

With this in mind, denying (the need for) change, is denying life. Refusing to deal with it in the present is refusing to be life affirming in the present. This way of being doesn’t stop change from arising—given its constancy—it only ensures having to deal with it in its extreme later.

Potential Psychopaths Us All

In the article Three Things to Know to Hold Wells Fargo Accountable the author Lynn Parramore (Senior Research Analyst at Institute of New Economic Thinking) relays what William Lazonick (Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Lowell) identified as the three things we need to know: 1) American businesses have become stock manipulation machines; 2) focusing on short-term stock prices leads to corruption; and 3) punishment means little until executive pay is understood. The first essentially speaks to the profit maximizing intent of business and its executives and the second to the importance of it happening now if not sooner while the third is that the entire scheme is ultimately profitable because of the enormous size of the gains. So now that we know these things, what are we to do about it?

Clueless in a Human World

The authors of a recent HBR article, Wells Fargo and the Slippery Slope of Sales Incentives, provided the answer “to meet sales quotas and earn incentives” to the question “why they (they being the lower level employees of Wells Fargo) did this in the first place.” The “this” being unethical if not illegally selling and charging customers for services they did not need or request. It seems that the perspective here is that the employees where at fault, after all they are the ones who acted fraudulently!

There’s No Substitute for Understanding

In a December 3^rd Harvard Business Review article (Rescuing Capitalism from Itself) Henry Mintzberg noted “since 1989, the United States has experienced some alarming changes, for example the massive infiltration of corporate money into public elections, disquieting levels of corruption in business, rising income disparities, and the decline, of all things in this country, of social mobility.”

 

How have these alarming changes come about? Are these the result of outside forces or are they the result of the economic system itself?

If We Cared About Our Development

A recent HBR article (Why companies are so bad at treating employees like people) by Herminia Ibarra speaks to the need to re-invent the workplace if there is to be human development at work. As Ibarra characterizes it, this re-invention requires “reimagining complex organizations so that they are more human and agile.” The implication seems to be that making organizations more human and agile involves solving the “thorny problem of developing people.”