In finishing The Networked Nonprofit, I find a few ideas are worth discussion. Throughout the text, Kanter and Fine suggest increasing the contributions of individuals typically beyond the traditional confines of non-profit organizations. Through the various platforms of social media, the authors recommend non-profit integration of the public’s insights, perspectives, comments, and wisdom. Kanter and Fine go so far as to suggest that non-profit governance should be a more open activity, allowing the public to democratically participate in board meetings and communications. As discussed last week, the increase in public participation yields a bit (or even a considerable amount) of control to the community. Though utilizing social media and relishing the involvement of the public allow a given organization to cultivate its image (or control/influence the public’s perception of the agency) as more civically concerned, the organization is nonetheless actively ceding some amount of control. As Kanter and Fine state, “We know power will continue to shift from institutions toward individuals” (p. 163). With the growing emphasis on public input and ideas, public ownership takes on a new meaning. As this transition gains fervor, we must question the nature of formal human resources. Will future organizations require administrators, staff, and board members? As of now, it appears they are needed, as official internal “moderators” use the medium of social media to engage the community. However, we must consider whether this may change.
The nature of the human resource transforms as technologies are applied to our public and private institutions. This conjures images of machines rendering factory laborers obsolete. Once-complicated tasks are now often automated processes, requiring no more than “a press of a button” or “a click of the mouse.” Telemarketing and customer-service operating systems invoke conversation with automated voices, leaving some of us screaming “operator, Operator, OPERATOR [expletive]!” In addition, as a former grocery store cashier, automated checkout systems are particularly vexing. Surely there is something special in the face-to-face encounter with an overworked cashier earning just over (but still over!) minimum wage, as well as the joy cashiers themselves experience in the delight of “scan-scan-bag-bag.” Technological integration is all around us, challenging our notions of employment, business, governance, non-profits, society, and hopefully existence.
Next week, on February 14-16, the long-running television game-show ‘Jeopardy!’ will air a special tournament, in which an IBM artificial intelligence system will face the show’s two most successful contestants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1c7s7-3fXI, http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/what-is-watson/index.html). The system applies many complicated faculties, such as natural language processing and reasoning which were previously reserved for living beings. Technology has advanced to the point in which technical developers are closely modeling and simulating human cognitive abilities, whereas artificial intelligence may possibly rival and surpass that of our species within a few decades. Advanced technologies are also allowing researchers to attain a greater understanding of the workings of the human brain, mind, and thus consciousness. As artificial intelligence and human knowledge advance (either of which assists the other endeavor), we may find that these innovations will continue to transform existing norms and institutions far beyond those implied by the Kanter and Fine book. Suffice it to say, the human resource may mean something entirely different.
In closing, Kanter and Fine write, “The future is never a linear pathway forward from where we stand right now” (p. 163). Here, the authors appear to refer to evolution or technological advancement. In reflecting on the advancement of our species, at least from prehistory through the industrial revolution to today, we should recognize a “greater-than-linear” pattern, or development at an exponential (accelerating) rate. Though it is interesting to ponder the fundamental limits of computation, we must question whether society is ready to integrate profound technological advancement. With the strife and instability riddled in our nation and abroad, our species’ destructive forces challenge our harmonious, constructive abilities. Are we malleable and open-minded? Or are we calcified and obstinate? Will our species experience dystopian tragedy? I do not know. However, I do know that I am not happy that I will not be able to watch all three initial airings of the Jeopardy! special due to class. I jeer and frown.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteFirst, your "operator" comment could not be more on point.
Secondly, Zhanna had brought up something similar to this in class on Tuesday. She mentioned that if everyone in the nonprofit world starts working only through blog posts and spreading information via social media there will be no one left to organization live, in-person, events. While virtual marches in support of those in Egypt are important, there will never be a replacement for the impact of actual people in the streets. So, from that perspective, I hope that organizations will not entirely forgo their staff members. I hope instead that organizations use social media to “build relationships” with people, relationships that will bring those people/supports out to actual events when necessary (events run by wonderful staff members like those in our class.)
A noticeable pattern has emerged in which many public and private sector functions are becoming automated by ever-more intelligent systems. Similarly, the public is becoming further integrated, whereas the ease of information communication is increasing. As this continues, I imagine that our institutions will continue to transform (which may likely affect non-profit staffing). Otherwise, the absence of such adaptation may result in hegemony by those who have access to the most contemporary technologies.
ReplyDeleteWithout employing advanced technologies throughout our institutions, we can imagine a world in which factions, apart from the masses, may opportunistically utilize innovation. If we appreciate the advancement of technology and the associated growth of extant knowledge, we can predict that at least some individuals will have the most up-to-date tools at their disposal, given that it may not be possible to completely relinquish technological growth. Would we rather live in a society in which technological access is free and open, or would we be more comfortable with a governing body paternalistically controlling our freedoms as it so chooses? Perhaps somewhere in between?
Social media is currently maturing, likely to evolve into something more sophisticated along the pattern of advancement we have previously experienced (i.e. the personal computer in the 1980s, the internet in the 1990s, social media in the 2000s). For me, it is not a matter of if, but when organizations (and society) will become much more virtual/digital. This development will encourage society to reflect on its traditional institutions, which will require consistent modernization (as inferred by the recommendations contained within The Network Nonprofit).
As of now, we have organizations resembling those of the past. However, this may very well change, as I do not foresee the long-term sustainability of our traditional institutions. I do hope that society will adapt, transforming organizations into something different and staff-less. Akin to the factory worker, non-profit employees are replaceable. Evolution may render our labor obsolete. Controversial? Yes, but worth contemplation. We cannot expect society to remain so similar to its modern form with the rate of technological advancement.
We are beginning to experience the technological paradigm as occurring at the nano-scale (nanometer) level. Nanotechnology, or computing at the molecular level, is said to drastically continue the perceived exponential progress in information technology. Consider all technological process society has achieved thus far, and recognize that nanotechnology is just beginning. For those of us unfamiliar with nanotechnology, a bit of internet exploration on the subject may be worth your while.
I also hope that individuals and organizations will continue to develop and build relationships among each other in an effort to promote a responsible and harmonious future. Is this not (one of) the purpose(s) of the non-profit/voluntary/third sector?