234 - ESGs
Many organizations are currently asking themselves some version of the question “What organizational structure can deliver progress on the ESGs?” (Environmental, Social, and Governance)
The problems are well enough understood, that only ~4% of information reaches decision-makers at the top and that the data being lost is systematically biased each step of the way up. Information and related objectives are also poorly integrated and compared across departments, losing nuance and context in every attempt. 1,000 different poor solutions have been proposed and tried, leading many to “abandon all hope”.
As I’ve said before, if I’m bothering to talk about it then yes, there is a viable solution for it. The first “interim” systems my team is planning to deploy on the road to completing our full rebuild focuses on cases such as this, where a system with human-like understanding, reasoning, and memory is brought online to help serve as the “living” mind of an organization, something not even remotely possible with any other technology seen today.
Such systems could, for example:
-
Assist a Board of Directors with complete and interactive access to the full scope of an organization’s knowledge, current pain points, and potential future concerns.
-
Actively volunteer relevant information, supporting or debunking what is being discussed, as well as preparing analyses in minutes, rather than days or weeks.
-
Iteratively improve governance, operation, and cooperation, increasing the company’s ability to pivot into opportunities as they emerge.
For a more advanced and complete integration, a company could also architect their org chart around such systems, replacing typical and often tall hierarchies with direct connections to the mind of the organization for every employee. One version of this is illustrated in the attached image, where employees from interns to the CEO all interact with the system in different capacities, each fulfilling their respective roles as part of that interaction.
In this chart executives serve their roles, considering the objectives within their respective scopes, and the AGI or sub-AGI Collective Intelligence System dynamically considers the objectives, prioritizing them. With the full scope of data considered and objectives integrated and prioritized, they may be operationalized, distributing tasks to employees based on their skills, performance, availability, etc.
In all cases, employees both give feedback to and receive it from these systems, and communication with every employee can grow increasingly personalized, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all corporate standard communication and the crippling fear of being scapegoated or arbitrarily “canceled” that many in such environments now live in. Employees are directly and genuinely “cared for” by their companies under this paradigm, as the company gains an actual mind of its own, and corresponding degrees of both agency and empathy.
