Magazine menu Close Magazine menu

Transparency

Latest stories

going remote

Going fully remote? Here’s why trust will matter to your success.

  • min read
    • After many learned fast to work from home during the pandemic, organizations now face a more deliberate choice on how to conduct business. How much do we really need to be in the office – if at all? The quest has provoked high-profile battles between employees and management. Apple employees petitioned to keep their flexible work arrangements. It may be complex to offer employees the choice to come into the office or work remotely – often called 'hybrid work' – tempting businesses to impose a set schedule for all. Big tech companies such as Google and Tesla are driving hard to get their employees in the office more often. Twitter offers full-time remote work if employees want it, but such arrangements are usually limited to techy start-ups. Why and how might other kinds of businesses go fully remote? At the heart of this question is trust between employees and management. I wrote in my book, You lead: How being yourself makes you a better leader, "Building trust is the critical glue to keep workflow and outputs effective." The intention to go fully remote must address three elements – in order of importance: Employee engagement, customer benefit and business results. Remote work upsides and downsides A Capgemini Research Institute study in 2020 showed remote work may reduce overheads by up to 48 percent. The remote option may be obvious for tech companies like pure ecommerce businesses or software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers, especially if they're already interacting with all clients digitally. But there will always be industries where fully remote just doesn't work – even desk-based businesses like legal may need central secure storage for documents. Even for a techy workforce, fully remote isn't easy and needs careful consideration. For example, work from anywhere (WFA) is different than work from home (WFH) or work from a specific geographic region. A Flexjobs study showed 95 percent of remote jobs still require a location. It's also easy to get lured into remote work because of the savings or because employees want it. Some companies, including Google, Twitter and Facebook, want to pay remote workers less, and some employees are willing to accept lower pay for remote work's convenience and flexibility. But different pay for remote and in-office workers will introduce a challenging variable in optimizing performance and recognizing contributions. Office-based workers already get greater recognition and credit than those who work from home. Productivity impacts A two-year Stanford study on remote work released in 2017 showed a 13 percent productivity gain and reduced turnover in employees working remotely, compared with their in-office counterparts. But the study didn't consider customer success or long-term employee satisfaction, and over half the remote workers felt isolated and wanted to return to the office at least sometimes. Productivity gains can also be elusive, depending on existing culture, sector and processes. The report Killing Time at Work '22 testifies to many companies' poor practice in trying to make working remotely function well. Study author Tariq Rauf, CEO of team software provider Qatalog, wrote, "Digital presenteeism is pervasive, with employees working an extra hour each day to show they're still online and contributing, due to fear colleagues and bosses will think they aren't working hard enough." Who's going fully remote? Few well-known companies have opted for fully remote. In Flexjobs' top 30 companies with the most work-from-anywhere job postings, recognizable names include Wikimedia and Airbnb. Then there are less well-known tech brands like open-source research and development provider Protocol Labs, services like content moderators ModSquad and naturally remote companies like Study.com for online learning. None are traditional businesses, suggesting legacy companies are staunchly anchored to their offices. So, leaders considering moving their whole organization or a team to fully remote work should consider these elements. 1.  Build trust and improve communication First, above all else, answer honestly: How much do you trust your team or workforce, and how much do they trust you and other leaders? Establishing trust and rapport is always important in business, but in remote conditions, you must be more attentive and intentional in fostering and retaining trust. Communications are particularly important, especially informal exchanges and channels. For example, when will you have a casual check-in to talk about more personal affairs and less official work? Tyree D. Mitchell, author of Searching for trust in the global economy with Jeanne M. Brett, says, "To unite a team, create a team charter representing how the team works as partners. Explain your objective, role and how people should communicate and be accountable." He also suggests taking into account cultural norms and differences around building trust when dealing with an international team. 2.  Make your intentions clear If going 100 percent remote is a radical departure from the past, be honest about the company's intention. Will it help achieve strategic goals? How does it relate to the company's overall purpose? Does it help your environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals? If your motivation is largely cutting cost through less or no office space, or improving efficiencies and productivity (for example, by eliminating commuting,) double-down on employee engagement and customer satisfaction. There are many reasons offices appeal to some people, like teamwork, socializing and status. Being transparent and including your team in your decision-making process will help the transformation succeed. Your action plan In constructing your action plan to go fully remote, there are five key considerations. First, take an honest look at your existing culture – how you communicate and behave, workflows and levels of trust. What should you keep and what needs changing? Second, involve your team in your decision-making around the transition. Third, consider carefully how to best serve your customers, including how to gain and onboard new ones. Fourth, embrace the messiness! Ensure constant feedback and stay flexible to work through challenges. Finally, ensure you have the right technologies to facilitate workflows and teamwork needed for customer success. Prioritise cybersecurity when choosing your tech and give your staff regular training in how to keep your business cyber safe.
trust global business

New research on how to build trusted business relationships worldwide

  • min read
    • Trust is the building block of all relationships, but the way we build trust in business isn't the same the world over. Tyree Mitchell is assistant professor at Louisiana State University School of Leadership and Human Resource Development. His latest book with Jeanne Brett, Searching for Trust in the Global Economy, shares findings from studying managers in 33 countries, revealing differences in how they nurture trust relationships. It also asks if the pandemic has changed how we make decisions about trust. I spoke with Tyree about his research and ideas to improve relationships in virtual and global tech teams. Susi O'Neill: Why did you focus on international differences in trust for your research? Tyree Mitchell: Global economic development needs new business relationships. Negotiating them is tricky – there's much uncertainty, vulnerability and unmet expectations. Trust is critical. When negotiators trust each other, businesses use fewer resources to prevent exploitation and have better economic outcomes. Most research and theories on trust are from a Western perspective. Data from the World Values Survey shows different responses. For example, the US is higher on trust than Brazil. To build relationships, you must understand how trust varies between cultures. We wanted to explore what that means when negotiating business relationships and understand from managers and executives how trust happens. How do we decide if we'll trust a business partner? We learned from the 82 managers we interviewed four key actions they use to make trust decisions. First, due diligence – searching for information about the new partner, including financial status, ratings and reviews and data gathering on social platforms like LinkedIn. Second, brokering – a special introduction where a third party puts their reputation on the line. We particularly see this in East Asia. Third, goodwill building – interacting socially to get to know the partner, like grabbing a coffee or going to a sports event together. Finally, testing – getting the partner to act or react, like asking a question when you already know the answer. We want to know if they will be upfront about company difficulties or cover up problems. In the West, we use testing to check if you're forthcoming and honest, as the assumption is you can be trusted. In East Asia, testing is about checking competency, as people tend to embellish things, so partners want to know if you can deliver what you promise. From these actions, we found four standards for determining if someone is trustworthy -- competence, openness, respect and rapport (CORR.) Competence means, are they capable with the knowledge and skills to deliver on their promise? Openness means are you honest and forthcoming? Respect means showing regard for one another, even if you don't have shared values. Rapport refers to building affinity around shared values. What were the main differences you saw between research participants? We analyzed the 82 manager interviews using a framework based on regional differences in trust and the tightness of social norms. There is a cultural difference in how people answer the question, can most people be trusted? For example, in India, the answer is more often 'no' and in Sweden, more often 'yes,' so we call India' low-trust' and Sweden' high-trust.' There are also differences in tightness and looseness of social norms and consequences for deviating. For example, China is high-trust and tight, the US is high-trust and loose, India is low-trust and tight, and Mexico is low-trust and loose. To understand cultural differences in trust decisions, you must understand these differences. There are also differences in how different cultures decide to trust. East Asians emphasize testing more than Middle Easterners or Latin Americans. Latin Americans and Middle Easterners emphasize goodwill building more than East Asians. Latin America, the Middle East and South Asia are lower trust. But in Latin America, rapport and establishing shared values are more important. Respect for cultural differences is vital in the Middle East and South Asia. This may be because the institutions that monitor and sanction deviance from norms in 'tight,' but more diverse cultures don't cross ethnic boundaries. What were the most surprising research findings? East Asia and the West focus primarily on the business relationship. If there's a business relationship, the personal connection follows. China and UK's behavior was similar, but social norms are different. On brokering a relationship through a third party, one US manager asked, "What's in it for the person making the introduction?" That's not considered in the 'tight' East Asian culture – if the third party puts their reputation on the line, they're good to deal with. In this culture, someone can be outcast if they bring embarrassment on themselves or their family – the stakes are higher. How can transparency be improved between partners? Share information openly and honestly. Anticipate being asked questions about past performance and how you see the future relationship. Your potential partner may interpret reluctance to share as hiding, so when you can't share information, explain why. Signal you're engaged and want to learn more by asking questions. Trust is a two-way street. Are there differences in how people build rapport and trust in person versus online? During the pandemic (in the fall of 2020), we went back to the same managers we spoke to before to ask how they developed new relationships and made trust decisions virtually. A manager from Brazil said they found ways of keeping the spirit of face-to-face using technology, as talking to someone online is the same way to make a connection. Could virtual reality (VR) and the virtual office help bridge the geographic divide? Engineers and scientists I've interviewed for other research reacted negatively to the idea that VR could replace or substitute for face time. Personally, I'm comfortable using video conferencing, but I've found using a video game character awkward. I like the possibilities, but our ability as humans to get up to speed and be open to it can be a challenge. The reluctance to use virtual technology could be partly generational. When we re-interviewed managers during the pandemic, one manager from Palestine mentioned that his father initially felt the business could survive without using technology. However, when it was time to make a serious business decision, his father would ask: "Can you send an email or do something?" What advice can you share for managers of international tech teams? Other research shows challenges in inter-cultural teams include violations of respect or hierarchy, prejudice and lack of common ground. Communication styles vary – in East Asia, it's more indirect, but in Latin America and the Middle East, it's more direct. Don't leave anything to chance. While putting together this charter, your conversations will help define how you'll deliver. If someone doesn't show up to a meeting, what happens next? A shared team mental model about what to expect reduces uncertainty. Nothing is perfect, but the charter negates some pitfalls by getting collective agreement.
trust customer privacy

You need these two ways to win customers’ data privacy trust

  • min read
    • Business sees trust in data privacy as a panacea. Companies that foster customer trust see more customer engagement and willingness to share valuable personal information. But what do we mean when we talk about trust in data privacy? What are privacy experts advising companies to do when they recommend building trust? It's one of the driving questions behind my book, The Intelligent Marketer's Guide to Data Privacy: The Impact of Big Data on Customer Trust. Most guidance around instilling trust doesn't adequately explain what trust is, or how to develop it. In researching companies that use privacy as a competitive advantage, I found two types of trust are key. First, customers must trust the company is competent and skilled in protecting their data. Second, they must trust the company's reasons for protecting their data are customer-centered. Although each type of trust is valuable alone, developing both is optimal for customer and business outcomes. Be capable of delivering what you promise The Oxford English Dictionary says trust is "belief in the reliability, truth, ability or strength of someone or something." This definition links trust with data privacy capabilities. For a company to position itself as strong on data privacy, it must have the skills and competencies to be effective in security and protection. For enterprises, this means having resources like data security teams or systems in place, and a talented chief privacy officer (CPO.) You should find it relatively easy to implement (and exceed) privacy regulations. For smaller firms, demonstrating responsible data handling across all interfaces and processes strengthens customer trust in your privacy capabilities. Trust in your company's data privacy abilities also involves your history with data protection. Strong claims about protecting customer data privacy seem suspicious if you've had a well-publicized data breach in the past. But my research found organizations that have suffered a data breach can recover trust by giving customers transparency and control. Ensure you're honest about past lapses when encouraging customers to trust your data protection capabilities following a breach. Be privacy-conscious for the right reasons Customers must also trust your data privacy position is for the right reasons. If trust in your ability to uphold privacy is the cold, rational side of trust, trust in your intentions is the warm, fuzzy side. Ways to build trust in your company's data privacy motivations are less clear and may take longer. This kind of trust is linked to reputation, so just one negative event can deteriorate it, with a long, hard road to redemption. My research found many prominent technology companies suffer from this deficiency in trust. Large firms with ample resources for strong data protections may not necessarily find customers like their privacy stance. For example, even before the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook (now Meta) wasn't well regarded for its privacy practices. When companies like this talk about privacy, customers tend to distrust their reasons. This trust deficit around big tech may present opportunities for small or new tech companies to make a mark, differentiating themselves through customer-centered privacy values. Building customer trust is key to creating value through smooth exchange of personal information and building long-term, mutually beneficial relationships. Businesses of all sizes should pursue customer trust. But, before devoting resources to building trust in data privacy, your business must understand what trust involves. Trust implies distinct company behaviors and practices. Carefully managing trust and not taking for granted what trust you already have, is key to leading on privacy.
earning customer trust

Earn customer trust with ‘inside out’ business values

  • min read
    • I've particularly noticed two business trends since the pandemic. First, people aren't rushing back to work – whether it's called the Great Resignation or Great Reshuffle, we're thinking hard about where and why we work. Second, we've become more dependent on, and aware of, technology and how it's shaping narratives in society. Tech can earn business gains in efficiency and productivity, but there's no shortcut to earning trust. Fuelled by mistrust in media and government, public trust is declining. There's an opportunity for businesses to lead in regaining public trust, and I believe they should start with their employees. Distrust has become the default The pandemic sparked fears about personal and societal issues. There are existential concerns like climate change and growing worries about personal freedoms and economic security. This anxiety and insecurity make it hard to trust. The Edelman Trust Barometer surveys 36,000 respondents in 28 countries on their relationship with business, government and the media. The 2022 Barometer shows distrust has become the default, especially distrust of government and media. Who people trust has become more local, like co-workers and neighbors, and distrust of outsiders has risen. The business of raising trust Trust has long been weak in media, but the Edelman Trust Barometer showed trust in government has fallen around 25 percent between 2020 and 2022. Trust in business meanwhile stayed at about the same level. People are looking to business to tackle big issues rather than their governments. It's an opportunity for business leaders, but not those who picture nothing more than trust-promoting marketing operations and communications ploys. Cutting through the fake The public sees CEOs and business leaders with a wary eye. Between 2021 and 22, those who said they worry business leaders are intentionally misleading people went up to 63 percent. Similar concerns about journalists (67 percent) and government leaders (66 percent) have risen too. Build trust from the inside out The Edelman Trust Barometer found employees tend to give credence to their CEO. But what about your employees? It's worth doing an anonymous internal survey to find out how much they trust your company. Internally, transparency is an excellent way to earn confidence. Show faith in your employees and give them accurate information about your strategy and intentions. There are, of course, limits to how transparent businesses can be. You can't divulge intellectual property secrets or make big announcements before an earnings report as a publicly-traded company. But the way you operate and communicate internally must be consistent with how you want customers and stakeholders to see you. I call this the 'inside-out' model: What goes on at the core radiates out through the value chain. The core is your executive and employees. Moving out from the core are your ambassadors, distributors and suppliers. The next level is customers. Demonstrating consistency over time – from the inside out – will mean greater trust. Gain trust the old fashioned way: Earning it I have seen these three leadership attitudes matter when it comes to instilling trust throughout your organization and value chain. First, when possible, under-promise and over-deliver – for example, in marketing promises, delivery dates and product performance. Second, have a karmic attitude – giving without expecting anything in return. A transactional approach, based on equal exchange, means no margin for 'extras,' and can rapidly decline into an adversarial relationship. A karmic attitude builds up credit. Marcus Sheridan built a successful swimming pool business by giving away relevant and honest content. Credit is important over the long haul if you need forgiveness for an error. Unexpected things happen, and there are unavoidable, big-picture issues like global supply chains breaking down and wholesale price rises. Third, bring your company's purpose to life and ensure it impacts your behavior, language and decision-making. The most important audience is your employees: Ensure they clearly understand and experience the company purpose and vision – many employees say they don't fully understand theirs. However, avoid overselling your purpose – it's better to understand your limits than to promise something you can't deliver. Strive to live up to what you say. Admit mistakes and be honest about your failings. This will help build trust and engender loyalty. Overcoming the challenges of tech and trust As businesses grow, they need more tech to help manage many customers and workflows. Many organizations are starting to use artificial intelligence (AI) to support customer relationship management (CRM,) customer service and eCommerce. While there are great uses for AI, issues around data privacy, invasive personalization and bias are legion. You need a solid ethical framework to manage these. Using empathy to understand the employee and customer journey better is vital. And to be trusted, especially with AI, you must have a firm grasp on the outcomes you want. For example, when using chatbots to augment customer service, tell your customers what kind of agent they're dealing with (bot or not) and be alert to when a human agent must step in to ensure the best customer experience. There's no shortcut to building trust. It takes a concerted effort across the organization. If you've built a loyal and trusting partnership with your employees and stakeholders, they'll be your best ambassadors and be more forgiving of your mistakes. Be vigilant when trust starts to erode: Trust is hard-earned and quickly lost.

Transparency isn’t about your business – it’s about your customers

  • min read
    • Our new digitalized business environment relies on trust. We trust our technology, brands, partnerships and more. Many things can help build trust, like our long-term relationship with a brand or the strength of its reputation. When it comes to tech, when we don't understand how something works or how it handles our data, we trust less easily. So, when it comes to winning trust, transparency helps – like clear verification and risk mitigation measures. Do users care about transparency? In 2021 Kaspersky published its research with over 15,000 adults in 23 countries on their attitudes to online privacy in its report, Consumer appetite versus action: The state of data privacy amid growing digital dependency. We found most of these consumers expected greater transparency about how their data was handled, with 62 percent saying they worry their online activities are constantly tracked by websites or services they use. A similar proportion (63 percent) said they felt transparency of technologies and companies was necessary for digital transformation. Do businesses think the same? International Data Group (IDC) predicted at the end of 2021 that by 2025, half of the world's top 2,000 public companies would be employing more diverse data scientists with the intent to improve customer trust. But what about the other half? Edelman Trust Barometer has studied trust in business, governments, media and other organizations for over 20 years, now with over 36,000 respondents in 28 countries. In 2021, the study found falling levels of public trust in media and government. People felt institutions are not addressing their concerns around job loss, climate change and cybersecurity. The study notes, "We see an even greater expectation of business to lead as trust in government continues to spiral." Taking action on trust and transparency Kaspersky's Global Transparency Initiative (GTI) is now five years old. We've invested many hours and much resource in it because we believe openness and transparency are crucial for cybersecurity. What does GTI involve? We've opened Transparency Centers in several countries and taken a range of actions to be more transparent with our customers, from making our source code available for public review to relocating part of our cyberthreat-related processing infrastructure to Switzerland. Here's more on how the initiative is evolving. We also have a bug bounty program, generously rewarding security researchers who report a vulnerability in our products. Building business cyber-resilience through learning In a digital world, business must be cyber-resilient. Any compromise to IT infrastructure can lead to business loss. As part of our GTI, Kaspersky is helping its partners and customers gain the tools and knowledge to protect themselves and choose reliable software. Our Cyber Capacity Building Program, available online and offline, helps businesses, academia and government organizations to learn skills to ensure the security and integrity of integrated third-party applications and identify and manage cybersecurity risks. We developed GTI as thought leadership – we hope that the rest of our industry will follow suit. But it also protects our biggest asset – our users and their trust. We want to share our experience, expertise and knowledge with the widest audience possible. Because transparency isn't about us, it's about our customers.

Should corporations take action for democracy?

  • min read
    • Democracy defenders around the world face an uphill battle in fighting for freedom, human rights and democracy. The 2021 Freedom in the World report from non-government organization (NGO) Freedom House found authoritarian rule increased in 2020. In many countries, leaders used the pandemic as an excuse to clamp down on protests and other organizing. Then, on January 6, 2021, thousands stormed the US Capitol Building, hoping to stop Joe Biden being sworn in as the 46th US president. Five people were killed. One thing that came next was perhaps a little surprising, historically speaking. Many businesses and CEOs across the US quickly condemned the attack. "The chaos unfolding in the nation's capital is the result of unlawful efforts to overturn the legitimate results of a democratic election," Business Roundtable said in a statement on the day of the attack. "The country deserves better. Business Roundtable calls on the President and all relevant officials to put an end to the chaos and facilitate the peaceful transition of power." Statements like this are part of a growing movement of business leaders acting to preserve and strengthen democracy. After decades of the prevailing view from economists like Milton Friedman being "the business of business is business" — meaning corporations shouldn't get involved in political or social issues — are the winds changing? And should they? Trust in business runs high Edelman's 2021 Trust Barometer found business is now the US's most trusted institution. Business achieved a 61 percent trust rating, ahead of government on 53 percent and the media at 51 percent. Edelman also reported 86 percent of respondents expect CEOs to speak out about social and political issues. 68 percent say CEOs should step in when the government doesn't fix society's problems. What would this look like in practice? In 2017 Patagonia, a global retailer specializing in outdoor clothing and accessories, pushed back against federal government administration efforts to allow oil and gas drilling on publicly owned land and reduce numbers of national parks. Its public lands campaign included a documentary, petitions and encouragements to contact elected officials. The Leadership Now Project was founded by a group of Harvard Business School alumni to bridge the gap between business and politics, aiming to strengthen US democracy. Co-founder and CEO Daniella Ballou-Aares says divisions and political issues are too important for businesses to ignore — especially when business trust is high. Leadership Now is one of several groups guiding business leaders who want to engage in democracy-related issues. Civic Alliance and Business for America help businesses advocate for voting rights and ensure company policies give employees time to vote and take part in civic activities. Ballou-Aares said the pandemic increased trust in business. Workers across sectors looked to their employers for safety guidance in and out of the workplace. Leadership Now sees this shift as a chance for companies to show support for democracy. But actions like those Leadership Now proposes can backfire if corporate spending also seems to support people or causes seen as anti-democratic. A panel at the Stanford University School of Business Conference on Corporations and Democracy in December 2020 addressed these potential pitfalls and advised on how to avoid them. "This is a risk-management issue. Corporate boards have a [trust] responsibility to manage risk, and set the policies that govern what the companies are doing politically, ensuring the company is not put at risk," Bruce Freed, President of Washington, D.C.-based Canter for Political Accountability, said during the panel. In some cases, supporting democracy can also be good for the bottom line, as Hong Kong's yellow economic circle showed in 2020. As the pandemic restricted pro-democracy demonstrators from taking to the streets, protestors turned to supporting restaurants and other businesses that had pledged support for democracy. "We might not be able to come out and protest, but supporting yellow shops in our daily life is something everyone can do," democracy advocate Mary Ma told Reuters in May 2020. Businesses may have trust from citizens but entering political conversation still involves risk. Leadership Now, Civic Alliance and Business for America recognize the pressure leaders face and work to build coalitions that can take advantage of strength in numbers. "Companies are nervous about being seen as political actors, even if that's what they are," Ballou-Aares said. "We have a coalition of companies and associations setting some minimum standards around what support for democracy demands and looks like in practice." From surveillance capitalism to humane technology As businesses think about how to become involved in supporting democracy, they're also stepping back to consider how they might have contributed to growing polarization and a technological environment that allows false information to flourish. In her book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Harvard professor and social psychologist Shoshanna Zuboff argues social and digital advertising are used to manipulate consumers and prioritize maximum profits over democracy, freedom and human nature itself. Zuboff's book and 2020 Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma argue social media has turned consumer attention into a product. Companies buy that attention with hyper-targeted digital advertising, using information collected by social platforms and tracking cookies to serve content that keeps people on these sites longer. And what keeps us glued to social channels isn't necessarily what's accurate nor in the interests of our human rights. Many countries are now pushing back with regulation, like EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Australia's efforts to make Facebook and Google pay news publishers for content. But there's more needed to move away from the model. Could businesses be the right entities to lead the way? Ethan Zuckerman, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Communication and Information at University of Massachusetts and Founder of Institute for Digital Public Infrastructure, says businesses sometimes act in ways governments can't or won't. For example, after the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students unsuccessfully tried to lobby Florida's legislature to change gun regulations. They found more success pressuring companies like Dick's Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart to stop selling military-grade weapons. "Employees care about businesses, and they're exempt from traditional left-right politics," Zuckerman said. "In this information vacuum, business drives the narrative." Businesses taking a bolder stance on social and political issues can also be a competitive advantage for recruiting, particularly among younger generations who want to work for a company that shares their values. LinkedIn's 2018 Workforce Culture Trends report found 86 percent of Millennials and 71 percent of all professionals would consider a pay cut to work for such a company. Zuckerman points to Salesforce using this dynamic to its advantage by focusing on responsible use of technology and stakeholder capitalism: Prioritizing employees and customers over shareholders. "I wonder if we'll see more corporations standing up and fighting for social values, making it possible for employees to organize, and affirmatively committing to diversity," Zuckerman said. Future ethics and empathy Whether you support democracy or advocate for responsible technology practices, taking the plunge into activism at work should not be taken lightly. It needs strong empathy and ethics. Neither are on most computer science and engineering curriculums, so businesses should find ways to educate employees. Sarah Drinkwater, Director of responsible technology at Omidyar Network, pointed to its Ethical Explorer as a starting point to learn to identify problem behavior in your organization, find opportunities to discuss and design solutions. Drinkwater was an academic before working as a journalist then moving into the tech world. She led Google's Campus London before joining Omidyar Network. Knowing how both scholars and business leaders think, she feels their disconnect keenly. "Business and academia don't speak the same language," says Drinkwater. "The ability of business to positively impact society is huge, but many tech workers have only come to these conversations in the past few years. Scholars have been thinking about them since they were undergraduates." Drinkwater goes on to say, "The Ethical Explorer tool is meant to help people without an ethics background find their way into these conversations. Teams can take what comes of this conversation and make change." Ballou-Aares recommends business leaders who want to become more civically engaged start locally, where resources are often stretched, and officials need technology and cybersecurity expertise. "Business can play a role in tackling disinformation and voter participation," she says. Pushing back against authoritarianism Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond, an expert on authoritarian efforts to undermine democracy, argues business worldwide can play a role in fighting kleptocracy. Supporting independent journalists and NGOs working to expose corruption and pushing back against authoritarianism would be a good start, Diamond believes. "The best defenses against kleptocracy are usually found in countries where it originates. It demands more than rewards for a few daring whistleblowers. We need to do much more to support the frontline defenders of the global rule of law," Diamond writes. He gives the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the coalition of 267 investigative reporters that broke the Panama Papers story, as an example of an organization businesses could support. The public's trust in business can back tough decisions around giving information to customers and employees. "We've seen Facebook get way more comfortable with countering misinformation and disinformation," Zuckerman said. "A key moment was around pandemic information… there wasn't a ton of hand-wringing about freedom of speech. I'm curious to see if that continues." Drinkwater also pointed to Facebook's oversight board and statements by the Business Roundtable as steps in the right direction. But the C-suite (senior management) needs to be on board with action, or it will seem more like PR than a genuine attempt to make democracy work. "Smart CEOs have read the tea leaves and are asking the right questions about what role they will play in democracy," says Drinkwater. "But these decisions need a high level of intent and care. CEOs need to care about their decisions to make an impact."
by Innovating leaders.
Innovative tech.
About Secure Futures

Secure Futures magazine is your go-to business guide for opinions, trends and insight into the world of technology and cybersecurity. We help your business to bring on the future. Brought to you by Kaspersky, the global cybersecurity experts.

  • For all other countries