LC 00417

Privileged Irresponsibility in Social Innovation

Line of reasoning:

• Living creatures, including human beings, have no other option but to move. (See the principles and the foundation.) We depend on each other and by means of mutual influence we shape each other. This is the way how our personal identity as well as our group identities and our cultural identity at large evolve.
• The Ethics of Care philosophy is based on the mutual dependency principle and put forward a caring democracy (Joan C. Tronto, 10 januari 2015) society.
• The consequence of this dependency and therefor the notion that no one can stand on his or her own in reflected in ground rule 1: co-dependency implies care responsibility.
• Not everyone is willing or able to take on the caring responsibility towards each other thereby inhibiting progress to be made in societal challenges. In the facilitator guide, a process is discussed based on mutual understanding and shared meaning to gain understanding in the nature of a societal challenge by investigating worldviews and the options for change. This usually requires, as is reflected in ground rule 2: diversity in opinions is a basic and essential right, that stakeholders must look beyond their own or their organizations interest and take other interests into account in order to move collectively in the right direction.
• Privileged Irresponsibility (PI) is a concept stemming from EoC that describes the underlying motivation to not take on care responsibilities. We apply PI in the realm of the Social Theory (ST) to expose various forms of PI and remedies to overcome them.
• PI is (almost) always a result of power abuse and to get away with it. Power is a factor that is at play because it gives someone the privilege to ignore the needs of others. PI can be manifested in many ways and it takes a close eye and knowing what to look for to recognize it. PI can be investigated from different angles:
  • Cornering: to use power to force someone or an organization to do something against their will or principles versus neglecting: to fail to pay enough attention to someone or something or to not do enough to properly care for someone or something.
  • Deliberate, with intention versus unaware in the sense of not realizing that a certain action or the lack thereof causes abuse.
• A few examples:
  • I have no time (or any other means such as money) to take up my responsibility: "I wish I could, but unfortunately, I am not in the position.". This behavior can be seen as a deliberate attempt to refrain from acting.
  • A manager or an organization at large that does not back up their employers. If the work is done well by an employer, the manager takes the credit, otherwise, the employer is to blame. The employees are neglected by their manager.
  • Governors that stretch their mandate to push someone into doing certain things for their own personal or political benefit. This is an example of cornering.
  • A governmental organization that abides strictly by the rules. On the one hand, the organization acts responsible because the law is not broken. On the other hand, it can also be interpreted as an excuse to do something for a society at large by hiding behind their legal obligations. This could turn out to out to be a dilemma: verification (doing things right) versus validation (doing the right things).

Towards a Responsible Setting for Social Innovation

Line of reasoning:

• We have discussed PI in many disguises that can inhibit progress. The question now is: can we devise a setting in which PI can be eliminated as much as possible to create a fruitful setting for social innovation? We are convinced that this question can be answered positively, but it requires that every stakeholder adhere to EoC principles. The basic idea is that each stakeholder acts beyond their personal or corporate boundaries in favor of the goals set out in a societal challenge in which they are part of. Each stakeholder facilitates other stakeholders to make this happen. The focus is on the societal challenge rather than on stakeholders' own interests in the knowledge that in the end the interests of stakeholders are better served by joining hands. By taking on this mindset, a transparent social innovation process can be carried out in which their is no room for PI because stakeholders committed to the case will take corrective measures, with the caveat that an union of stakeholders can actually stand up against a few powerful ones.
• Suppose a number of stakeholders are willing to address a societal challenge. The stakeholders could be individuals but also representatives from companies and organizations including the government. They have at least one thing in common namely there is something at stake for each of them. However, this does not necessarily mean that each stakeholder is committed to make progress together. In the most negative case, stakeholders could participate to disrupt the social innovation process in order to protect their own interests. To make sure that every stakeholder is committed to overall goals of the challenge, the personal and corporate goals must align with the overall goals (see facilitators guide). If not, it can be questioned whether or not a particular stakeholder has legitimate stakes in the challenge more than just their own stakes.
• Before even tackling the challenge, the social innovation process and the ground rules have to be established. The three principles (1 - we got to move, 2 - create room for change, and 3 - determine the right direction) and the two ground rules provide the basis. Especially the two ground rules (1 - co-dependency implies care responsibility, and 2 - diversity in opinions is a basic and essential right) can be seen as a kind of meta rules. For instance, if during the process things become tense and some stakeholders are perhaps on the brink of giving up, the other stakeholders can point to the ground rules as a code of conduct. But there is also consolation to be found in the ground rules in the sense that stakeholders are not alone in their quest: every stakeholder has care responsibilities towards each other! This is a two way street meaning that the needs of every stakeholder is taken care of by the other stakeholders provided the overall goals set out in the societal challenge are reached.
• A societal challenge provides a new context in which stakeholders find new ways to relate to each other. Such a group of stakeholders create a group identity with the purpose of making progress together. However, representatives of companies and organizations also have to deal with their own corporate identities. This can lead to identity conflicts if there is somehow a mismatch in identities. Typically, a company or an organization has to do something different in order to address the societal challenge in which it is part of. If management is not willing to do so, the representatives are empty handed. Three things can done about this stalling, summarizing what has been before about the conditions for a responsible setting. Firstly, make sure that management (i.e., decisions makers) are involved from the start. Secondly, make the social innovation process transparent so that every stakeholder is aware of other's needs and dilemma's. Thirdly, EoC requires that organizations look and act beyond the confines of their companies and organizations. It is each one duty to facilitate each other in such a way that mutual obligations can be fulfilled.

• Lees hiervoor:
  Social Innovation Process
• Lees hierna:
  Applying the Social Theory to Organizations