Leadership Reflections - back where we started

Martin (2015) said something completely on-point with her post (Blog), she said, "we turn our problems over to the leader and wait for him/her to figure it out". How so incredibly true! Just look at the current state of our Nation and you will see this being played out day after day.  Something happens, and everyone expects our leaders to fix everything.  Personal responsibility, and taking care of our own isn't a concept that's in play these days. I'm not entirely sure when this started becoming the norm... But enough about the past, how do we change this for the future?

Kelly (2016) and many others, are sure that AI and technology will be the way of the future, and leaders will need to adapt and adjust in order to remain relevant and in charge, lest the AI bots take over and kill all of humanity to save it from themselves.

Yes, the digital world is ever evolving, and yes, many more inanimate objects are being wired to networks and are becoming 'smart', but as long as there are people in this world, face-to-face (even virtual) communication must exist; humans are just wired that way. https://www.psychcaremd.com/hardwired-for-connection/

The focus of leadership needs to continue to be communication and interpersonal relationships with people. Some of the best leaders were great communicators. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/04/04/10-communication-secrets-of-great-leaders/?sh=77ce7e2c22fe

Even though it seems like everything has gone digital because of the pandemic, just look at the children that are so excited to get back to school in-person, and the adults that are traveling because they've had very little interaction over the past 20 months... humans need interaction and communication.  Digital sources also need people to run them, program them and fix them.  If the power goes out and we all of a sudden return to a time before electricity, would the human race be able to survive? A quick Google search will tell you that the odds are against it for sure.

Imagine what would happen if an entity was able to take electricity away from another...Say Country X could take electricity away from the U.S. for good, what would happen? What would our leaders do in this scenario? Would they save as many as possible? Save themselves? How would we know? No TV, radio, phones, Internet... the country would descend into chaos. 

This.... this is one of the things that my agency protects against.  This.... is the reason many get up and come to work everyday, to make sure that This... never happens.

While the world is focused on the digital age, and how to become more so in the future, some of us are even now trying to make sure it's a safe and secure environment when that day inevitably comes.

It's very hard to explain to someone whose entire life is digitally influenced what it's like to work all day without your cellphone, most Internet access, and the only link to the outside world is the telephone that's been sitting on the that desk for 50 years (probably not the SAME telephone). Even email is only internal. It's no wonder that many couples found each other within the agency walls :-)

The point of this entire post is that it's fine to address leadership in a digital environment, but don't forget about the 52% of the people in the world that don't own a smartphone, or the 50% that don't have access to the Internet (https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-world). Even though many reading this may not be able to accept or understand that data, the fact is that the less than half the people in the world are living in a digital world, don't forget about them when you are deciding how to lead people into the future.

 

AI versus, well... everyone

Looking at the Wikipedia article on emerging technologies, I wasn't able to link "intelligence", "cyber" or "computer security" to any of the categories listed. Maybe Defense, but we are a supporting agency... we don't have boots on the ground (Wikipedia, 2021). When I conducted an Internet search for "emerging technologies intelligence" what I found all related to artificial intelligence (AI), which isn't all that relevant either. But let's discuss AI.

One thing that all of the readings this week, and in weeks past, seem to forget is that computers must be programmed in order to function.  This means that a human must write code and information into being, so theoretically, no computer can ever know more than humans.  They may be able to process information quicker, come to vastly different conclusions, and even be able to analyze data in a way that would take a human many lifetimes to achieve.  But, their knowledge still doesn't, and can't exceed what its programming allows.

How many movies have been created over the years that show what happens when an AI begins to "think" for themselves. Most of them somehow destroy humanity in an attempt to save us from ourselves.  Movies and stories such as these are probably what prompted Kelly (2016), and others, to write about technologies so advanced that humans lose their jobs and become obsolete to the computers and AI of the future. Kelly (2016) says, "I estimate that by the year 2025 every person alive - that is 100 percent of the planet's inhabitants - will have access to this platform via some almost-free device. Everyone will be on it. Or in it. Or, simply, everyone will be it" (p. 293). I respectfully disagree.

Already, between Generation X, Y and millennials, the usage of the Internet and Social Media has declined drastically.  The spin that some writers put on the facts fascinates me.  For instance, this quote is meant to prove that millennials are unlocking their phones more than any other generation! but if you look closely, you will see that is not the case. "During an analysis of smartphone users in the United States, it was found that Millennials unlocked their devices an average of 63 times per day, ranking only behind Gen Z smartphone users with 79 daily unlocks" Do you notice that the focus is on millennials, when in fact they are using their phones with less frequency than Gen Z users. https://www.statista.com/topics/2576/us-millennials-internet-usage-and-online-shopping/#topicHeader__wrapper

Now take a look at Gen Z, as mentioned above, they use their smartphones far less than the generation before them. The following data shows that while Millenials utilize the Internet for communication, shopping and keeping up with the news, family and friends, Gen Z are mainly utilizing it for entertainment purposes. gen-z-millennials-use-social-media-differently-heres-x-charts-that-show-how

So, I'm not convinced the sky is falling... That doesn't mean that the future isn't going to look different than it does now, it's just not going to be ruled by AI and networks doing the thinking for us.

One way to make sure this doesn't happen? Teach the next gerneration to do things differently, by example. Put down the phone, close the laptop, open a book and read to those youngsters, fight for their future!

Kelly, K. (2016). The Inevitable. Viking

Wikipedia, 2021. Emerging technologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emerging_technologies

I want to Break Up!

"We cannot break up with the Internet any more than any one person can truly live off the land in the 21st century" (Maloney, 2019). The pandemic these last 18 months has surely solidified this fact. 

What is the Internet? In truth it doesn't exist as an entity... it's a series of computers, servers and repositories that are all connected through networks and wires. Are there rules and laws that govern the Internet? How can there be? When people own the content on every piece of data that can been found. 

No government or international Internet agency exists to tell people what they can and can't post and put online. But what about the horrible things that I've seen and heard on the Internet? Who deletes the racism, sexism, morally and ethically innapropriate content and rhetoric that exists? Who is responsible to monitor and restrict content? And what laws and rules exist to protect us from, well, ourselves? 

Who polices the Internet? No one, and everyone.  Some countries are trying to institute laws and governing bodies to monitor and hold people accountable for their online words and actions. Americans scream, 'what about my privacy and my free speech?' while the European Union created laws that clearly say they don't care about either of those inherent freedoms when it comes to the Internet (De George, 2001).  So how are we still getting emails from a Nigerian Prince? Well, Nigeria isn't in Europe and they don't have the same laws that others do, so it's not a crime. Is it ethical to swindle people, usually the most vulnerable of society, out of their hard-earned money? Of course not! But without proper laws that are internationally recognized and agreed upon, there isn't much chance that the Prince is going to stop asking anytime soon. 

As Grabowski and Robinson (2021) point out, "There are nearly 200 countries that have their own, often conflicting ideas of how to run the Internet, so establishing global governance would require settling on shared standards and values, which may be impossible because of differing histories, social sesitivites and political realities". 

So where do we even start? Schultz (2012) suggests that ethical problems on the Internet are mainly based on social and individual principles. He outlines what he believes to be the necessary individual and global principles "based on Kant's categorical imperative and Rawls social contract principles of justice". 

Would this have stopped ISIS in 2014 from posting videos of them beheading James Foley and Steven Sotolof to the Internet for all to see, including their family? (I'm not going to reference or cite these videos, but here is the report from CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/index.html).  Probably not.  Even though the FBI took the vides down that were hosted on US websites, ISIS just put them back up by utilizing other countries servers, and we're back to the question of CAN the Internet be policed? 

I don't think it's possible 100% of the time, but I read an article by Maloney (2018) who summed up the problem titled, "How to Make the Internet a More Decent Place and Not Be an Accidental (or actual) Asshole Online", and while it was speaking to individuals, this should apply to everyone using the Internet. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, not with terrorists, not with Nigerian Princes, nor even with our children who are being forced to work online throughout this pandemic. 

Ethics? Morals? What are those? Depends on who you ask... I get so overwhelmed and disgusted with the Internet and Social Media, I want to break up! but sadly, here I sit on my computer posting to a blog that no one will police or hold me accountable for.

Beth

REFERENCES

De George, R. T. (2001) Law and Ethics in the Information Age. Business & Professional Ethics Journal. Vol. 20, No3/4, pp5-18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27801257 

Grabowski, M. & Robinson, E. P. (2021) Cyber Law and Ethics; Regulation of the Connected World. Rutledge. https://www.routledge.com/Cyber-Law-and-Ethics-Regulation-of-the-Connected-World/Grabowski-Robinson/p/book/9780367462604 

Maloney, D. (Jan 19, 2018). Imagining a Better Online; Is it possible the Internet will be a garbage fire hellscape forever? And if so, what then? Medium.com https://medium.com/s/internet-law-and-ethics-101/how-to-make-the-internet-a-more-decent-place-and-not-be-an-accidental-asshole-online-fa83a9aa0cf8?p=ecab90e30a8c 

Schultz, R. A. (2012). "Ethics and the Internet" in Values and Ethics for the 21st century. BBVA found on https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/ethics-and-the-internet/

Would you like fries with that college degree?

Government employees that work in classified environments are warned (and monitored) about their online presence. Even though they may personally have social media accounts, they are NOT permitted to utilize them for work, or even let their affiliation be known. That being said, the younger employees are coming to work with years-old social media accounts that they may keep alive, but many choose not to. There has always been a risk associated with connecting a business, school, medical facility or SCADA system online. However, computer hackers of today don’t need to be as smart as they used to… 20 years ago, you needed to know how to code in order to infiltrate a secured system (such as a bank – we will leave the govt. out of this for now). Nowadays, the really tech-savvy hackers have written codes and embedded them in tools that they sell on the Internet to anyone who has the money. This allows the computer hacker of today to easily infiltrate a system with the click of a few buttons. I have always said that computer admins need to be diligent 100% of the time, and hackers only need to be lucky, once. This makes these systems mentioned above extremely vulnerable. Note to everyone reading…. PATCH YOUR SYTEMS WEEKLY. (off the soapbox). Of course the Dept of Defense hires people directly for their digital literacies… mostly. It is important to understand that the Government, and specifically the Dept of Defense, hire for almost any and every type of job you can imagine. Not all require soft skills, not all require digital literacy. At last check, there were over 200 jobs available for hire. Some of them include: lawyer, political advisor, legislative consultant, intelligence analyst, bus driver, electrical engineer, sanitation worker, cafeteria worker, digital network analyst… what I’m trying to say is that there is no way to make a blanket statement on government hiring as each position requires different skills. All of this to say that I agree with John Maloney (2013, Nov) https://jarche.com/2013/11/networks-are-the-new-companies/ who said, “Technically and sociologically there is nothing new. All human organization, including business, always was and always will-be networks. What is new is the old network patterns, centralize, Fordist, authoritarian, are failing. New network patterns are emerging”. All this has really done is make things quicker to access, quicker doesn’t always mean better. After the 9/11 commission report, the Intelligence Community (IC) was told that they needed to find ways to better communicate and collaborate on similar targets so that they could better “connect the dots”. I will say that the means to do this have changed drastically for the better, but the majority of people won’t utilize them. I don’t know why, everyone has a different answer, but as I’ve said many times… it always about money. IC agencies make their money off of the volume of intelligence that they collect and report. No one wants someone else to take the glory, or the money from the budget that justifies their position each year. Networking, whether through digital means, or interpersonal, is the key to knowlege amd collaboration. Kim Parker talked about the role of education and skills learned while on the job. the government requires a 4 year degree, mostly. As I said earlier, there's no way to make a blanket statement regarding education requirements, as each position has different skills and education necessary. The military that are assigned and return as civillians bring another aspect to the workforce. While a college degree is usually required, years of experience is also permitted for military only. The future will be interesting to watch play out as many more younger people are obtaining college degrees than ever before. Will it be a smart investment? Or will we have higher educated people asking, "would you like fries with that?"

Wirearchy and the Government

I'm going to start this blog by saying that I have completly unplugged this week. Today is my birthday (51st) and I have been, and will continue to be, unplugged from most media, and out of cell range again until very late tonight. With that being said. Here is my response to this week's prompt. I'm sorry, that's classified, and you don't have a need to know. Husband's (2014) theory on wirearchy does not now, and probably won't in the near future apply to the military or the Dept. of Defense (DoD) Heirarcy is everything, to the detriment of some aspects, and not to others. Not much changed during the pandemic for the DoD; everyone still has to show up for work, everyday. Mitigations within my agency seriously aren't permitted to be discussed... so you'll have to just trust me. Prince (2019) writes based on the theory that future jobs are yet unknown, and while i agree with her on some jobs, I disagree as a whole. We as a society will always need people to workin jobs of service, water, food, sanitation. We will always require police, doctors, nurses... and people to raise and take care of our young. The methods or means may change, but the majority of people don't hold a college degree... only 36% of people over 25 hold a college degree, according to the 2020 census. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/educational-attainment.html I think we are asking the wrong questions, and focusing on the wrong things. Stop trying to push children in a career path so early on in life. Their life skills education is suffering to make room for advanced Math, Computers, and career paths. Not many people graduate high school knowing how to create, and stick with, a budget. They are lost trying to complete their taxes, they don't know how to eat properly and take care of their physical and emotional well-being. No one has taught them how to be an adult and a useful member of society. Now, some may argue that this should be taught at home... but after a few generations of not having been taught these critical skills, how do we expect them to learn. Don't get me started on critical thinking skills...they are being taught how to take a test. Sorry for the rant, and here's your reward for doing so... some pictures of my week.