This article explores the parallels between the use of AI Agents and the MeToo movement in addressing workplace social risks such as bullying, abuse, and discrimination. Both approaches aim to empower individuals, shed light on systemic issues, normalize speaking out, and catalyse organizational change. The article discusses the deployment of AI Agents, emphasising the importance of rigorous follow-up investigations by independent experts. Ultimately, by leveraging technology and social activism, organizations can create safer, more inclusive workplaces grounded in trust, accountability, and respect for all individuals.Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Using AI agents to detect social risks among all employees is a major advancement. It allows quick response and provides valuable insights to the board. Implementing AI-driven risk detection promotes transparency, but resistance from management and supervisors may hinder its adoption. This resistance could compromise efforts to include AI in ESG metrics, affecting risk assessment and governance.Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Embracing a holistic approach unlocks the full potential of AI in reshaping workplace dynamics by enabling precise identification of social risks. This comprehensive strategy not only harnesses the capabilities of artificial intelligence, but also ensures a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay of factors influencing the social landscape within the workplace. Through this transformative lens, organizations can proactively address and navigate social risks, fostering a more inclusive, resilient, and adaptive work environment.Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
The ubiquitous discourse on Artificial Intelligence is propelled by its transformative potential, coupled with apprehensions regarding ethical implications and the imperative for conscientious development; exploring this dynamic further within the context of social risk management in the workplace becomes particularly pertinent. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
There is a compelling argument that an AI Agent is better suited to identify social risks in the workplace compared to managers spread across organisational hierarchies and silos. This podcast makes the case for using AI Agents rather than managers as the first point of contact for social risk identification. This alternative approach provides the means to sense early and respond smartly with the right type and blend of human intervention. It is time to challenge strategic convention. At the very least exploring alternative scenarios provides the means for fresh thinking to an age-old problem. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
From many studies, whereby all forms of bullying, abuse, and discrimination persist, the common pattern is the lack of responsibility and accountability of some managers. Imagine the reporting of social risk is through the interaction with an AI Agent rather than a manager. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Policies and their extensions into procedures and other content contain a rich repository of rules for social risk assessment in the workplace. Yet overwhelming evidence shows that written policies and the way in which they are enacted in practice, are not fit for purpose. But, why have organisations found it difficult to change when mounting evidence accumulates over time that conventional approaches are not effective?Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
The current state of reporting ESG social risks is embryonic. Social Key Risk Indicators are substandard or missing across every sector. 80% of social risks identified from numerous investigations involve Bullying, Abuse, and Discrimination (aka BAD). Yet we all know harming people is unacceptable. Productivity is impaired. Reputation and value destruction can occur at any time through media exposure. It is clear that a new way of thinking is required. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Across every sector, it is a credible argument that the leadership framework for making decisions is compromised. Their reliance upon data they receive to mitigate against social risks in the workplace is bias, distorted and mostly missing compared to reality. Until leadership accept their data is not fit for purpose then the door remains firmly closed for fresh, innovative thinking. However, the pressure from stakeholders, regulators, and media exposures means a tipping point is much closer. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
In the workplace, Social Key Risk Indicators across every sector are substandard or missing. Abuse, discrimination, bullying, and harassment persist. Harming people is unacceptable. Productivity is impaired. Reputation and value destruction can occur at any time. But whilst leadership is disconnected and in denial, the door remains firmly closed for fresh, innovative thinking. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Recently there has been several cases of reputation and value destruction. This is because leadership underestimated social risks and their adverse effects upon stakeholders. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
The gap between policy intent and practice for social factors is poorly measured as most of the data needed to find risks does not exist. The missing risk data is the causality to many socioeconomic problems within organisations. The momentum to embrace reporting non-financial data is being led by ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) and regulatory change. The time has come for a new way of thinking to address the missing data, especially to measure the S in ESG. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Imagine a scenario whereby the trust in a well-known international brand is eroded within twenty-five days, because they had mismanaged ESG social risk within their organisation. This scenario became a reality during April 2023. Why does this matter? Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
It comes as no surprise that the traditional providers of financial data have all extended their services to include ESG ratings. Other companies have also emerged to produce ESG data. Invariably attention turns to the quality of the data as the investment market become more reliant upon these ESG Benchmark Compilers. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
The systems for the identification of social risks within the public sector workforce do not work. In a matter of nine days, three reports covering the police, NHS and fire brigade all detailed systemic social risks within the workforce. Around five hundred pages of content spread across three reports are saying the same thing. The substance of these reports like so many that have been written over the past few decades have become commoditised. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
On the 21st March 2023, Baroness Casey published a 363-page report that was a comprehensive review aimed at investigating the culture of the UK’s largest police force. The Metropolitan Police force, like the other parts of the UK public sector has not embraced ESG reporting and benchmarking. The Casey report offers powerful insights to the need for measuring the social factors in ESG. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Understanding and applying policy rules in practice is highly problematic. As a consequence, rule-based decision-making is prone to distortions, mistakes, and prejudices. The gap between policy intent and reality has never been wider. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
The appalling state of fragmented rules means there is a material skills deficiency. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Fragmented rule-based knowledge affects every public and private organisation. Evidence of fragmentation is everywhere. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn
Evidence shows that rule-based knowledge covering what is written down and the way in which it is enacted in practice, is not fit for purpose. The fragmented state of rule-based knowledge nurtures systemic weaknesses. Music by AlexiAction through Pixabay Music byAlexiAction through Pixabay(3) Freddie McMahon | LinkedIn