Decisions, decisions, decisions, decisions, and more decisions
"It took us billions of decisions to get into this situation; it's going to take billions of decisions to get us out of it."
This is a quote from Bill Millar from the American Public Transportation Association, who was at my table during the afternoon session.
The point he was making is that we can't just make the decision to eradicate poverty, for example. We have to establish and sustain a culture that ingrains social responsibility initiatives and ideas into the fabric of all the decisions we make.
For example, one of the ways associations inspire their members is through general sessions speakers at their annual conferences. What if it became standard to book at least one speaker and had at least some breakout sessions with socially responsible themes? In this way, the idea that we can and should make a difference on this globe can become part of what we talk about and part of the culture of our organizations.
| | Permalink |
Comments
I don't know, how do you define a "socially responsible theme"? If someone has a speaker who talks about growing profits ... would you call that a "socially IRresponsible theme"? Because I wouldn't.
What if you have members who think the "UN Millennium Development Goals" are missing a few key things, like "Ensure Individual Liberty" or "Guarantee Property Rights"? Are those points also "socially responsible"? Or are they irresponsible? I can't keep track.
Posted by: Kevin | April 30, 2008 6:08 PM
Do I detect some ambivalence, Kevin?
I would say growing profits is not per se socially responsible or socially irresponsible. It could be either way or neither.
I think the idea was that if you have three general session speakers, then one of them could be dedicated to someone who has a message that is essentially we are all members of this planet, no matter what sector, profession, or industry we are in, and we need to act like it.
As for the other question about ensuring individual liberty or guaranteeing property rights -- these sound more political in nature to me. I am one who celebrates individuality and the rights of the individual. But at the same time, we live in a society, and we need to give up some individual liberty and some rights to function well. Where that line falls is a political matter. Going to either extreme is, I believe, socially irresponsible. Where we put the line in the middle will always be subject to debate--and I hope we keep having the debate!
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | May 1, 2008 10:19 AM
Scott, do you really believe that there is nothing political about many of the other issues being discussed under the umbrella of "social responsibility"? I think associations should be very careful about taking what are essentially political issues and saying, "These are not political issues." Saying doesn't make it so, and can wind up rubbing a lot of members the wrong way if it isn't handled very carefully.
It isn't the difference between "leading" and "following" that is important here. It's the difference between "inspiring" and "preaching". Are we descending from the ivory tower, or working with our members toward what they feel is most important?
Posted by: Kevin | May 1, 2008 12:58 PM
I guess in response I'd say that it's sad that thinking about the good of society is political. I agree that it is, but it shouldn't be. I think it becomes political out of selfishness, whether that is selfishness at the individual, organizational, professional/industrial, or national level.
As an organization, I think we do need to think about what effect our positions and actions have on those outside the organization/profession/industry.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | May 1, 2008 1:53 PM