Kate - not sure why I haven't seen your Substack until now. I'll be sure to get to your previous posts. This one is such a thoughtful and important piece. The connection you draw between democratic erosion and AI's unchecked acceleration is spot-on.
I'd add one consideration based on some recent conversations with some senior executives. Many who remain silent aren't acting from cowardice. They're genuinely wrestling with competing obligations. In candid conversations, I've found most are deeply thoughtful about these issues, but they're weighing fiduciary duties against personal conviction. They see stakeholder coalitions, including employees, customers, investors, board members, and yes, government, who hold sharply different views, and they worry that speaking out will polarize or fracture the very organizations they're responsible for holding together. In the current environment, the government-as-stakeholder dimension carries particular weight.
I'm not saying this justifies silence indefinitely. You're right that history marks who stood where and when. But effective calls to leadership might acknowledge the real complexity of the environments these leaders are navigating, while making the case, as you do well, that the long-term cost of perpetual silence is higher still.
Thanks, Ted. Appreciate your positive review! And I agree that the context is complex and there are many responsibilities to balance. Leaders shouldn't be obligated to comment on every external development, especially when it feels far from the purpose of the business. But I do believe that leaders often over-index on near-term risks and consequences and so miss the moment when there is a clear red line. I deem standing up for the rule of law as intrinsic to fiduciary responsibility. But no one says that is an easy thing to do!
Thanks for your comment! I think perhaps there is fatigue among leaders that they are confronted with so many consequential developments that require them to weigh the pros/cons of speaking out. But that dynamic is a byproduct to living in a time of metacrisis and complexity. The demands of leadership have changed.
Kate - not sure why I haven't seen your Substack until now. I'll be sure to get to your previous posts. This one is such a thoughtful and important piece. The connection you draw between democratic erosion and AI's unchecked acceleration is spot-on.
I'd add one consideration based on some recent conversations with some senior executives. Many who remain silent aren't acting from cowardice. They're genuinely wrestling with competing obligations. In candid conversations, I've found most are deeply thoughtful about these issues, but they're weighing fiduciary duties against personal conviction. They see stakeholder coalitions, including employees, customers, investors, board members, and yes, government, who hold sharply different views, and they worry that speaking out will polarize or fracture the very organizations they're responsible for holding together. In the current environment, the government-as-stakeholder dimension carries particular weight.
I'm not saying this justifies silence indefinitely. You're right that history marks who stood where and when. But effective calls to leadership might acknowledge the real complexity of the environments these leaders are navigating, while making the case, as you do well, that the long-term cost of perpetual silence is higher still.
Thanks, Ted. Appreciate your positive review! And I agree that the context is complex and there are many responsibilities to balance. Leaders shouldn't be obligated to comment on every external development, especially when it feels far from the purpose of the business. But I do believe that leaders often over-index on near-term risks and consequences and so miss the moment when there is a clear red line. I deem standing up for the rule of law as intrinsic to fiduciary responsibility. But no one says that is an easy thing to do!
Thanks for your comment! I think perhaps there is fatigue among leaders that they are confronted with so many consequential developments that require them to weigh the pros/cons of speaking out. But that dynamic is a byproduct to living in a time of metacrisis and complexity. The demands of leadership have changed.