3 Steps To Reform Public Policy in Tech.

To say that technology is changing the world beyond recognition still sounds like an understatement. The relentless quest for innovation has given us the gunpowder a few centuries ago and digital photography just a few decades back. In the age of disruption, humanity has a choice. The gunpowder can be used to fashion deadly weapons or the fireworks; and the ubiquitous usage of digital photography could lead to massive e-waste, but might also offer a cure for blindness. In the age of disruption, we must deliberately push technology to be the force for the common good.

This is an existential challenge with no single or simple solution, but it is clear that neither business nor government can tackle it alone. Perhaps we should begin by taking stock of how the relationship is framed between the tech and the public sector; and secondly, review the mandate of the corporate functions (e.g. public policy or government affairs) on the vanguard of this debate.

Firstly, a fundamental rethink of the External Affairs is needed.

A chief in-house-lobbyist is the term frequently used to describe the head of Government Relations within a company. So, therein lies the problem. To lobby, according to the Cambridge dictionary, is “to try to persuade an elected official to take a particular action or change a law.” The definition itself implies an inherent misalignment of interest between the business and the government.

To continue thriving, a global corporation has to find a bigger problem to solve, rather than protect the business model that has delivered in the past.

But what If we could start with a premise that the tech platforms and governments might find common objectives in some areas, we wouldn’t just need a lobbyist, but a Chief Partnership Officer. No need to look much further than this platform - LinkedIn - which had recently launched "a digital representation of the global economy" calling it The Economic Graph. And the explicit goal of this initiative to "partner with private and public organizations to empower local governments, nonprofits, and educators to make informed decisions that create positive economic outcomes."

Solving problems is how businesses succeed; and profitability is ultimately a by-product of the company’s vision. To continue thriving, a global corporation has to find a bigger problem to solve, rather than protect the business model that has delivered in the past. Many of the corporate functions are already guided by this macro objective, so why not the Government Affairs?

Secondly, it is time to broaden the definition of a customer.

Successful companies pride themselves on being customer-centric. In Silicon Valley, everyone is talking about user-experience design. Apple — the most valuable public company that ever existed — has one and only objective, which is to delight its customers.

In this universe, the non-customer stakeholders are a nuisance at best and an obstacle at worst. Whether the CEO subscribes to this view is beside the point, the framing of the relationship is such that the “customer is king” and the government (often an industry regulator) is what stands in the way of a corporation’s ability to serve her.

But what if the public institutions, be they national, state, city, or municipal level, were deliberately and unequivocally included in а pool of potential customers? What if a typical board agenda included a recurring item, which was to consider how the core technology and the platform itself could be used to serve in the public interest?

One can only wonder what Uber would have achieved if, from the early days, it viewed municipalities, cities and towns and not just uber-riders, as its customers.

This is not to say that the business must cozy up to the regulators or that the Government agencies, trusted with the oversight powers, should accept services from the companies they are expected to regulate. The public interest is represented by many institutions at many levels, and when businesses extend the same courtesy and consideration to them that they do to other prospective customers, the win-wins for the common good become possible.

Take Uber for example. The New York Times once reported that Innisfil — a small city on the outskirts of Toronto — retained Uber’s services when it needed a transit system. What is telling in this story is that it wasn’t Uber that created a product, which it marketed and sold to many towns the world over, but rather an enlightened leadership of a small town that went ahead and hired the company to meet its public transportation needs. One can only wonder what Uber would have achieved if, from the early days, it viewed municipalities, cities and towns and not just uber-riders, as its customers.

Lastly, endow Government Affairs with a product management mandate

Product management truly is the secret sauce of the modern tech world. This is the glue that brings together sales and engineers to develop and deliver truly customer-focused solutions. When it comes to fixing Government Affairs, the tech companies could build from strength and further leverage the unique expertise that fueled their success to date.

New products are pitched to the Executive Boards all the times, and cross-functional product teams are assembled day in and day out. Why aren’t Government Affairs departments expected to contribute in the same way? What if this corporate function was no longer a “cost-center” viewed through the prism of risk-management? Ultimately, it is a question of mandate and the expectations from the Sr. Management. Incentivizing the Public Policy and Government Relations teams to chip in product ideas and to change their staffing plan (to include product managers) is the place for the CEOs to start operationalizing the rethink of the function.

The technology is value-neutral, so it is up to the companies to deploy it in the ways that will maintain and protect our digital commons for the benefits of the many, not the few

Of course, the product pitches often compete on the revenue model or the market growth potential. A different matrix must apply for the products designed to serve in the public interest. Genuine engagement with stakeholders could pay off in many ways, not least in reputational benefits, earned media value, consumer loyalty, etc. Goldman Sachs has once estimated that “goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets.”

“New technologies and approaches are merging the physical, digital, and biological worlds in ways that will fundamentally transform humankind. The extent to which that transformation is positive will depend on how we navigate the risks and opportunities that arise along the way” said the Founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. All in all, the tech enterprises are well-placed to innovate in the public interest. The technology itself is value-neutral, so it is up to the companies to deploy it in the ways that will maintain and protect our digital commons for the benefits of the many, not the few. Let us not allow the lack of imagination to stand in the way of progress.

* Originally published by The World Economic Forum

Have you read?

Is the Era of Management Over?

What Do We Really Know About the Promise — and Potential Perils — of AI?

Is Your Business Mission-Driven? Bad News If It’s Not.