The battlefield on which we grapple with digital coercion and the silent, unceremonious death of analog options is typically only the realm of our personal lives. At a foundational level, I believe this makes sense. We often bifurcate our lives between the work and personal elements, one in which we have little control and another in which we have at least some control (and for many of us, desire to have more). We often take for granted that we lack power to enact meaningful change at work because, at least for most of us, we are not in positions to push back without threatening our livelihoods. This implicit threat of job-loss, if not career loss, is often enough to cause us to accept coercion in this part of our lives without batting an eye.
However, the recent rise of generative AI in the workplace has re-ignited a conversation in myself and many in the corporate world about what limits we should place on digital technologies as it relates to our work environments. Because of this, I believe that this is the perfect moment to attempt to re-assert some worker sovereignty and try to reclaim some intentional and ethical use of technology.
Some background to how I approach this issue and the areas of pushback I have succeeded in: I am an American middle-manager working in the back office of a Fortune 500 company. What is more, I work remotely. At face value, it would then appear that I am simply another corporate worker who lacks the power to change how he uses technologies or what technologies he uses, while, perhaps hypocritically, offering critique of the technologies that enable his work-life balance. If one were to view the world in a black-and-white manner in which one is either a technology maximalist and accelerationist or one is a grumpy peasant that yearns for the era of subsistence farming, they would be correct.
But such an unnuanced view, quite pervasive in modern society, simply dismisses deeper legitimate questions at the hearts of those who grapple with and seek to implement healthier and more intentional boundaries with their technology usage. There is little room for nuance in the minds of many though, because nuance is inefficient and inefficiencies lead to lower profit and returns for shareholders - and we can’t have that!
Each of us has - both personally and professionally - some sphere of influence or control in which we can influence the shape of outcomes. While this might be a great simplification, I believe there are three different levels of this as it relates to our ability to exert control or influence over our working conditions which can help us navigate and, in some cases, defeat digital coercion and related issues.
The first sphere of influence is a sphere in which we have a direct ability to shape events and outcomes. This level of control is typically reserved for those at the top, whether they be CEOs, small business owners, or someone in between these extremes. This leads us to the harsh reality that the majority of us do not exercise this level of control, at least professionally, especially if we work in large corporations. I have no power to dictate IT’s policy on multi-factor authentication (MFA) just as I have no power to direct my company’s budget. This is a reality we must face clearly when thinking about ways to combat digital coercion in any way, big or small.
I do not wish to be all doom and gloom, so I can happily report that there are some ways in which people (be they middle managers or even the lowest level employees) can exercise some influence in matters. There are a few fundamental attributes that precede this ability, however:
You must be recognized as someone that provides value for your company and/or team.
You must be knowledgeable and articulate on the matter you wish to change.
There must be enough supra-individual (be it societal or internally) support to effectuate this change.
A personal example from recent experience has been how I was able to get a department-wide ban enacted on copying and pasting from LLMs when sending internal communication or directly referring inquiries to these chatbots. It had become an epidemic of some people sending the worst and most verbose AI slop messages via email - oftentimes without answering any questions or providing value - which was degrading our overall performance. Because of my positive reputation on the team and because of a bevy of examples of the headaches these types of communications caused for me and my colleagues, I was able to demonstrate to my boss that this was an issue that was degrading our team and negatively affecting many intra-company relationships, directly contradicting one of the “values” my company espouses. This is a small example, but something not out of the realm of possibility for many depending on the disposition of their boss.
Thanks for reading Offline Rights! This post is public so feel free to share it.
If we’re being realistic, however, this is the sphere of influence in which we have the least say. Oftentimes, especially in large corporations, the usage or implementation of certain technologies is driven by vibes and buzzwords, as they have positive impacts on earnings calls and little else. There is a frantic keeping up with the Joneses going on, as executives fear what they perceive as falling behind. Such a frenetic pace - without room for caution or even reflection - makes it difficult to combat coercion. Accordingly, I do not believe at this stage that it is possible to get “knock-out blows” on some of the technologies or practices that give rise to or are directly digital coercion, at least at large corporations. Your mileage may vary, however, especially if you work at a smaller business where you know and can communicate with others about strategies more intimately.
The second sphere of influence are the areas in which we can shield others from direct or indirect digital coercion and questionable technologies. This would be the boss that shields their subordinates from using LLMs if they do not want to use them by not including that as part of their review or compensation discussions (something I have vowed to do for some of my subordinates who are personally against that technology). This would also be the boss that helps find exemptions from some general IT policies for their employees, such as helping them find alternative ways to do MFA or shields them from needing to download other “required” apps on their cell phones. We can often get far by simply asking for something, but in my experience in the workplace, you generally get further if you have someone higher up in your corner willing to fight for you. So while it may be tricky at times to push back for ourselves, know that we often have much more power (and dare I say, responsibility) to push back for the sake of others.
This requires open and honest conversations with your colleagues and subordinates though. You need to understand their views and preferences on this subject, which most likely will differ in some ways from yours. Nevertheless, I think you’ll find that on certain technology subjects such as AI, you have more people that agree with you than not. For instance, while I think all of my coworkers would not bat an eye at expanded MFA requirements, roughly 70% of them are slightly to overwhelmingly against our implementation of generative AI (a statistic that is only slightly higher than Americans’ overall negative views of AI). This is more than enough, in my view, to be able to have some success at pushing back on certain technology mandates, even if it’s small and only partial. We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The third sphere of influence is critical not just for technology use and digital coercion, but for our work lives in general - set boundaries and keep them. This might come as a surprise to the non-American readers of this publication, but corporate work-life in America has a tendency to become all-consuming. It is a widely accepted habit that people will generally blur the lines between work and life - both day-to-day and even during blocks away from work, such as vacations - so that there are no distinct boundaries delineating the two. Laptops and cell phones have made this immensely worse in the past two decades as we can always be online, even outside of working hours or when one is outside the country.
This is the easiest way to push back on digital coercion in the workplace. You must set boundaries on your time and reasonable boundaries on technology, especially if you are being asked to install things on your personal devices. You might experience some difficulties with IT security related items such as MFA which are going to have corporate-wide mandates, but it is still easy and less risky to push back on other “mandatory” apps such as having Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Teams on your phone. The more you acquiesce and go along with such little things, the harder it will be down the line to successfully push back and the more pervasive will the technological asks likely become. If you are firm, clear, and consistent in setting your boundaries from the start, you’ll be amazed at how you can push back on the little ways companies use technologies to coerce us to do things we’d otherwise avoid, such as with the expectation of always being online and reachable.
Corporate life, particularly in America, tends to have one direction in which things move as it relates to technology. There always needs to be more technology used and as technologies themselves get more complex and security needs increase, additional technology will be introduced to remedy the previous vulnerabilities or inefficiencies. We have been trapped in an ever-growing snowball as more and more is asked of us in this realm. Because corporate leaders are like lemmings, if one moves to do more with digital technologies, others will inevitably follow at seemingly a quicker and quicker pace.
It might seem unjust that we live in a world subject to the whims of corporate executives who, seemingly, want to make things worse for the sake of squeezing out additional profits. But unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of making society our own personal utopia. The reality is that in most large companies, standing up for what we believe in to the fullest extent will likely get us fired because it goes against the grain, and that does not provide maximum value. Or as Alberto Romero put it in his latest post about surviving AI as a non-believer:
“The market doesn’t run on truth but on what your boss happens to be obsessed with.”
This leaves us with less room to operate, for pushback against digital coercion or the technologification of everything is still risky. Opposing corporate norms or “best practices”, however lightly, could create threats to our livelihoods. Nevertheless, as I laid out above, there are still very real ways we can have impacts in our workplace to make things just a little better for ourselves or our coworkers. This requires that we evaluate what our boundaries are, what battles we want to fight, and whether it makes sense to even remain in a corporate environment as compared to leaving to join a smaller business with less digital pressure (or perhaps starting your own). I cannot answer that for you and you must be honest about the pros and cons and the risks and rewards of each path.
There is one other way in which I believe we can begin to shape the world to stall or reduce the encroachment of technology and unnecessary coercion in the workplace. At the beginning of this piece, I mentioned that we often bifurcate our lives between work and leisure. They both maintain their separate spheres and what happens in one does not usually affect the other. However, I’m not so sure that there is a complete lack of overlap between the two. Stated more directly, I believe that any successes in stopping digital coercion or halting any unwilling encroachment of technology into our personal lives will pay dividends at work.
Every action we take shapes the world around us. What we choose to buy, what media we choose to consume, and how we choose to spend our time all shapes the world and others in it. While we as individuals cannot singlehandedly enact radical change, we can, through our actions, shape the world in a way that encourages others to join us and discourages companies (or governments or any organization) from pursuing a particular path. It might seem Sisyphean, but it’s not impossible.
Even if corporate leaders can be lemmings, there is still the possibility of enacting societal change which will have the effect of pressuring or even causing capitulation on certain subjects surrounding digital coercion. An extreme (and frankly, implausible example) would be if a significant percentage of working age people - say, 20% - switched to “dumbphones”, this would impact the ability for them to require MFA apps and cause at least some of them to come up with alternative authentication solutions. Extremes aside, if a popular movement were to gain sufficient support for a tech-skeptic, pro-analog, or even just multi-option position, this would likely trigger many businesses to begin to offer different options for some of their services.
Therefore, I would encourage everyone to continue finding alternatives to Big Tech services and platforms, advocating for the return to analog options, voting with your wallet (or possible your actual vote), and retaking control of your attention. Victories in the private sphere will likely lead to victories in the world of business. At the very least, we might just make the world a bit more principled and saner when it comes how we interact with digital technologies.
Editor’s Note: Massive thanks to fellow Substacker S.M. Pokrovsky for this contribution - our first guest post at Offline Rights! You can read more of his work and subscribe below.
Do you feel moved to share encouragement and inspiration too? Then for the love of all the deities, talk to me. There isn’t a moment to waste!
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.