Welcome to IndigNation

6
580

By Adam Turteltaub
adam.turteltaub@corporatecompliance.org

Indignation may be at an all time high these days, and it seems to be going nowhere but up.  You can see it in the endless posts on Facebooks slamming this or that political decision or statement.  Never did I think I would so much miss videos of cats riding on Roombas.

And you can see it every time something comes up that could possibly inspire ire.

We are living in what I call IndigNation:  a country, if not a world, filled with indignant people.

That means a business has very little room to wander astray and failures will be dealt with less favorably than ever before.   Making matters worse, with social media the capacity for the impact to be amplified is incalculable.

Noted communications expert Peter Sandman has a famous equation he created:

Risk= Hazard + Outrage

What this means is that risk isn’t based just on how dangerous something is.  It’s also based on how great the outrage it could produce.

These days the outrage factor has been amplified greatly.  And with social media’s ability to amplify things even further, I would argue that the formula should be:

Risk = Hazard + (Outrage x Social Media)

As compliance and ethics professionals we can’t change the public zeitgeist.  And, I should note, it’s difficult to even spell zeitgeist.

However, we can remind everyone we work with that in these indignant times, the need for ethical compliant behavior has never been greater.  The margins for errors are smaller, the willingness to forgive is much less, and only the foolish or the very brave would risk running afoul of IndigNation.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Welcome to IndigNation” quote=”Welcome to IndigNation” theme=”style3″]

6 COMMENTS

  1. Adam,

    Coming from your perspective…do you think social media gets a bad rap because we often hear of its ugly side (understanding that this is related to the people that use it) or do you think that social media overall is much more positive…but hey…good news or nice news doesn’t often make the headlines or get noticed.

    • Good question, and one that would be best served with some empirical data comparing the amount of positive vs. negative things.

      My personal belief is that social media amplifies the existing mood and leads to more extreme feelings. We get locked into reinforcing cycles, partially because we’re connected (mostly) to people who agree with us, and the algorithms for the ads sense what we believe and seek to reinforce it.

  2. Adam,

    I like Indignation . . . sounds like an attractive new reality TV show

    Yes, Peter Sandman’s insight is enormous.

    There is another equation that I use to help embattled leaders understand the nature of the troubled truth they are living: Truth= 15% facts and data+ 85% emotion and point of reference. Who you are and your perspective matter far more than facts and data. Even that small amount of data is entirely debatable.

    Proof of leadership, winning or rightness today has become foolishly dependent on data. Yet, the more data introduced into an issue, discussion or debate the more offended, angry and outraged the participants and victims become. Not to mention that everyone can retain their own experts to reinterpret the data.

    The truth is nearly impossible to nail down because each of those who are outraged have a truth that is unique to them. A mob of a thousand enraged or just irritated people represents a thousand different truths.

    Data is powerless to convince the outraged and angry of anything. Being given more data simply creates more victims because the message that the guy with the data is sending is that he is smarter than anyone. Because data can actually be toxic rather than persuasive we are reduced to try understanding the emotional dimension of truth.

    When an organization or its leaders fall into the data quicksand, they just don’t know the way out. And rather than looking to reduce the victimization and rebuild the trust of those affected . . . another consultant is hired to produce another study. The real solution only comes when the outrage, anger and victimization is recognized then promptly and constructively addressed directly.

    This is the real power of the Sandman insight.

    • Jim:

      Great insights. I often say that life is a giant Roschack (sic?) test. So I’m very much in agreement with your formula, and I’ll likely start using it, with appropriate attribution, of course.

      Adam

Comments are closed.