AI’s Future in Danger? OpenAI’s Shift from "Humanity-First" to "Profit-First" Could be the Alarm Bell to AI Community

- Prasun Chaturvedi (BE, MBA) 

Introduction

When OpenAI was founded in 2015, it set out to be this beacon of responsible Artificial intelligence (AI) development, which would be free from the profit-driven motives of corporate tech giants. Co-founded by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and others, OpenAI promised to keep AI research open, transparent, and dedicated to benefiting humanity. The non-profit board was to be the controlling entity that kept the company guided to it's commitment to non-profit motive of betterment of humanity. 

This founding mission established OpenAI's commitment to the safe development of AI. Its nonprofit structure ensured that profits would not dictate its direction, which positioned the organization as a benevolent force in the rapidly advancing field of AI. The early establishment of its nonprofit nature was key to attracting researchers and ethical AI advocates.

Well, Fast-forward to today, and the OpenAI we took pride in, is unrecognizable. With the departure of Musk and a recent pivot towards profit-making, Sam Altman’s OpenAI seems to have sold out to the very corporate interests it sought to resist since inception.

 Post-Idealist Capitalism

OpenAI’s purported mission at inception was clear: to prevent AI becoming a tool for monopoly or political gain (OpenAI, 2015). Operating as a nonprofit Organization, its founders publicly avowed to avoid the pitfalls of greedy Big Tech—namely, the prioritization of profits over ethical concerns.

Despite its nonprofit roots, the high costs associated with AI research and development soon pushed OpenAI toward commercial partnerships. In 2019, the company, under Altman, made a strategic pivot by creating a for-profit subsidiary, but in an unprecedented move in Silicon Valley, OpenAI transitioned into a for-profit entity with a difference, or more precisely, a hitherto unheard of structure - the "capped-profit" company, in order to secure massive investments.

In what appears in hindsight to have been a figleaf of commitment to its roots. Investors could earn up to 100 times their original investment, but anything beyond that cap would flow back into the nonprofit for public benefit (Metz, 2019). This opened the gates for investors. Microsoft alone has invested over $1 billion into OpenAI, forging a tight-knit relationship between the two companies. This inflow of capital allowed for rapid advancements in AI technologies like GPT-3 and ChatGPT (Vincent, 2019).

The company's decision to form a for-profit arm was driven by practical needs. Building state-of-the-art AI models like GPT-3 required enormous financial resources. I think this decision was the beginning of a growing tension between maintaining its founding vision and scaling its capabilities in a capital-intensive industry.

Between 2019 and now, as OpenAI ramped up the development of Large Language Models (LLM), it increasingly focused on commercializing its products. During this period, the company's commitment to safety and transparency began to erode. Concerns among employees and external observers grew, especially as the nonprofit board began to suspect that Altman, who took the helm as CEO in 2019, was more interested in capitalizing on OpenAI's financial potential than adhering to its founding principles (Levy, 2023). 

In 2023, tensions between Altman and OpenAI's nonprofit board reached a tipping point when the board attempted to oust him, citing concerns over his leadership and the company’s drift from its safety-first mission. Altman, however, was able to retain control by leveraging his relationship with Microsoft, which had become OpenAI's largest financial backer, and by reconfiguring the board in his favor. 

This growing dissatisfaction within OpenAI marked the internal conflict between financial objectives and the organization's foundational ethos. This period of mounting pressure reflects the classic tension between corporate governance and moral responsibility, especially in the context of highly disruptive technologies like AI. The board raised a fundamental question: can a company remain devoted to the public good while chasing billions of dollars in private funding? Ah, the old question of funding influencing priorities had reared its ugly head again. And how! 

OpenAI’s Final Transformation: From Nonprofit to Full-Fledged For-Profit (2024)

In September 2024, OpenAI took its final step away from its altruistic origins. The company restructured itself into a for-profit benefit corporation, removing the cap, effectively stripping the nonprofit board of its control and giving Altman significant equity, estimated to be worth billions. Profits beyond the cap were meant to fund the public good, hence the money essentially belonged to the public by the company’s own charter. By retrospectively removing the cap, Altman is diverting publics money to the investors, breaking the vow of the company and it's founders! 

Fallout and Reaction: Criticism from Within and Beyond

The announcement was swiftly followed by the resignation of Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati, earlier in the day. The resignation foreshadowed the announcement of the for-profit transformation, which blindsided many employees and led to internal discontent. The reaction within the company was one of shock and betrayal, with many employees reportedly reacting with "WTF" emojis in Slack channels.

The restructuring of OpenAI raised serious ethical and legal questions. And public scrutiny. The capped-profit model, once touted as a mechanism to protect the public from runaway corporate greed, had been dismantled. Jacob Hilton, a former employee, voiced concerns that removing profit caps could transfer billions in value from the nonprofit—which was supposed to represent the public interest—to private investors (Hilton, 2024). This move, Hilton argued, would be incompatible with OpenAI’s original charter, which claimed that its primary fiduciary duty was to humanity.

Elon Musk, who had previously parted ways with OpenAI, also criticized the company's shift toward profit maximization, questioning the legality of such a dramatic departure from its nonprofit roots. Others in the tech community, such as Debashish Mohanty from XIM University Bhubaneswar, noted that this transformation formalized what had long been apparent: OpenAI was now part of an industry that prioritized investment returns over safety and transparency. 

Rationale for the Shift: A Necessary Compromise?

It'll be unfair to attribute OpenAI’s restructuring to hasty decision making. Au contraire, it was being secretly stewed - a calculated response to the challenges of scaling AI research. Sam Altman and other leaders argue that the immense computational power required for cutting-edge AI research necessitated significant investments that could only come from the private sector. Without it, OpenAI’s ambitious goals to create Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) could remain a distant dream.

Critics, however, point out that this shift opens the door to prioritizing profit over AI safety. What remains unclear is whether OpenAI’s mission to ensure that AGI benefits all of humanity could coexist with the financial imperatives of attracting private capital. Nibedita Sahu, an expert on research at XIM University Bhubaneswar, noted that, "This shift could lead to subtle changes in research priorities, where advancements that appeal to investors may gain precedence over ethical concerns."

 A Broader Industry Trend?

The transition from nonprofit to for-profit is not unique to OpenAI. Several AI research organizations, including DeepMind, have undergone similar transformations. DeepMind, once an independent company dedicated to ethical AI, was acquired by Google, resulting in increased funding but also a tightening of corporate control.

The case of Anthropic, founded by former OpenAI researchers who were concerned about AI’s ethical trajectory, serves as a telling case study in this regard. While Anthropic remains focused on AI safety, it too operates as a for-profit entity, relying on investor funding. This trend suggests that as AI research becomes increasingly resource-intensive, organizations may feel compelled to seek profits, even at the risk of diluting their ethical standards.

Hence, the critical question for the AI community: is it possible to balance the need for immense capital with the ethical imperatives of AI safety and transparency?

Ethical and Legal Concerns: A Shift from Public Interest

At the heart of the controversy surrounding OpenAI’s transformation lies a legal and ethical dilemma: to what extent can or should profit-driven motives influence the development of AI? OpenAI’s decision to pivot toward a for-profit model is not without precedent, but its unique mission to protect humanity from the potential harms of AGI makes it an outlier.

Legally, nonprofit organizations are bound by fiduciary duties to serve the public interest. When OpenAI restructured, it effectively loosened these obligations. According to Pritam Samal, a scholar in law at XIM University, nonprofits are designed to prioritize public service above profits, but OpenAI’s restructuring allows it to funnel earnings back to investors, albeit with a cap. Whether this violates the original spirit of OpenAI’s charter remains a matter of debate.

Regulatory Implications: A Call for Oversight

The controversy surrounding OpenAI’s transformation has intensified calls for regulatory oversight of AI companies. Advocates for AI safety argue that the profit-driven nature of major AI companies may incentivize them to disregard the societal risks posed by the rapid deployment of advanced AI systems. Jeffrey Wu, a former OpenAI employee, noted that AI companies have a vested interest in avoiding regulation, and the dismantling of OpenAI's nonprofit oversight only underscores the need for legal frameworks to ensure accountability (Wu, 2024).

Altman’s decisions seem to have provided an ideal case for advocates of AI regulation. The sudden shift in OpenAI’s structure has accelerated the urgency for government oversight in the AI industry, especially in light of the ethical implications of its potential monopoly over the future of AI.

As we write, California Governor Gavin Newsom is considering the passage of SB 1047, a bill that would impose new regulations on AI companies operating in the state. Proponents of the bill argue that the recent developments at OpenAI offer a cautionary tale of what can happen when profit incentives supersede public welfare - an argument handed to them on a platter by Altman! 

The Cost of Cutting Corners: AI Safety at Stake?

One of the most pressing concerns raised by critics is that OpenAI’s shift to a for-profit model could compromise AI safety. AI systems like GPT-3, while revolutionary, are not without flaws. From generating biased content to propagating misinformation, these AI systems have already exhibited the kind of harm that critics of rapid AI development have long warned about.

Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction, highlights the dangers of prioritizing profit over ethical concerns in AI development. "AI systems can wreak havoc on society if not carefully monitored, and the incentive to commercialize them quickly could lead to cutting corners in safety protocols." OpenAI’s recent releases, including ChatGPT, have drawn attention for both their potential and their risks.

When profit is a driving force, there is a risk that AI safety measures could take a back seat to the need for rapid deployment. This could have far-reaching consequences for society, especially as AI systems become more deeply integrated into critical sectors like healthcare, education, and criminal justice.

End of the Original OpenAI mission

In just under a decade, OpenAI has gone from a nonprofit research lab committed to safeguarding humanity from the risks of AI to a powerful corporate entity focused on maximizing financial returns. While Altman’s defenders may argue that this shift was necessary to attract the capital needed to build cutting-edge AI systems, critics contend that the company's original mission has been sacrificed at the altar of profit. A betrayal and a sellout! As the AI industry continues to grow, the case of OpenAI serves as a reminder that even the most idealistic of missions can be overshadowed by commercial interests, and the need for robust regulation has never been more urgent

Recommendations for a Sustainable Path Forward

As OpenAI and other companies navigate the complex landscape of AI development, it is crucial that ethical guidelines and robust regulatory frameworks are put in place to ensure that profit does not come at the expense of public safety. While it is risky to proffer amy prescriptions at such a sensitive juncture, yet what I think is that OpenAI should do some right things yet, to salvage what it has left of its original mission: 

- Adopt Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) Models: OpenAI could consider adopting a public benefit corporation (PBC) model, which allows for-profit entities to prioritize public benefit alongside shareholder profits. This would offer a more formalized structure for balancing ethical AI research with the need for capital.

  

- Increased Transparency: OpenAI should disclose its AI safety protocols and demonstrate how it plans to mitigate risks associated with deploying its technologies. This could be mandated through regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act or the California SB 1047, which focus on transparency and accountability in AI development.

- Independent Audits: To avoid conflicts of interest, OpenAI could commission independent audits of its AI systems to ensure they meet stringent safety and ethical standards. These audits should be made public to build trust in the company’s commitment to its original mission.

- Strengthening AI Safety Research: A portion of OpenAI’s profits could be reinvested into independent research on AI safety. This would not only help mitigate risks but also reassure critics that OpenAI remains committed to the responsible development of AGI.

 Conclusion

OpenAI’s evolution from a nonprofit research lab to a for-profit company has sparked debate about the ethical responsibilities of organizations that wield powerful technologies. While the inflow of private capital has accelerated advancements, it has also led to concerns that profit-driven motives could compromise AI safety and transparency.

In a rapidly changing landscape, it is vital that AI companies like OpenAI strike a balance between financial sustainability and their ethical obligations to society. As AI technologies continue to shape the future, the world will be watching to see whether OpenAI can live up to its lofty ambitions—or whether it will become just another corporate entity prioritizing profit over the public good.

 References:

1. Hansmann, H. (1980). The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901. https://doi.org/10.2307/795820

2. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown.

3. Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., & Cave, S. (2019). The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314289

4. Kreps, S. (2023). Governance of Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Issues in Policy and Ethics. Journal of AI Research.

        https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJIIM.2014.067926?journalCode=ijiim

Challenges and Opportunities of Adaptability of Social Media Practices in Government Organizations in India

 

Nibedita Sahu

KIIT School of Management, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

sh.nibedita@gmail.com

 Abstract

 

Effect of social media on brand loyalty and brand awareness of the consumers is an emergent concept. Organizations are now focused on enhancing customer experience to create “brand loyalty bond” with their clients. In the 21st century, brands need to have a social story to leverage the emotional and persuasive elements that make offerings lucrative. It offers opportunity to government bodies to provide prospective platforms for 1) "voice to all" 2) immediate outreach 3) 24x7 engagement connecting stakeholders especially citizens 4) make information available on public services 5) make policy formulation citizen-centric 6) create community based programs 7) facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, and connect to citizen touch-points to create a consistent government experience. The article discusses the evolution of social media and its adoption by private organizations as well as government organizations which are an untapped territory until now. The feasibility aspect of social media adaptability by government entities, keeping in focus challenges like organizational complexity, steep hierarchical structure, willingness quotient of government workforce, ambiguity in delegation of authority, chances of information mismatch etc are discussed at length. The article also attempts to suggest a few practical guidelines for social media adaptation by government organizations in India.

 

1. Evolution of social media

 

Social media boom is hailed as the best innovation model for global communication in the 20th century. It brings along with it a futuristic change in organizational communication & interaction pattern. It has the potential to fundamentally change the character of our social lives, both on an interpersonal level and a community level. The traditional media marketing tools of television and newspapers are facing increased competition from the more attractive alternatives provided by social media. Instead of spending money on a marketer, the social media has evolved the ways of communication and enabled people to market for free, even with the possibility of putting a personal stamp on it. It has brought about a paradigm shift in consumer interaction & consumer behavior.

 

Changes in interaction patterns and social connections are already evident among young people, who are the heaviest users of these sites. As adoption spreads to a wider audience, we expect such changes to be amplified across all segments of society. On a community level, the organizing features of these sites lower the transaction costs for finding and connecting with others on critical issues touching our lives.

 2. Unceasing adoption by non-government organizations

 As a prelude to discussing the use of social media by non-government organizations, let me bring forth aspects of brand and its connotation for a product/service from organizational perspective. Quoting “brand loyalty, in return, brings sales revenues, market share, profitability to the firms, and help them grow or at least maintain themselves in the marketplace (Keller, 2008; Aaker, 1991, Kapferer, 1997)” I emphasize that the above quote brings forth the indispensability of brand loyalty for a firm to keep it floating in the market place. And to maintain brand loyalty, a firm needs to work towards keeping that intact in every conceivable way. So here comes the essentiality of social media, the new-age media in the life cycle of a firm.

 

Quoting ALEXA et. al.1998, “Whereas in traditional advertising, the presentation is linear and the consumer is passively exposed to product/service information, for interactive advertising, the consumer instead actively traverses the information, so it has become imperative for all firms to engage, interact, communicate, work together with all stakeholders of the firm i.e. consumers, suppliers, traders, employees, and to the society as a whole. To get a focused definition of social media, I would quote Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein who define Social Media as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content". According to Bertot et al. (2010), “Social media has four major potential strengths: collaboration, participation, empowerment, and time. Social media is collaborative and participatory by its very nature as it is defined by social interaction. It provides the ability for users to connect with each other and form communities to socialize, share information, or to achieve a common goal or interest. Social media can be empowering to its users as it gives them a platform to speak. It allows anyone with access to the internet the ability to inexpensively publish or broadcast information, effectively democratizing media. In terms of time, social media technologies allow users to immediately publish information in near-real time.

 Social media uses internet and web-based technologies to transform broadcast media monologues (one-to-many) into social media dialogues (many-to-many). It supports the democratization of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers. To name some of world’s best organizations who have put in substantial efforts for social media practices and also have formulated policies for the same are Oracle, Disney, Alcatel-Lucent, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Google, Walt Disney, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Target, Amazon and E-Bay,Pepsi etc. To reinforce it further, Social Media (SM) has started making forays into government organizations across the world. The example of countries like US, UK, Canada, Russia is quite apt, where not only citizens follow SM, even top policy makers of these countries rely heavily on the power of SM practices, its power and wide reach and they have personal presence in various SM platforms. The significance of SM platforms like Twitter, FB, Google+ etc. could be realized during the election of Barrack Obama as the president of the US. Back home, keeping the 2014 elections in mind, Indian politicians are also foraying into SM, so much so that one prominent political leader is said to have hired the best mind in social media deployment policy to manage his SM presence and to engage with the citizens of our country.

 3.   Power of social media

A report produced by the Dubai School of Government stated, “Social media tools have merged online and offline identities, while playing an arguably critical role in dramatic changes sweeping the Arab region,” inferred that the growth of social media in the Middle East and the shift in usage trends have played a critical role in mobilization, empowerment, shaping opinions, and influencing change. The Occupy Wall Street movement in the U.S. was successfully organized and coordinated using social media such as Facebook and Twitter. It now has a budget and has spread to cities all over the U.S. as well as other countries.

 So this article further recognizes the driving forces, be it affirmative or adverse, behind the alacrity or aversion of government organizations in India to adopt SM practices in their pursuit of achieving business and social goals and staying competitive.

 4. Social media adoption by government organizations and its potential implications

 

Web 2.0 technologies can be used in a variety of government settings. Web 2.0 was coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 to describe the cumulative changes of Web uses and applications. Web 1.0 as it existed throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s was a prototype characterized by passive users consuming static content with limited interactive capacity. Web 2.0 is fundamentally different as users produce and share dynamic content in real time with the platform functioning as a communication medium with extensive interactive capacity (DiNucci 1999; Manovich 2009). Cole (2009) defines a new buzzword of ‘crowd sourcing’ which recognizes that useful ideas are not confined to elected leaders or experts. Social media can allow a more democratic society in allowing useful contributions by people at all levels of society. Specific ministries and entities could use blogs to communicate on public hearings, wikis and RSS feeds to coordinate work, and wikis to internally share expertise and intelligence information (Mergel, et. al., 2009).

 

Despite some experimentation by the public sector, the use of Web technologies to enhance collaborative interaction between government, stakeholders and citizens remains limited, (Kathleen McNutt and Wayne Zhu, 2012). The emergence of Web 2.0, and in particular online social media tools, has had an uneven impact across governments, ministries and agencies. For public administrators, keeping pace with new Web technologies will be critical to governments committed to knowledge based economies that simultaneously foster innovation and promote social cohesion (Valtysson 2010). For citizens, the density of online communication networks provides greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public debate and enhanced capacity to undertake collective action (Woolley et al. 2010).

Second generation Web technologies have triggered significant changes in both policy and administrative processes as governments respond to the new behavioral, social, economic, and political norms of the network society. As Dunleavy and his colleagues have observed, information technologies (IT) are fundamentally reshaping public management systems, service delivery models and state society interaction. People want new and innovative ideas, but cooperation is distinctly lacking as governments and companies jealously guard their secrets. Finally, The Global Village has arrived which has acknowledged the full maturation and potential of social media. It is efficiently used in projects broad in scope and wide in application and outside suggestions are welcomed. Technological breakthroughs have also simplified processes, facilitating proactive creating of linkages between and among people, organization and government. In terms of technological capacity, the appropriate type of social media must be matched to its most relevant category of public policy; in other words, not all social media programming is suitable as tools for all types of public policies. Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) offer a good taxonomy of different social media types like collaborative projects, blog, content communities, social networking sites, virtual game worlds, and virtual social worlds etc.

 

5.        Opportunities and Challenges

In countries like US, the benefit of social media use for government response agencies has been demonstrated emphatically through various cases, such as the Queensland disasters and the Haiti earthquake. Law enforcement agencies that have a need to contact the public quickly and efficiently should be banking up on social media as an effective method to disseminate crucial information for situations such as criminal activity in an area, for evacuation instructions in case of a fire or natural disaster, and for community outreach to promote safety in neighborhoods. Another success story includes the Kublai initiative in Italy, which is an online community that allows creative young citizens to participate in economic development projects to improve their communities. Social Media today adheres to the fundamental tenet of democracy in that it is powered By the People and is meant For the People.

 

However, studies looking at Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong, found that even in 2011, 65% of organizations including government organizations have no policy regarding social media use by employees; almost 50% of the government organizations do not monitor social media plans, policies, and mediums regularly.  Back home, the picture is gloomy. As per Magro 2012, Asian governments in overall seemed to avoid the use of social media. Those few governments that did use it used it for disseminating information, in education, and tourism, indicating that social media usage is sparse and not interactive. It is quite obvious that governments are missing prospects to provide better services to their citizens and reach out to the growing number of internet users. Instead, government should focus on its strengths and pivoting on those strengths, it would be in a better position to engage with its stakeholders through the platform of these new technologies. Governments should develop an overall strategic plan at all agency levels to participate in social networks, and develop a coordinated approach to move along with all towards an objective of efficient and quick delivery of services, improved transparency, and buoyant people participation. This would not only bring a radical change in governance, but also instill in people a sense of responsibility. If people want to avail better services, they are also accountable for the maintainability of those services. In specific circumstance like during onset of communal riots, natural calamities, major accidents, mishaps in industrial sectors, awareness campaigns for citizen-centric services, societal stigmas, sensitive life-style issues etc. social media podium could be a real gem of medium to reach out to the masses which is hailed as the most low-cost, least time-consuming broadcast channel.

 

Godwin et al. (2008) identify ten barriers and recommend potential solutions in a 2008 study of issues relevant to the US. Table 1 categorizes the ten barriers as strategy formulation issues, policies for using non-government sites, and issues in using government owned social networking sites.

 

Table 1: Barriers and solutions in SM adoption

 

Issue Category	Issue
Strategy Formulation	Cultural unpreparedness and lack of strategy for using social media technologies
Government Site Usage	Prohibition of persistent cookies as would be required for site personalization   Rules requiring control number to survey and request information from the public   Providing access for people with disabilities including transcripts / captions on audio/video content   Administrative requirements during rulemaking on how to accept comments from public on new regulations
Non-Government Site Usage	Blocking employee access to social media sites   Agreeing to terms of service required by social media sites   Advertising placed on pages by social media sites   Government procurement rules for “free” service offered   Privacy standards and enforcements of social media sites

 

Issues in Adoption of Social Media Technologies in Government (Godwin et al. (2008)

 In a discussion of their social media strategy, Marc Hudson of the Public Health Agency of Canada identified the following barriers to implementing a social media strategy.

 1.        Government agencies are risk-averse and slow to change. Frequently, by the time they navigate approval processes, adapt, develop and implement strategies for new media, users behaviours on the platforms have evolved, and the public conversation shifts to new platforms.

2.      There are typically multiple layers of policies and processes governing information flow which impairs rapid responses to public mood or individual information needs or requests. People expect responses in hours or days, not weeks, or they will seek information elsewhere.

3.      Poor technical infrastructure and internet access can   

   impair some agencies’ ability to interact with bandwidth intensive sites, for example, SecondLife requires good processing speeds and a fast internet connection to be functional.

4.        Security measures (network firewalls) and other restrictions impair professional’s ability to engage with new media and the approval process to access some sites may delay experimentation with new media.

5.        The federal government’s official language mandate adds a further complexity to executing rapid and interactive conversation.

Apart from above, other key challenges include firms’ ability of real time, regular interaction and constant engagement with stakeholders, which is considered as a critical component of a social media strategy. For agencies, this may require streamlining message-approval processes or establishing guidelines to train and empower frontline communicators to engage and interact directly with the public. Agencies dealing with linguistic minorities will face similar challenges. Further, social media technologies do not offer clear-cut ROI justifications based on cost efficiencies or service delivery. And, while non-government agencies can choose the customers they target, governments are there to serve the common good of all citizens. Therefore, enough deliberation needs to be carried out before adoption of social media in government.

 6.     Few guidelines for social media adaptation by government organizations in India.

 

Like any other IT investment, social media investments need to be planned and the required concomitant organizational change to culture, people, structure, and processes need to be managed for effective results. Although, it is reasonable to start small to see which initiatives work and which do not, the maneuverability of government in adopting social media by the trial and error approach is markedly lower than business. Therefore, a strategic planning approach as presented here becomes necessary for effectively leveraging social technology in government. Some believe that success with social media cannot be sustained under the current structure of governments worldwide. They propose that sustained success can only come when governments create new organizational units to manage newly created e-participation channels, and also to analyze the large quantities of both structured data (e.g., citizens’ rankings and ratings) and unstructured data (e.g., citizens’ postings in textual form) that will be created by them.

 

The personnel of these new units must have specialized skills concerning the new electronic modes of communication, and also be immersed in a quite different culture from the dominant ‘law enforcement’ and “regulatory culture” of government agencies.

 

7.       Strategies for adopting SM

In the design of expert systems, a method called “backward-chaining” is sometimes used to model the steps needed to solve a problem. Backward-chaining involves starting with the ultimate goal in mind, then working backward through intermediate steps to find a solution path. However, this strategy is not without its own questions like whether it would be able to empower every citizen, be able to bestow the ability on every government agency to engage in meaningful interaction, and whether it would enjoy direct participation from every citizen and empower them to have instant access to classified information.

 

Figure I: Four different foundational positions when writing social media policies

 

 

Ref: Disciplining social media: An analysis of social media policies in 26 Swedish municipalities, by Mathias Klang and Jan Nolin.

 

    Web 2.0 technologies can be used in a variety of government settings. Governments have used social sites to reach constituents during elections or times of crisis. With limited resources and funding, governments need to develop a well-written strategic plan for the most effective use in order to reach their audience.

 

     Future studies on government usage of social media could analyze how local or municipal governments exploit this technology, and could explore if there is a significant difference between the two. Local governments may have a different perspective on native issues and services, and could easily develop their own implementation strategies for social media. Local people can have a comprehensive understanding of issues concerning them and can give better and quicker ideas to solve issues.

     Governments should make a concerted effort to ensure that users feel empowered when using these sites, especially the government employees who may be tasked with managing services on social media. It is suggested that leaders not only tolerate the unsolicited mistakes committed while using the sites, but also reward those employees who use innovative methods to better serve the constituents. Governments can’t be afraid of small failures when some site functions may not be effective, and should look towards the achievement of long-term strategic value of how this technology could be used to share and communicate with the citizens and others. Aitoro (2009) further mentions that agencies should recruit employees who have the business and technical expertise to effectively implement the functions of social media.

 

      Governments should create feedback mechanisms, and emphasize on implementation of grievance redressal strategies which would send the message to the citizens that their views are being taken seriously. It is imperative that the site users are active participants in data input to the functions, which the government will implement and at the same time be involved in constant maintenance leading to the growth in quality of governance. Human Capital Institute (2009) suggests that information on current usage of tools on these sites be widely disseminated to encourage citizen leaders to opine on the efficacy of these services. Government leaders could emphasize increased communication between various functional groups and government entities. Galeotti and Goyal (2009) argue that social interaction in this social networking setting is a factor that entities should consider when setting strategies on using this media. Social interaction indicates that a minority of the population can shape the attitudes and behaviors of the majority of the population. Thus, governments could use social sites to reach the key influential individuals, who may be disposed to change the opinions of others, leading towards the conforming with government’s way of thinking. Today’s  government organizations have acknowledged the role of IT  and IT governance is indeed high on the agenda and that organizations with a mature mix of structures, processes and relational mechanisms indeed achieve a higher degree of business / IT alignment maturity compared to other organizations.

 

     According to Accenture’s Public Service Value Governance Framework (Accenture, 2010), the desired public service value to be created and the role of social media in realizing it, must be guided by four principles:

 

1.    Outcome-Based Focus – Generating tangible improvements in the social and economic conditions of citizens.

 

2.    Balanced to Ensure Fairness – Serving the common good by providing access for all citizens.

 

3.    Engagement to Co-Produce Public Value – Engage,    educate, but also help citizens improve their own    quality of life by tapping into their experience.

 

4.    Improving Government Accountability – Increasing transparency in reporting cost-effectiveness of initiatives and providing citizens the opportunity to “talk back” when governments fail to deliver expected public value.

 

Some of the rational approaches which can be embraced by government organizations based on above guidelines could be ----

 

1.    Be consistent. --- To consistently feed the ubiquitous consumer by adding and distributing new content on a monthly, weekly or even daily basis.

 

2.    Be useful. --- With useful content, stakeholders like clients, consumers, companies, suppliers, traders shall be keen to follow and trust the organization because of that content.

 

3.    Be authentic on content. --- Authenticity breeds trust, and trust breeds business. If an organization can share authentic, even vulnerable content, it will resonate with people and shall not result in any lost client.

 

4.    Tie into your customer's emotions. --- if an organization can stir up core concept of marketing and advertising to tap into what resonates emotionally with organization’s audience, thus creating an poignant connection with customers, the organization will be one step ahead of its competitors.

 

5.    Be where your audience is. --- An organization should share right content in the right places, with the right people to enlighten its professional objective conveyed straight across consumers.

 

6.    Advertise better. --- A firm doesn’t have to spend a lot of money on advertising to be a great content marketer. But spending a little money to help reach the right people is sure to get it on the proper track.

 

7. Tell, don't sell. --- It’s a common trait among         consumers that they don’t want to be sold to but       everyone loves a good story. So storytelling as an approach can be used to create content that       people actually want to share.

 

8.       Unanswered questions

It’s definitely not an exaggeration to say that the world hasn’t suddenly woken up to social media. Social media has gradually permeated down to our lives knowingly or unknowingly. Its time today’s public sector firms accept it willingly and make it an innate part of organizational functioning. In the back drop of the challenges faced or to be faced by public sector firms, there remain answered questions like

 

1.    Whether citizen feedback through e-government uses of social media results in governmental change.

 

2. Whether governmental entities using social media                 have an agreed-upon, long-term goal for the          interaction they seek with citizens and if there are       conflicting long term goals, or are there only      short- term objectives.

 

3. The use of social media in e-government differs by               social culture and form of government. What forms of government are most likely to seek    citizen feedback and what types of social       cultures are less likely to participate in e- government?

 

4. Future research on social media in e-government is               needed in the areas of objectives and strategy,               categorization of e-government applications,               and         policy-making.

 

       Such planning will help shape future strategy and fill the vacuum caused by the current lack of definitive goals and objectives. Classifying social media functionality and projects according to an accepted standard will improve the available knowledge base by standardizing the vocabulary. This is important since governments all over the world are currently working on similar e-government initiatives.

 

Finally, more work on social media and e-government policies is still needed since the use of these technologies is changing rapidly. Government regulations have been traditionally slow to catch up with the information age. As the objectives and strategies for government use of social media solidify over time, policy makers must keep pace with the perennial flow.

 

9. Copyright forms

 

If my paper is accepted, I must submit a declaration that my paper is original and not submitted anywhere else.

 

10.     Citation and References

Journal:

1.        Magro, M.J., A Review of Social Media Use in E-Government, Administrative sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, 2012, 2, 148-16.

 

2.        Boutié, P., Will this kill that? Will digital media forever change communications?, LAMTAR Planning & Communication, ISSN: 1363-254X, Vol. 1 Iss: 3, pp.272 – 279.

 

3.        BEZJIAN-AVERY, A., CALDER, B., IACOBUCCI, D., New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising, Journal of advertisement research, July l August 1998, 23-32.

 

4.         Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., Morgan, F.N., Service Blueprinting: A Practical Technique for Service Innovation, University of West Florida

 

5.         André, O., Next generation communications, Next generation communications, Alcatel-Lucent.

 

6.         Dadashzadeh, M., Social Media In Government: From eGovernment To eGovernance, Journal of Business & Economics Research, November, 2010 Volume 8, Number 11 81

 

7.        Kuzma, J. Asian government usage of Web 2.0 social media, Eur. J. ePractice Nº 9, March 2010, ISSN: 1988-625X , 9, 69–81.

 

8.         LaPaze, R.E. Friending the Government: Why US Government Social Media Websites do not Function as Public Spheres and What Can be Done to Promote Civic Participation. Master’s Thesis; George Mason University: Fairfax, VA, USA, 2011.

 

9.         Deschamps, R., McNutt, K., Zhu, W., Environmental Scan on Social Media Use by the Public Sector Administration, Public Engagement and Citizen Centered Services, October 21, 2012.

10.      Merchant, R.M., Elmer, S., Lurie, N., Integrating Social Media into Emergency-Preparedness Efforts, N Engl J Med 2011; 365:289-291July 28, 2011, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1103591.

 

11.      Kerpen, D., Likeable Social Media, http://www.amazon.com/Likeable-Social-Media-Customers-Irresistible/dp/0071762345/ref=tmm_pap_title_0, accessed on 16/9/13.