How people actually go about their works, how decisions are made, who gets promoted, how employees interact with one another, what motivates them - these are the things that really count. What makes things especially tricky, especially for an outsider, is that as with real cultures of any type - from corporations to schools, towns, and even nations - most of the really important rules are not written down.

The place to start assessing a culture is to listen, really listen, to how employees describe a place. We believe that within most generalizations there lies an inner core of truth.

So, from here on in, I will try to refer to ‘decision making systems’ rather than ‘artificial intelligences’. Corporations are systems, and the make decisions, so they’re decisions making systems. The question is whether they’re black boxes or not — whether we are able to attribute the actions of the corporation to individual human beings within it.

An organisation does things, and it systematically does some things rather than others. But that’s as far as it goes. Systems don’t make mistakes — if they do something, that’s their purpose. But it also works the other way around. Systems don’t have inner desires, so they don’t do things intentionally either. There’s just a network of cause and effect. We might think they’re conspiring, but they’re working within structures that made the outcome inevitable. Or we might see everything as a terrible cock-up, but we don’t understand that the outcome was the inevitable result of the way the system works.

This is the whole theory of the firm, according to the Friedman doctrine. There is no analysis of the company as a decision-making system, just individuals making decisions. While modern HR people might talk about ‘bringing your whole self to work’, Milton Friedman explicitly tells the (assumed to be male) modern executive that he has to divide his moral self into judgements ‘as a person in his own right’ and decisions ‘in his capacity as a businessman’.

Corporations are decision-making systems, not ‘intelligences’. They have homeostatic forces which aim to maintain their equilibrium, and higher-order decision-making systems which mean they are able to reorganise themselves in order to respond to shocks beyond the scope of anything anticipated when they were designed. To attribute motivation to them is to make assumptions about the internal workings of the black box — the original intellectual sin of cybernetic analysis.