In American English, the “C-suite” refers to all the various head positions at a firm, named because they all have “Chief” in their tituls. The most notorious by far is CEO, or “Chief Executive Officer”, who runs all of the other C-suite inhabitants. There are others, as CPO (privacy), COO (operating), CFO (finantial), CIO (information), and what ever other tituls the organization wants.
I am going to propose something that will add another “CCO” to the Wikipedian list already compiled: Chief Calmness Officer.
We are almost all familiar with the hair trigger of societal media going off half cocked1 on partial information, sometimes maliciously cooked up, often not.
I ran across an articel about the author of a piece of reporting that got him fired with public infamy had recently been ordained a Catholick minister. The piece he wrote, had evidently lead to psychosomatique illness at the time, and troubled life afterward, used an overly clever title with an insulting racial term for its subject. I am deliberately not using his name since I approve of his self-improvement and am sure he doesn’t want this interfering with his ministry.
Here, the author appears to have made the best of his blind choice of words. I suspect he would not have gotten through his time at a seminary if he had been governed by race hate or judgement by skin tone and facial features. Others must be going through and will yet go through this process of public spite because of a messup the public part of the public finds out about.
For entities that are called upon to deal summarily and harshly with these people when they are internal (employees), this separate and exclusionary position I propose would be delegated the task of dealing with the issue instead of the CEO or publicity. They will learn the facts from primary sources, do research on the accused person that law/company policy/decency permit, and take the time they know they need to have to reach a calm decision. After making the decision, they must write it up themselves and present the entire thing to the head of publicity for editing. Their edits will be advisory only, the CCO can approve, reject, and do anything in between with them. This may be repeated as long as an outside opinion is wished for, but must be done at least once. Of course publicity must keep the contents and content from everyone else in the C-suite and outside it.
After the CCO is satisfied the report fully presents the case and justifies the proposed response, s/he sends it directly and individually to the board of directors, or whatever the firm calls its shareholder representation and government. They then hold a physical meeting, attendance enforced by some meaningful sanction against absentees, where they will vote by secret ballot on the response of the incorporation to the public, to all who work for it, and to the person accused. If more than one is the subject of the furor, individual responses will be voted on. The three category responses will be made known to all, so the public can see what is done to improve the company at large and how the individuals are sanctioned or upheld.
The intent of the process is to insulate our CCO from being known and so set upon by people in the heat of anger who may resort to wrong acts to try and get their way. While secrecy can breed misconduct, open exposure to hot emotions will warp judgement. If a CCO produces a biased or unusable report they can of course be removed for that cause by the board of directors. The usual requirements for honest services and avoiding the appearance of dishonest conduct always apply.
This I hope for, to improve justice in public.
- I must disquisite here to assert that blanket condemnations of so-called “mixed metaphors” are mindless and bad. ↩