Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan – it’s a good business decision. Multiple studies have shown the financial benefits of a diverse management team. In recent years a body of research has revealed another, more nuanced benefit of workplace diversity: nonhomogenous teams are simply smarter. Working with people who are different from you may challenge your brain to overcome its stale ways of thinking and sharpen its performance.
via Harvard Business Review, 4 November 2016
Profit is not enough: fashion brands in the 2020s must demonstrate they are doing good. Achieving the right balance is no easy matter. In double-quick time, says Christina Binkley, the ethical dimension of building a business has turned into a top priority.
via Vogue Business, 8 March 2021
Why it’s time for a new ethical perspective on humanity, according to Toby Ord. He argues that rapid globalisation and technological innovation have brought about profound new risks to humanity’s survival.
via World Economic Forum, 4 November 2020
“Recalling the wisdom of ancient women both expands our view of history and reminds us of the gendered elements of modern complex thought,” says Dawn LaValle Norman in this article for The Conversation.
Brett Beasley talks about new research which suggests that to achieve the highest levels of performance, leaders need both character and competence. And some character strengths matter more than others.
Notre Dame Deloitte Center for Ethical Leadership, 2021.
Virtue ethics is a system that allows us to ask not only “What should I do?”, but also “How should I be?” with each action. It is less concerned with how we act from time to time and more worried about what kind of person we are all of the time.
via Big Think, 13 December 2016
Patterns appear and reappear in corporate-misconduct cases, beginning with fantastic commitments made from on high. All of which place personnel in a position of extreme strain. Even without strain, people tend to underestimate the probability of future bad events. Put them under emotional stress, some research suggests, and this tendency gets amplified. People will favour decisions that preempt short-term social discomfort even at the cost of heightened long-term risk. This reaction isn’t excusable. But it is predictable.
via The Atlantic, January/February 2016
The problem of focusing on tangible behavioural results is that behaviour is vulnerable to subtle disruption, writes Joseph Spino.
via The London School of Economics, 13 August 2020
We’re often confronted with a choice between acting in a way that expresses our deep-seated values and ideals, and acting in a way that promotes a better outcome in the here and now. A familiar context in which this problem presents itself is at the ballot box. So what should you do?
via Psyche, 28 October 2020
While the leaders interviewed in this BBC video have been asked for advice for Trump and Biden, their insights into leadership, gathered during their time as leaders of their communities, are broadly and universally applicable.
The three elders – Stephen Oruma Ole Nkaru from Kenya, Ven. Gyetrul Jigme Rinpoche from Tibet and John Rice, Zahgausgai Mukwa from Wasauksing First Nation in Canada – know what it takes to become a leader. From deep in the Maasai lands of Kenya to high in the mountains of Tibet, these traditional leaders share wisdom that has relevance for every leader.
via BBC, 3 November 2020
This episode of the ABC’s Q+A looks at accountability, ethics and leadership. With public trust in our politicians and institutions like the banks at an all-time low, how do we achieve a more ethical Australia? Could we embed ethics into all levels of society? What are the principles you try to live by, and do you see them reflected in national institutions?
via Q+A, ABC, 26 October 2020
In this podcast Richard Bistrong, CEO of Front-Line Anti-Bribery, talks about how leaders and organisations need to navigate the tension between the pressure to succeed and the pressure to comply. How we can make the values on the wall operational in the business. Why we should encourage conversations about real-world ethical dilemmas. Why middle managers have a crucial role in whether the message and culture of ethics will be amplified, distorted, discarded, or discounted on the front-lines.
via Leading Transformational Change, October 2020
Is 2020 the year purpose went mainstream? Taking an ethical stand isn’t as easy as it seems. Where the lines are drawn, how seemingly impossible ethical dilemmas are solved, and how to reconcile commerce and altruism are among the issues that arise for companies who decide to pursue “purpose” as part of their business.
via Forbes, 14 October 2020
Lee Eisenstaedt says in times of crisis, when the whole world has been turned upside down by a number of extraordinary events, we need something to believe in that consistently makes sense. It’s an island of security in an insecure climate. And, in many ways, the organisations we belong to can provide just such a feeling when they have a culture of leadership.
via Forbes, 4 August 2020
Chi Luu looks at the impacts of euphemisms and indirect or coded language on perceptions of blame and responsibility, and their role in making unethical acts more acceptable.
via Jstor Daily, 30 September 2020
How do you know whether the study of moral philosophy actually leads to changed, better behaviour? It would seem reasonable to expect that it would. You’d certainly hope it did. But can you measure it?
Three philosophers – Eric Schwitzgebel, Bradford Cokelet, and Peter Singer – conducted a large-scale randomised evaluation of moral philosophy instruction to determine whether it can alter student’s moral decision-making.
Described as “the first controlled experiment testing the real-world behavioural consequences of university-level philosophy instruction”, they looked at a very concrete outcome and asked ‘Do students eat less meat after learning about philosophical arguments against factory farming?’
via Vox, 11 August 2020
In the past two decades, social science has painted a pretty dour picture of the power of moral reasoning. To explain why people disagree so profoundly about ethical and political questions, pundits and scientists have claimed that humans systematically disregard evidence from experts, and that we rely on gut feelings instead of reason.
According to this pessimistic view, most of our moral judgments spring from automatic, unconscious and affective reactions. When we feel disgust toward someone, our disgust is what leads us to condemn their actions. Conversely, according to this theory, moral reasoning rarely shapes our moral judgments, but rather serves to justify our emotion-based judgments after the fact.
But is this pessimistic perspective the right one?
Psyche, 16 September 2020
Amelie Rorty, the Belgian-born American philosopher known for her work in the philosophy of mind, history of philosophy, and moral philosophy, passed away 18 September 2020.
Traditionally, enacting systemic change has been slow and painful. Proponents of change aren’t just up against the obvious and well-defended interests of power and tradition, they’re also battling system justification, the non-conscious tendency to defend, bolster and justify aspects of the societal status quo.
In response to these seemingly insurmountable problems, and in an effort to effect change at a rate faster than the current glacial pace, many grass-roots movements have emerged, from Occupy Wallstreet in 2011 to the Black Lives Matter movement and Extinction Rebellion. These movements offer a way for individuals without the power to effect change on their own to come together as a powerful force to challenge the entrenched status quo. Unlike protest movements of the past, these have embraced a non-hierarchical approach to organisation and leadership. Sometimes described as leaderless movements, it would perhaps be more accurate to describe them as having coordinated decentralised leadership, or horizontal leadership.
Powerful as it is, the supply chain metaphor draws our attention away from the larger forces that shape the problems we should be tackling. These include the sustainability of current consumption patterns; the absence of economic alternatives; weak regulatory oversight; scant protection for whistleblowers and journalists; the ease with which corporate ownership can be hidden and disguised; and the commercial pressures and incentives that likely drive those profiting from abuses or taking shortcuts. Our efforts to build stronger and more resilient supply chains will get us only so far. The thing we’re trying to perfect is only an image, and a partial one at that. Alternative visions can help us return these broader issues to the debate, while reminding us, for example, of the importance of engaging everyone affected by global supply chains in the discussion of how they should be organised.
via Aeon Media, 11 September 2020