#GoodOrganisations


In the following blog, you will delve into a myriad of insights surrounding the topics of Trust, Ethics, HR, Leadership, Management and their intricate connections to the research I am currently engaged in. These are my personal reflections, which may occasionally challenge conventional views and stir debate.

Disclaimer: Please note that these are personal opinions and not necessarily reflective of the views of the Leadership Society. All third-party images remain intellectual property of their respective creators.


04-09-2024

INCOME INEQUALITY: A WAKE-UP CALL FOR HR ⏱️

The latest data is alarming: income inequality is widening, and the numbers are there.

The World Inequality Report makes it clear—pre-tax income inequality has been steadily increasing, especially in certain countries. And even after taxes, the real drivers of inequality remain unchanged: higher capital income (think interest, dividends, and rents) and the ever-expanding pay gap between executives and workers.

The CEO-worker compensation ratio is a glaring example. CEO pay has skyrocketed while wage growth for workers has barely budged. This stark imbalance in economic gain distribution isn’t just a statistic—it’s a ticking time bomb for workplace morale and productivity.

Poverty data from Eurostat adds another layer of concern. Redistribution efforts aren’t cutting it, and the reasons are complex—“jobless growth” and outsourcing are likely culprits. But let’s not overlook the corporate role in this growing issue. The rise of the working poor in several countries speaks volumes about how business practices are failing employees.

And then there’s the shrinking welfare state. Whether it’s due to corporations dodging taxes by moving abroad or governments slashing rates in a race to the bottom, the outcome is the same: redistribution isn’t working.

This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about a deepening crisis. Something is seriously "rotten in the state of (not) Denmark." The question is: what will HR do about it? Will you rise to the hashtag#challenge or watch the divide grow?

Sign our manifesto to take a stand and join us at the HR World Summit in Amsterdam to discuss where we can take our companies towards excellence!

Find our manifesto here: https://leadershipsociety.world/academy/FreedomtoFlourish/

27-08-2024

RESPONSIBLE OR AI LEADERSHIP

Today, I want to share a very insightful article by my colleague Fabiola H. Gerpott. The piece offers a profound perspective on what future leadership could look like. The authors, in my opinion, paint a realistic vision where AI doesn't just augment our decision-making and leadership but could eventually supplant it, eliminating the need for a "human in the loop."

While I acknowledge that this is one possible scenario, I would also argue that it remains within our control whether or not we embrace this future. This is where I slightly diverge from the authors.

Here are my concerns:

1) Context Matters: business does not operate in a vacuum. We must always consider the geo-historical and political context, particularly in the age of neoliberalism. There will undoubtedly be a strong push towards AI as a tool for efficiency. Those in power might finally realize their dream of workers who function without independent thought (a concept Ford was allegedly seeking). Therefore, we should be cautious about how well AI will meet our psychological needs—especially since, in the wrong hands, this could quickly turn into manipulation.

2) Beware of Techno-Optimism: While it's refreshing to see papers like this one that avoid doomsday predictions, we should strive to become techno-realists rather. As all AI researchers will attest, AI is inherently socio-technical, with human involvement at every stage of its development, training, and deployment. This means that biases and ideologies will inevitably be embedded in the technology. Therefore, ethical principles alone won't suffice—especially when AI producers face cost pressures, AI deployers prioritize shareholder value, and AI systems become adept at outsmarting us (including lying convincingly). What we need is ethical practice—across professions, including both AI creators and the leaders who deploy it.

3) A Complex World Requires Complex Thinking: Our world is not a Humean one, where pattern detection fulfills the dreams of positivists. There's a real world out there that demands a deep ontology. While it's commendable that some leadership researchers are collaborating with AI, it's concerning if this becomes the sole future of leadership research. We need to delve beneath the surface to understand how social structures, individual agency, and culture interact, bringing new ideas and structures into existence. Otherwise, we risk merely reinforcing existing circumstances or the desires of those who wish to shape the social world to their liking.

In conclusion, I suggest we take these scenarios very seriously and ensure that we avoid the (for me) dystopian outcomes of scenario 3. To do so, we must not only advance our research but also elevate the standards of management education. 


Find the article here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antoinette-weibel_ai-in-leadership-activity-7234082868098936832-jAp2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

25-08-2024

MORAL QUITTING

In Germany, a heated discussion has emerged: how can we return to a focus on performance? Or alternatively, how can we address what some perceive as the lazy, consumerist, and self-centered work behaviors of Gen Z? These discussions often simplify performance to mean (quantitative) labor productivity, implicitly equating it with "making shareholder value/GDP great again."

In these often unreflective debates, it's frequently forgotten that work is not just about generating surplus value appropriated by owners (to use a Marxist term), but also embedded within the broader context of a moral economy. Economic actors are motivated by more than profit—they are driven by a wider social fabric, shared norms, and the desire to be seen as contributing and acting morally. Unfortunately, some businesses have overlooked or disregarded this moral dimension.

In this paper (source below) 👇🏻, the authors explore the concept of the moral economy by analyzing the Great Resignation and find that people are often engaging in what can be termed "moral quitting." By categorizing the "verbal moral motives" behind quitting, they identified three key areas:

1️. Work and Employment: Employees are missing ethical hiring practices, fair pay, and respectful working conditions, prompting a call for businesses to prioritize workers' well-being and create inclusive workplaces that value human dignity.

2️. Social Justice and Activism: Workers feel a lack of social justice and challenge existing inequalities, advocating for collective action to support workers' rights, reduce income disparity, and promote economic fairness rooted in communal values.

3️. Health, Well-being, and Lifestyle: Employees seek a better balance in their lives, calling for policies that support work-life balance and align with personal values.

In most discussions, the focus tends to fall on the third point, often framing it as a uniquely selfish concern. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that a balanced and fulfilling life—being "whole"—is an essential part of the good life. Businesses have the power to either enable or hinder this pursuit.

So, the next time you hear the "too lazy to perform" narrative, remember to consider the deeper, underlying factors. Quitting or disengagement is rarely driven by a single cause and is certainly more socially influenced than we typically acknowledge. 


Find the article here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antoinette-weibel_moral-economy-of-great-resignation-activity-7233405281701920769-ymH_?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

24-08-2024

HOPE AND TRUST

"Hope" was a term I heard several times this week. It’s the message the Democratic Party in the U.S. is striving to convey, it’s the sentiment ecological and regenerative economists are encouraging for the challenging road ahead, and it’s also the title of the final chapter in The Monarchy of Fear, an inspiring book by Martha Nussbaum.

Nussbaum beautifully captures the essence of hope:

☀️ "Hope involves not just a desire for something good, but an evaluation of it as importantly good, worth pursuing."

☀️ "Hope is not and cannot be inert. It requires action, commitment."

☀️"Hope, like fear, always involves significant powerlessness."

From her insights, hope emerges as a belief in the possibility of a higher good, especially in uncertainty. It’s actionable, energizing, expanding outward (while fear retreats), and ultimately, it is a commitment—a practical habit for embracing the world.

As a trust researcher, I’m compelled to explore how trust can guide us from fear to hope. Trust, like hope, involves a leap of faith—faith in another person or organization. However, I argue that trust alone isn’t enough. We also need trustworthiness, or “truth-worthiness.” Trust without hashtag#character quickly closes the door between fear and hope. To traverse this gap, we need both belief in the trustworthiness of those with us in our hopeful pursuits and committed, character-building actions on all sides.

This definitely needs more reflection... 

20-08-2024

HR MYTH 70:20:10

If you work in HR, you’ve surely not only heard but also worked with the 70:20:10 model, which claims: individuals obtain 70% of their knowledge from job-related experiences, 20% from interactions with others, and 10% from formal educational events.

Sorry to say, but following this model slavishly is perilous for employees, reflects sloppy HR thinking, and shows we haven’t done our job well in universities.

Why do I say this?

🎯 First, it’s not evidence-based. A colleague reviewing the literature said it politely: “All studies asked, ‘How did you learn to do your job?’ but methods varied, causing validity issues.” The research methodologies employed (primarily surveys, some open-ended interviews, and observation studies) suffer from (a) atypical samples and improper generalization, (b) limited interview guides, (c) faulty proportional values, (d) self-report limitations, and (e) inconsistent definitions of “informal learning.” In short, it’s based on crappy science.

🎯 Second, it’s a prime example of functional stupidity. It’s cheaper and evades the hard truth that many people resist learning new things, so it might make you more popular. But do we really believe we don’t need experts anymore? That leaders are born or that there are no new insights in management to be acquired? Do we buy this when we simultaneously claim we live in a VUCA or BANY world? Good development needs planning/analysis, formal (not only) training but also debating, refuting, dialoguing, exchanging, AND of course, experience with reflection. Yet, we think all this fits into 10%? Really? Even in apprenticeships, formal education takes at least 40%… if not more. To become a proper expert, long-term engagement with a mix of formal and informal learning, plus a lot of reflection is crucial.

So, where does this leave us? DITCH THE 70% RULE! Focus on who you want to develop, to what depths, for what challenges. Be clear: for leadership development, leaders who do not want to develop themselves should be instantly relegated back to non-leadership positions. 

13-08-2024

REVISITING THE CALIFORNIAN IDEOLOGY

The term "Californian Ideology" was introduced by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron in an essay published in 1995, which argued that the rise of the Internet and digital media commercialization was driven by a specific political economy and social outlook emanating from Silicon Valley.

What is it?

🎯 The Californian Ideology emerged at the end of the 20th century, coinciding with the convergence of media, computing, and telecommunications. This ideology was promoted by a diverse group of writers, hackers, capitalists, from the West Coast, involved in the "virtual class" blending San Francisco’s cultural bohemianism with Silicon Valley’s high-tech industry. It combined the free-spirited ethos of 1960s hippies with the entrepreneurial zeal of 1980s yuppies, creating a "digital utopia" where individuals could become both "hip and rich."

🎯 It fused countercultural notions of an "electronic agora" with the concept of an "electronic marketplace," blending New Left and New Right ideas. It portrayed technology as a liberating force that could empower individuals, enhance personal freedom, and reduce the power of the nation-state.

Effects and Critique

🎯 The government’s role in developing Silicon Valley through military and research funding was downplayed. Rather the proponent of the CI posited that future technological democracy would arise from private sector initiatives, with investor-funded startups taking over roles traditionally held by the state or civil society.

🎯The Californian Ideology was critiqued for its technological determinism and neglect of social inequalities by drewing on the Frankfurt School’s critique of ideology, suggesting that the Californian Ideology functioned to maintain existing capitalist power structures.

The essay sparked significant controversy, particularly among Silicon Valley insiders, who accused Barbrook and Cameron of misunderstanding technological diffusion. Critics argued that early adoption by wealthy individuals was necessary for broader technological access. However, subsequent research, such as Fred Turner’s historical analysis and Alice Marwick’s media ethnography, supported many of Barbrook and Cameron’s claims.

Hence, while Barbrook and Cameron’s essay was polemical and occasionally overstated, it provided a crucial early critique of the ideological underpinnings of digital futures. And looking at the state of the affairs now it makes an interesting deepdive.

Source:
https://concetticontrastivi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/californian_engl.pdf 

11-08-2024

SOLUTIONS COME SECOND

Anybody who has ever dipped her feet into some sort of management education knows the dictum: focus on solutions, not problems! And ofc while this sounds conforting, a bit like motherhood and apple pie, it is nonsensical. If we do not understand the problem, we will surely not come up with a good solution.

In critical realism a more helpful 3-step approach (another thing we love in management) has been developed for this:

1) Critique is important but it needs to be responsible: "That means attending to causes, to alternatives, and to consequences: taking care to make arguments that have the best prospect of supporting flourishing and not creating further harm."
2) Hence critique needs to go deeper in as much that we really try to understand the problem(s) at hand. Call it 5 why, but make sure that you understand what led to the situation - and be clear that any issue is caused by multiple drivers. Don't be satisfied to early with your analysis. And be as critical with the alternative you suggest - yes you can try, and you can treat it as a prototype - but remember that real life does not function like software production. A change in social systems begs for more responsibility.
3) And finally: have a moral compass, or call it purpose for the time being, and understand how the better organisation, the better workplace, should look like for this is what your new solution should bring you towards. Avoid harm, strive for flourishing - and make these terms more concrete.

So responsibility is not only the new black, but it can be learned. And you should ditch any management education which does not provide you with a least a starter toolkit to do so. 

28-07-2024

FROM TEMPERANCE TO GREED 💰📈

There was a time after the war, stretching well into the 70s, when CEOs were still just company men—average Joes living in much bigger houses but still on the same street as their workers. Then everything changed, dramatically. The ratio of CEO to worker pay skyrocketed from 12:1 to 345:1 (and even higher in selected cases). Why did this happen? 🤔

Several factors contributed to this shift: weaker unions, an exploding stock market boosting the value of CEO stock ownership, and more. But one intriguing part of the story is the change in social norms. How and why did these norms shift?

David Elder-Vass offers an interesting way to conceptualize social institutions and norms through the concept of a "norm circle." Humans learn the appropriate ways of behavior and beliefs within their proximate norm circle. They internalize these norms or comply with them because they believe others monitor, sanction, and reward them within their imagined norm circle. The actual norm circle then determines whether and when individuals are held accountable to the norm (reality bites back).

Since the 70s, two significant changes seem to have occurred regarding CEOs:

🎯 The overlap between norm circles has weakened. As Robert Putnam clearly shows, we are no longer in the same clubs, churches, or associations. Consequently, CEOs within firms have become disembedded, more strongly attached to an elitist norm circle. They neither know nor care much about the norms of their employees.

🎯 In their elitist circle, it has become "de rigueur" to outdo each other with positional goods or as Tom Wolfe wrote in the 80ies the "bonfire of vanities" became the norm. Those with the biggest paychecks, the largest yachts, etc., are seen as kings and saviors. 🌟🛥️

But I believe there's another piece to this puzzle. As I indicated in another post, I think there were and still are spin-doctors at work—storytellers or "value entrepreneurs" who make others believe that CEOs are worth their exorbitant pay. Perhaps an Arch Patton of McKinsey convinced everyone that we need to compete for rare CEO talents, or Jensen and Meckling made us believe that without incentives, no CEO would work well.

So the next interesting bit is to find out: Why did we believe these value entrepreneurs? And what was in it for them 🌍🔍  

22-07-2024

PAY AND REWARDS FOR GROWN-UPS

Performance management in organisations is broken. Over the last 50 years we have added, corrected, sophisticated, changed and re-changed our pay and reward system but never questioned the basic assumptions:

1. We need (high-powered) incentives as this is what makes people work harder! BUT empirical evidence shows that what we want more is intrinsic motivation as this empowers human to be self-efficacious, creative, proactive and more prosocial. Read Robert Buch last linked in post on this (in the comment) 👇🏻.

2. All what matters is individual performance - if we add up all efforts of our talents organisational performance will naturally grow! BUT we have forgotten that organisations are complex social systems, organizational performance emerges from the interaction of the co-laboration between reflective humans, tying on ideas/values and structures/norms. Hence why do we reward mainly individual past efforts? 🤔

3. As soon as humans turn into employees their freedom can be curtailed, drastically - after all they have the liberty to join an organisation or leave it! BUT this is an extremely impoverished view of our freedoms (and ofc it is also not true as many cannot switch workplaces so easily). What would be needed is “freedom to be“ the human I bring to work. Treating employees with carrots and sticks based on arbitrary performance appraisals is not worthy, is not caring for human dignity. 🌈

4. Last but not least moral egoism is out, so is very short-sighted utilitarianism! BUT If we strive for organisations to act responsibly in the world we need to enable the moral development of humans within these organisations. If I was a conservative I would say we need more „common sense“ but I would call out for more practical wisdom - in work and experience grounded understanding about what good I want to serve.💐 And this needs good organisational character too.

But what would this mean for our compensation and benefit system - listen to these two short talks and tell me what you think about it:

The color model: https://lnkd.in/daQnN-BA
What it all means for rewards: https://lnkd.in/dCMdzsUu 

15-07-2024

AMERICAN CEOS ARE OVERPAID

…says Ha-Joon Chang…and he is right as they are overpriced in regards to their predecessors who were not only often more successful in building jobs or innovating of management but also as it turns that they potentially were contributing more to society (or were willing to give more back).

In their study on the changing role of CEOs in society Mizruchi and Marshall give data to this:

„All of these studies indicate a high degree of moderation among corporate executives at the time, and the latter two suggest views that are far more liberal than those that would likely be attributed to business leaders in the present. The 1939 Fortune survey revealed that although few executives were satisfied with the Social Security Act or, especially, the Wagner Act (which significantly expanded the rights of workers to organize unions), only 17% favored repeal of Social Security and only 41% favored repeal of the Wagner Act (Fortune 1939). In the 1970 survey of 270 Fortune 500 CEOs, conducted by Daniel Yankelovich, Inc., 57% of the respondents believed that the federal government should “step up its regulatory activities” regarding the environment, whereas only 8% stated that they should be “cut back”; moreover, 85% of the CEOs believed that the protection of the environment should be taken into consideration even if it [meant] reducing profits” (Fortune 1970, p. 119).

Even more remarkable were the findings in Barton’s survey. Barton (1985) interviewed 120 individuals, 95 of whom were CEOs of the largest firms in six major sectors, as ranked by Fortune. Based on their responses to questions involving support for such policies as deficit spending during recessions, federal antipoverty programs, and redistribution of income or wealth, Barton found that 60% of the corporate CEOs in the study could be classified as either “Keynesian liberals” or “Keynesian moderates,” whereas only 10.5% could be classified as “anti-Keynesian conservatives.”

P.S. they are also overpriced in relation to their workforce…organisational performance is a teamsport - including the work of the legacy founders 😉 

20-06-2024

THE SPINDOCTORS

Did you know that between 1940 and 1975, the CEO-worker pay gap was very modest and even decreased slightly? It was only after 1975 that it gradually, and then swiftly, grew to the sizes we are more accustomed to now.

In a fascinating paper, Steven A. Bank, a Law Professor at UCLA, and his colleagues explored what made CEO pay stable and more modest during that period. They discovered that, in addition to stronger unions fighting for better worker pay and the absence of a benchmarking culture where compensation consultants would show boards of directors the median pay in a sector, different societal norms played a decisive role. Society, including CEOs, united in advocating for smaller pay gaps and shaming larger ones, which were seen as greedy and shameful, even as "robbery." This common conviction was a major moderating factor.

This made me ponder: what is different today? What role do business schools, finance, economics, and maybe even all of us play in this shift? How did science manage to change the narrative and norms? Three thoughts came to mind, though I’m sure there's more to this story:

a) The invention of hashtag#envy. Economists now suggest envy is a great source of inspiration. What used to be seen as "righteous anger" against "vicious greed" has been recast as envy, something not to be taken seriously, or even viewed as beneficial.

b) Another significant shift was reframing CEOs as unique from other organizational members. Previously seen as bureaucrats or opportunistic agents, they were now elevated to CEO-owners with long-term incentives, decoupling their pay from that of other organizational members. This was partly driven by the need to create a "messiah cult" to overcome the Japanese economic miracle, which was based on a clan culture hard to emulate in North Atlantic countries.

c) The next step was to redefine "merit" in two phases. First, merit was equated with utility – those producing the best share price development were deemed most deserving of high pay. This has little to do with true merit (a lot to do with instrumentality though), as no CEO works 200 times harder or is 200 times smarter than the median worker. The second phase asserted that "only the CEO can scale" – the bigger the company, the more "merit" attributed through scaling. Researchers in the 2000s showed that CEO pay mainly correlated with company size, which they took as evidence that pay-for-performance does NOT work. Funny how this is now so cleverly reversed. So, business schools continue to spin this tale to make it stick even better.

Now, if we complain about CEO pay, we are labeled as envious and told to be ashamed, with the huge gap deemed merited. But it’s not, and that's a new story we need to tell to bring shame back to being greedy.

20-06-2024

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP - SOME THOUGHTS ON MERITOCRACY

Justice is at the core of responsible leadership - being treated justly, treat others with justice and living in a society with the right or the good order is central for a good life.

Today we often almost equate justice with merit 👇🏻 but we miss a concrete understanding of what we mean by merit. Plus we often confuse "being on top", "winner" with having merited it - we equate deservingness with having success and hence have a very limited view on meritocracy.

At the minimum, thus, we would have to define what we merit. And sure as for instance Sandel says merit understood as competence is in everybody books a good thing - nobody wants to be treated by a doctor who has not completed her studies for instance. But thereafter we start to quibble (or not because we just pretend that we know what is merited). And of course if we move from the competence of an expert to being a good leader to govern others a whole lot of other concerns arise.

As you can see already in the etymology of the term "spiritual credit" and excellence should play a major role for leadership in a meritocracy. And surely moral deservingness used to be at the heart of merit. But if we then look around, we cannot be so sure that in present days we are indeed living in a meritocracy nor that we attribute merit in this way. 



*****************************************************************************


✨ Merit and Meritocracy ✨

🔍 The problem with merit and meritocracy is that we link them too hastily, conditioned long ago to do so.

Have you ever wondered where our present interpretation of the concept of meritocracy originated? According to Luigino Bruni, it dates back to Pelagius, a British theologian. Pelagius viewed merit as moral credit: if humans emulated Christ and acted virtuously, they deserved God's reward. Good deeds paved the way to heaven. This idea suggested that:
a) We can act well.
b) It "pays" to be a good person.

However, Pelagius also claimed that the Roman elite were the meritocracy, linking merit to social status. This confused the concept of merit, a confusion still present today. We often assume that CEOs, wealthy entrepreneurs, and politicians must have merit because we live in a "meritocracy."

But what about luck, inheritance, or the support of others? Augustine, later a saint, proposed that success (not necessarily in material matters) might be a gift from God, not earned. Inspired by Augustine, John Rawls argued that all we have are legitimate expectations if we play by the rules.

Perhaps Augustine had a point. We shouldn't confuse being successful with having merited it. 🌟 

*****************************************************************************

Unveiling the Meritocracy Paradox: Can We Truly See Merit? 🌟🕵️‍♂️

We have several problems with meritocracy - a sticky one being that we often don't get it right despite our best intentions. Various evaluation biases prevent us from seeing merit clearly, even when it's well-defined. For instance, past performance evaluations tend to influence future ones, perpetuating a cycle of biased assessments. Additionally, those higher up in the hierarchy are more likely to receive superb evaluations.

A very interesting effect is the so-called meritocracy paradox:

Emilio J. Castilla, Professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, has explored how meritocratic ideals and HR practices like pay-for-performance play out in organizations, and he’s come to some unexpected conclusions. 🚀💼

In a study involving nearly 9,000 support-staff employees at a large service-sector company, Castilla found surprising outcomes. Despite the company's commitment to diversity and a merit-driven compensation system, women, ethnic minorities, and non-U.S.-born employees received smaller pay increases compared to white men with identical roles, supervisors, performance scores, and qualifications.

Castilla’s research revealed a stark reality: even with the same performance scores, these groups had to work harder to receive comparable salary increases. This discrepancy raises questions about whether organizational cultures and practices designed to promote meritocracy might inadvertently foster bias.
In collaboration with Stephen Bernard, a sociology professor at Indiana University, Castilla conducted lab experiments to further explore this phenomenon. Their findings were consistent: companies emphasizing meritocratic values saw managers awarding larger rewards to equally performing male employees over female employees. They coined this surprising outcome "the paradox of meritocracy."

Let's rethink how we implement meritocracy in our workplaces to ensure true equity! And at the very least let us not make a merit cult🌟🤝

 

20-06-2024

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP - A WEEK OF THOUGHTS ON THE MORAL CIRCLE OF CONCERN

What is the Moral Circle? The moral circle defines the range of individuals or groups we consider deserving of ethical consideration. Initially, this circle included only immediate social groups, but over centuries, it has widened to embrace broader segments of humanity. This expansion has driven significant social progress, such as the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and the legalization of same-sex marriage.

How is it linked to moral development? On a personal level, our moral circle starts with those closest to us—family and friends—and can expand to include distant communities and even non-human entities. This growth reflects our capacity for empathy and moral reasoning, enabling us to care for others beyond our immediate circle.

What is the link to ethical theories? It can be linked to universalism vs. parochialsim. hashtag#Universalism involves extending moral regard to socially distant and less connected groups, such as strangers and people from different cultures. It encourages a global perspective, fostering empathy and ethical concern for all humanity. Parochialism, in contrast, focuses on those who are socially closer and more tightly connected to us, like family, friends, and local community members. It prioritizes the welfare of those within our immediate circle.

These concepts form concentric circles, with the parochial circle inside the broader universalist circle. This framework, popularized by philosopher Peter Singer and introduced by historian William Lecky, helps us understand the scope of our moral concerns.

What are its implications? Understanding the expanding moral circle is crucial for recognizing how our moral values evolve. As our moral circle grows, we develop a greater capacity for hashtag#empathy and hashtag#justice, driving positive societal change. For individuals, expanding one's moral circle can lead to more inclusive and compassionate behaviors.

By recognizing and expanding our moral circle, we can continue to foster a more inclusive and just world, reflecting both personal growth and collective moral development. 



*****************************************************************************


Yesterday I introduced the moral circle and we already started to have some interesting discussion (Phil Le Nir and Pascal Nonnen). The first question was: 

a) what belongs into the moral circle in an abstract fashion - would we also bring in a temporal dimension and include future beings? 

b) how do different ethical theories argue what "moral development" means in regards to the circle? 

c) how do different ethical theories enable us to make choices within our own moral circle of concern. 


So if we just look at a) we can see with this example 👇🏻 how this instrument helps us to map what we personally feel of having intrinsic worth, and what our blind spots might be. Clearly you can bring a temporal dimension to this as well. It also allows us to spot those areas where society in general might be blind - an information which is important if we have to go into less well known or debated territory such as AI ethics. 


To give you a first example of c) the paper where I got this figure from looks at the circle from the position of effective altruists, whose aims are to target those areas where they can effect most. For them it is interesting to see what many people leave out. It enables them to view how many resources other people dedicate towards benefitting neglected beings and to adjust this. 

*****************************************************************************

Yesterday we saw how the circle can serve as a mapping device but ofc it did not tell us how to weigh different interests and what to properly include in the circle. As Singer, the most prominent circle author today, is a utalitarian we might want to start here. And before jumping into criticism (which we should as well) I found this nice summary here 👇

Now lets me point out a few hairy demands:

(1) If you adapt a utalitarian perspective your circle will only entail sentient being. If you cannot show that trees are suffering these are not included…

(2) Each being counts equal - so utalitarianism might ask you to make great sacrifices or to overrun an interest of a person dear to you…

(3) Not helping or not doing something counts the same as active deeds so for instance helping someone to die is not different from not helping someone to live longer (discussion of active vs passive euthanasia)…

(4) Future generations are not to be discounted but we already started to discuss longtermism and its possible questions… 


*****************************************************************************


WHEN THE MORAL OF CIRCLE OF CONCERN...

...goes wrong (plus this is a formidable way to see what problems utalitarianism can bring about). What could possibly go wrong if we include future generations in our circle? Well a lot of if we still calculate what is good on the basis of the greatest utility (and the other assumptions I wrote about yesterday).

"Longtermism is deeply influenced by utilitarianism, an ethical theory in which the ends justify the means. If lying maximises the amount of “value” in the universe, then you should lie. The same goes for any other action you can think of, including murder. Most utilitarians would rush to declare that in nearly all cases, murder will, in fact, produce worse overall outcomes. Still, there’s nothing inherently wrong with murder, in the utilitarian view, and when one truly believes that huge amounts of value are at stake, perhaps murder really is the best thing to do.

Henry Sidgwick, an influential 19th-century utilitarian, justified British colonialism on utilitarian grounds; the most famous contemporary utilitarian, Peter Singer, argued with a colleague in their 1985 book Should the Baby Live? that infanticide is morally OK in some cases of babies with disabilities. In their words, “we think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed”. The same utilitarian attitude led the late Derek Parfit, who could be called the grandfather of longtermism because of his influence on the ideology, to remark that “at least something good came out of the Germany victory”, after he watched footage of Hitler dancing a jig to celebrate the French surrender to Germany in June 1940. As one observer wrote about this on Twitter, Parfit is “a cautionary tale on the risks of taking utilitarianism too seriously”.

Longtermism combines this kind of moral reasoning with a fantastical sci-fi vision of techno-utopia among the heavens. That’s incredibly dangerous, and the statements from Bostrom, Yudkowsky and other longtermists support the conclusion. This is not an ideology that we should want people in positions of power to accept, or even be sympathetic to. Yet longtermism has become profoundly influential. There is Musk, as mentioned; and a UN Dispatch article reports that “the foreign policy community in general and the United Nations in particular are beginning to embrace longtermism”.

Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/08/longtermism-threat-humanity 

10-06-2024

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP - A WEEK OF THOUGHTS ON MORAL COURAGE

The change ahead of us will not be easy. If we really want to reform our businesses to become more humane and sustainable, and to enable the flourishing of all, we have to:

🖤 Start with changing ourselves - becoming wiser, more caring, more dedicated.

🖤 Address our organizations - change structures, processes, and ways of working together.

🖤 Transform our “who” and “why” - whom do we want to become as organizations and as human beings, and what is our why, our telos.

We will need to grow and co-elevate each other in doing so.

Virtues can help us orient, provide a guiding light, and attune to the context. The first one for today: moral courage.


*****************************************************************************


Aristotle's concept of courage, as outlined in his "Nicomachean Ethics," emphasizes it as a virtue that lies between recklessness and cowardice. True courage involves fearing only what is genuinely fearful and responding appropriately, acting in line with noble principles. Courage means facing fears, persisting through challenges, and upholding integrity.

In the modern workplace, moral courage is crucial. It entails overcoming risks to uphold personal moral principles and values. It is about us speaking up by rejecting unethical directives and challenging the status quo.

And courage is something we need to learn. It arises fr om our inclination to do something enobling (this too has to be "found" in yourself) but the behavior needs to be practiced and habituated - also to find the right dosage of courage in the context. And as Nadine Meidert said yesterday this can be trained.

Today, thus, I share this Ted Talk which explains well why we need moral courage in the workplace but also talks about one training. There are others too but it is important also to find hope and the courage that we all can become more courageous - we will need it for the transformation towards a more humane and sustainable business world.

Find the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzicXbnmllc&ab_channel=TEDxTalks


*****************************************************************************


Today I share a deep dive on courage from the wonderful Monica Worline in where she makes important distinctions about the wise and "good" use of courage in organisations.

"The chapter "Courage in Organizations: An Integrative Review of the Difficult Virtue" by Monica C. Worline explores the complex nature of courage within organizational settings, highlighting its importance and challenging aspects. Courage is described as a virtue that is crucial in the workplace, yet it remains a difficult concept to define and study due to its inherent ties with confrontation and individualism. The chapter emphasizes the necessity of distinguishing true courage from its semblances, such as egotism or individualism, and discusses the dual nature of courage as both an inspiring and potentially destructive force. This duality is illustrated through contrasting examples, such as Nelson Mandela and Timothy McVeigh, both of whom invoked the same poem, "Invictus," for vastly different purposes.

Courage is essential for modern organizations, especially in the aftermath of events like the Enron scandal and economic crises driven by excessive risk-taking. Organizations today rely on their members to exhibit courage by taking initiative, innovating, and persevering in the face of adversity. Understanding courage involves recognizing its role in enabling individuals to stand against social pressures and undertake difficult actions to address duress within organizations. Research has shown that courage often manifests as constructive opposition, where individuals act against prevailing social forces to protect or advance collective goals. This pattern of courage is important for fostering ethical decision-making, leadership, and innovation within organizations.

Find the article here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antoinette-weibel_courage-activity-7206535401723830272-gN8L?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop


*****************************************************************************


As part of our research and further training, we deal intensively with the topic of "responsible leadership" - from the perspective of virtue ethics. Civil courage is an enormously important competence (or virtue), especially in today's world.

We need civil courage in order to counteract the increasing number of attacks against minorities. We need moral courage to hold up a mirror to those in power - "truth to power". But ultimately, we need a lot of moral courage in companies, because that is wh ere people become citizens (or not). The CEO must show decency and patience to overly insistent shareholder representatives. The head of HR should stand up for the "dignity of employees" and not just act as a "business partner". Employees should be even more vigilant and committed to working well together (also for socially relevant performance).

This is not always easy, but moral courage can be trained. In virtue ethics, such moral courage should become a second nature and it is important to always act with a warm heart and a cool head. Such courage is neither reckless nor cowardly - but somewhere in between, depending on the situation (Veronika Brandstätter and Prof. Dr. Dieter Frey call this small steps). But always follow your own integrity, your compass of values.

Sometimes it also helps to look for role models. I had a doctoral supervisor (Margit Osterloh) who didn't shy away and spoke out courageously. I also got to know some HR managers who always stood up for their employees (as people and not as resources). And literature is sometimes helpful too - do you become a lawyer because you're looking for status or because you've heard about Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird"?

But one thing remains certain: we will need more civil courage - and soon.If we have to find it again, the training can start today 😀 


*****************************************************************************


I want to finish my little week on moral courage with a call to action. Not only by my "default professional" I see HR as superbly placed to change the character of business for good. And it does not take a superhero but just a "going back to the roots" as in times of the new deal or in the height days of social democracy in Europe HR had this identity to be a workplace relation guardian. 


Now 50 years later, with a lot of neoliberal fanfares inbetween, taking care of good work, of uplifting and co-elevating relationships in the workplace is arguably much more important than ever before. We really need to get our act together and craft organisations as "wonderful (social) value creators", not as limiting and exploiting machines. And this can be done in small steps - step by step removing freedom to flourish depressing HR practices and step by step enabling practical wisdom of leaders, employees and the whole organisation.

Find the article here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antoinette-weibel_hr-can-do-it-activity-7207265411543769088-jlxm?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop 

19-04-2024

NO ASSHOLE RULE - AND HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER I AM ONE?

From time to time it is worth to remember why Bob Sutton came up with his wonderful rule:

🎯...because you can catch their nastiness (emotional contagion works)
🎯...because having the strict rule and do the screening makes work immensely better
🎯...because they really cause suffering
🎯...because those companies which screen these out have a higher attraction rate
🎯...because even if they are really intelligent and are high performers...it is mostly not worth the trouble

In a follow up book Sutton also writes about how do we avoid hiring or promoting a**holes, how to deal with them? And what I almost like best is: "Not giving a shit takes the wind out of an a**hole's sails". Further: "The first question is, can you quit or transfer to another department? If you’re stuck under a certified a**hole, that means you’re suffering. And if that’s the case, you should get out — it’s that simple. The second question is, if you must endure, are you going to fight or are you just going to take it? If you’re going to fight, you need a plan and a posse, you need to collect your evidence, and then you have to take your chances."

Funnily though even the so-called "certified **holes" are often blind towards their own status Here Bob Sutton suggests to "The main thing this research on self-awareness says is that the worst person to ask about someone’s a**holeness is the a**hole himself, and the best people to ask are the people around him or her who know that person at least fairly well. Bottom line: A**holes need someone in their life to tell them they’re being an asshole."

But lets face it - it is hard to tell them. So how to find it out yourself (and hint: it is not a question of gender). This is what I found in a blog:

🎯Can't stand someone else being in the spotlight.
🎯Talking to someone else while being talked to.
🎯It's either your way or the highway.
🎯Unable to accept your wrong.
🎯Cannot compliment another person.

Find the article here: https://hbr.org/2007/03/why-i-wrote-the-no-asshole-rule

04-04-2024

LIMITS TO EXECUTIVE PAY NEEDED!

I am more than concerned that once more neither the compensation committee nor the executives of UBS themselves have understood the signs on the wall: though shalt not destroy the common good, though shalt restrain!

Well why would I feel comfortable to say this? First, even before I unpack the normative hammer - there is just no practical legitimacy for this. High powered incentives are usually argued on the premise that shareholders carry the residual (not hedgable) risks when investing and hence there need to be means to ensure that agents (here the management team) is responsive to the shareholders interest. For instance by making sure that compensation varies with long term financial success.

Now we could quibble whether the chosen incentive structure would be conducive to this claim - I would argue that this depends immensely on the clawbacks defined. BUT in this case it is irrelevant as the proper residual risk bearers in the case of a bank which is too big to fail are the taxpayers, and in their name the Swiss Government. It is for them to align the incentives, if we apply the same logic, and by nature very different metrics would have to apply. What Switzerland wanted is a reliable, risk-conservative bank - maybe a high reliability organisation as I asked for here https://lnkd.in/gHcj_rxM - but certainly not an overambitious master of the universe type of bank.

But ofc I do not want to leave it there. I would expect that even in the absence of a government intervention (as sadly our politicians are not really acting as guardians) that decent managers would not want such a high compensation. It is more than fair to ask for a good pay - but not for an excessive pay. They thereby destroy the reputation of the banking business further (and hence other banks might want to tell them off…but I have little hope here); but they also in the long term undermine our trust in government and in a society where we strive for justice. As a consequence we might land with more regulation - something we all would want to avoid (ideally).

So imho it is their individual responsibility to show more temperance, and it is the collective responsibility of the sector to avoid such exaggerations.


Find the article here: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/ubs-reports-144-million-swiss-francs-ceo-ermotti-2023-2024-03-28/

29-02-2024

THE THREEFOLD MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

I recently delved into an enlightening piece by Lisa Herzog, whose insights we'll soon explore in an upcoming interview. She introduces a critical perspective in today's complex world—a world filled with temptations and boundless opportunities, yet where our moral compass is guided by our social interactions. For this she suggest that we need to see moral responsibility as a threefold.

👤 We have moral responsibility for what we do. This might be hampered by the context, but we can nonetheless not shed our responsibility.

👥 We have moral responsibility for what we become, how we cultivate our character; a character which allows us to decide and act well even in situations of pressure and a malfunctioning context. But for cultivating our character context matters - be it upbringing or as pertinent to do where and how we work.

👥👥 And we have moral responsibility for how we (co-)create the context which enables us better to act morally. This is another responsibility we share with others.

This triad of responsibilities underscores the social nature of morality, emphasizing the significant role of context, especially within organizations where we spend a considerable part of our lives. It challenges us to critically assess the simplicity of one-dimensional solutions in organizational settings and to always consider the dual impact of any new practice, tool, or policy on efficacy and moral responsibility.

In the context of organizations, let's ponder:

🎯 Forced Rankings and Mortality Curves: A moment of reflection for SAP 😉. How do these practices shape our moral responsibilities?

🎯 Excessive head count and work intensification. What are its implications for our moral fabric?

🎯Bonus Systems and Short-term Metrics: Often hard to get rid off, but what are the moral consequences? Those who followed my posts know it…🙈

🎯 Tech-Driven Performance Management: Alice Rickert, your work on responsible leadership is crucial here. How can we design, deploy and adapt smart technology without destroying the bases for responsibility?

This is just the beginning. What other organizational practices deserve scrutiny through this moral lens? Your thoughts and contributions are eagerly awaited.

24-02-2024

ACTIVE TRUST FOR FLOURISHING WORKPLACES

It was a huge pleasure to travel with Severin de Wit through 25 years of my trust research. Given the depressing numbers of humans at present wanting to escape their workplace, of identity wars even within companies and of dwindling (organisational) citizenship we need to muster all our insights on how to create trustful and flourishing workplaces.

Hence here we look at the necessary character of organizations such as enabling control systems and fair HR practices as well as debate how we are being stuck in wrong man models and instrumentalizing action logics and much more…but please listen yourself 👇.

 https://trusttalk.co/episode/creating-a-trusting-workplace/ 

24-02-2024

"Shaping the Future: Essential Skills for 2050"

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of our world, it's clear that traditional projections of skills often fall short of capturing the magnitude of change around us. The World Economic Forum's forecasts, while valuable, sometimes lack the imagination needed to confront the profound shifts occurring in our societies and economies. What if we dared to reimagine not just capitalism but society as a whole?

Enter the Jacobs Foundation, working with scenario-based thinking that challenges us to envision radically different futures. Among these scenarios lies one of optimism: #netzero. This scenario beckons us to consider a world where mere technological innovation isn't sufficient to combat the existential threats of climate change, biodiversity loss, and global inequality. Instead, it urges us to collectively halt the relentless expansion of our ecological footprint and embrace a paradigm shift towards a well-being or a post-growth economy.

In this imagined future, our evolution as individuals and societies takes a different trajectory:

🧘🏽‍♀️ Cultivating inner growth becomes paramount, shifting our focus from mere pleasure-seeking (hedonism) to a deeper sense of purpose and fulfillment (eudaimonia).

🪢 Strengthening our social and civic muscles becomes imperative, fostering collaboration and deliberation to find ingenious ways to deal with scarce resources.

🤔 Acquiring critical thinking literacy emerges as a priority, equipping us with the understanding of ecosystems, economic systems, and transdisciplinary thinking necessary for navigating complex challenges.

👨🏼‍🌾 Embracing practical and experimental skills becomes central, emphasizing hands-on learning and adaptability in an ever-changing world.

Yet, it's evident that our current educational and professional systems aren't fully aligned with these future needs. That's why we're excited to announce our upcoming webcast, #businessforhumanity, debuting on March 12th. Join us as we delve into these and more critical conversations and explore pathways toward a future where human and planetary well-being thrive. Let us find out together how to re-invent capitalism. Learn more here: https://lnkd.in/dYwpsw36

15-02-2024

🔥 Reinventing Capitalism: Where Revolutionary Minds Collide! 🔥

Are you tired of the same old economic narratives? Ready to challenge the status quo and ignite change? Then buckle up, because we're about to embark on a journey unlike any other!

Welcome to Business for Humanity, the hub for radical thinkers, game-changers, and visionaries reshaping the economic landscape. A webcast showcasing alternative blueprints for markets and finance to policymakers advocating for systemic change and entrepreneurs pioneering sustainable business.💥

🌟 Join us as we dive deep into provocative discussions, exploring alternative economic models, dissecting policy implications, and igniting sparks of innovation.

🍽 What is on the menu? The menu is plentiful and sometimes even overwhelming. To avoid information overload we also need a better map to make sense of the territory! As usual we will thus also share insights for orientation. Today find this #deepdive 👇🏻 which sorts the conversations on circularity: from 1.0 dealing with waste, to 2.0 technofixes in the whole value chain, to 3.0 circular society (https://lnkd.in/gafUH-xU).

🗣 Identifying the following main discourses:

a) The Fortress Circular Economy. „These discourses thus seek to impose sufficiency, population controls and resource efficiency from the top down to rationally confront global scarcity and limits, yet they do not deal with questions of wealth distribution and social justice.“

b) The Technocentric Circular Economy. „Expect that circular innovations can lead to an absolute eco-economic decoupling to prevent ecological collapse“.

c) The Transformational Circular Society. „A renewed and harmonious connection with the Earth and their communities. A general economic downscaling and a philosophy of sufficiency leads to simpler, slower and more meaningful lives.“

d) The Reformist Circular Society. „propose a mix of behavioural and technological change, leading to an abundant, fair, and sustainable future where scarcity and environmental overshoot has been dealt with by impressive social, economic, industrial and environmental innovations. While they believe important socio-cultural change is necessary, and new forms of public participation and inclusion are needed, they do not see a fundamental contradiction between capitalism and sustainability.“

So clearly - a webcast on reinventing capitalism will also have to ask: what problems are we facing, what future do we want and how can we get there? And as evident in these discourses - in the end we will have to make a (good) choice.

So: this isn't your typical webcast— join the revolution! Tune in, turn up the volume, and let's rewrite the rules of capitalism together! 💡🌍

Coming 12th of March 16:00 CET. Changemakers Only!

10-02-2024

NARCISSISM, HR AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

#Responsibleleadership and good organisations need to transpire and inspire integrity and inter-independence. In their many studies on narcissism Charles O'Reilly and Jennifer Chatman have convincingly shown that this - to put it mildly - is not exactly the strength of narcissists. Hence, if it is true that we have a narcissism epedemic we should ask how to counteract or deal with this.

"The results of the five studies establish a clear linkage between leader narcissism and organizational cultures characterized by lower collaboration and integrity. Not only engage them less in collaborative and ethical behavior than do those who are less narcissistic but they also create cultures which are less collaborative and of integrity. To explore the mechanisms linking leader narcissism and cultures of collaboration and integrity, one study reveals that more narcissistic respondents are less likely to support policies and practices that promote collaboration and integrity and are less willing to sanction actions that undermine a culture of collaboration and integrity. Finally, to understand how culture is maintained and cascaded through an organization, Study 5 shows that when respondents are dealing with a more narcissistic leader in a culture characterized by lower collaboration and integrity, they are also less likely to collaborate and to adhere to high standards of integrity."

So the question is: how to make sure that less narcissists come into leaders position and if they are how to immunize the system?

🗣 ATTRACTION: Narciss are attracted by high pay differentials and "winner takes it all culture" - another reason not to go back to forced ranking 😉 .

🗣 SELECTION: Narciss often excel in interviews - make sure that your selection process is consisting of several assessment tools; hire slow; use simulation-oriented and maybe even personality tests in addition.

🗣 DEVELOPMENT: Narciss are often impaired to accurately identify and describe their inner states hence a key to successful development is to enable their self-awareness - vertical development is one key, and their willingness to develop.

🗣 MIRRORING: Narciss have a need for positive mirroring and thus search team members who admire them and do not talk truth to power - while I am usually not a fan of 360 degree feedback it might be helpful in this case; more helpful ofc if the team becomes cognizant of the dynamic.

So read the paper 👇 #deepdive and by all means also read Kets de Vries on this topic (who offers a psychodynamic perspective). And to all the HR people out there: how are you taking notice and care of this topic?

https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amd.2019.0163 

07-02-2024

COLLECTIVE „PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE“

When we finally ditch individual pay-for-performance some companies want to stick to some amount of performance-related, variable pay. I would usually say:

🗣 Go with gain or profit sharing - it signals „we are in the same boat“ and does not create any of the side effects of individual PfP. Now this meta-analysis from Anthony Nyberg et al show that this is clearly the case. You have some effect on organisational performance because people find themselves recognized and also tend to stay longer in that company.

🗣 Team bonus systems are also - overall - effective but here the original studies caution. Positive effects are to be expected for interdependent work and if teams take care of potential „social loafing“ in a considerate manner. But ofc 30 studies are not a lot and some of the studies which found no or a negative effect (such as the one of my former phd Dr. Daniela Frau) have a much harder time to get published. Hence I would say: proceed with care and also only use it with „proper teams“ that have some autonomy in choosing their peers and have learned to challenge each other in a considerate fashion as there is always the risk to generate too much pressure.

🗣 An interesting variant is the Top Team Bonus System. Unfortunately but unsurprising there are only few studies looking at this and there is quite some noise in the data (there are some moderators not yet tested). But it seems to have a strong effect on operative outcomes such as CSR outcomes. But their effect on the financial outcomes of the company is unclear - but there again we have the same result if we look at the effect of CEO PfP and org performance. It might just be that TMT are not the only ones contributing to organisational performance ;-)😉 .

I highly recommend to read the paper - if only to scan it for the possible downsides of such systems. Our knowledge on the effects is in many cases are not yet rich enough but the biggest learnings are the red flags also found.

Find the study here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0149206318770732?casa_token=2jqHS1WE4G0AAAAA:LuOpHlpH9kPLdcA37JtvJatS9hkYrWyv6aKqb82KbMqq4WEJSLVRf20Gq-PHD_ppakQERKSiJXC4GLA

01-02-2024

𝐂𝐄𝐎 𝐏𝐚𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 🦨

It is „official“ again as Herman Aguinis and colleagues showed: the link between CEO pay and performance remains shaky. Or to put it into their words: „In total, 86 percent of CEO performance and 91 percent of CEO pay distributions fit a power law better than a normal distribution, indicating that a minority of CEOs are producing top value for their firms (i.e. CEO performance) and a minority of CEOs are appropriating top value for themselves (i.e. CEO pay). But, the authors also found little overlap between CEOs who are the top performers and CEOs who are the top earners“.

What then is driving companies and boards to still go on with this - at least from a societal point of view - unhealthy overpay practice?

🦨 opportunity costs of having a particular CEO in command - such as poor hiring decisions, pay package defined before actual performance comes through and the Mathew effect

🦨 managerialism or fat cat theory - CEO (ab)use their power and information asymetry to procure rents

🦨 CEO hubris, greed, narcissism - making the CEO to ask for „too“ much

🦨CEO political behaviors - such as impression management, ties to dominant owners, non-optimal trust (too high)

🦨 political ideology - conservative CEOs and conservative boards opting for high pay differentials

🦨institutionalization of agency logic in business schools, among consultants and by business press shaping the training, socialization and attitudes of senior management.

And probably more…

But the big question remains: how to fix it? How can we get back a) to a more humble pay differential (whatever this means but it cannot be 344:1) and b) to incentives which encourage everybody to contribute (also) to the common good rather than to solely ones’ own good?


Source: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MRJIAM-02-2017-0731/full/pdf?casa_token=F7yt-bmB3WMAAAAA:pE0ke4QFHLCh2rvjVib9bjZ01O1WVk6crUJWyh9HYgqKJ6hTjXaWPxJgUIcWpZrmTeCiqhgVweDdnt4tz7tp3mHPwLq9d82oy5P4EHw93O_UH5pj2qOuAQ 

21-01-2024

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP AND AI

In 2024, the WEF, unsurprisingly given the current hype on generative AI in the last year, has dedicated a lot of airtime to new technologies. As usual, the techno-optimists prevailed as technological innovation has been traditionally seen as our best bet to solve the problems we are facing. Only this time, technology is hyped to solve the problems we have created ourselves, quite possibly with the help of technology as well.

In this spirit, it is good to know that the downsides of such technology were also discussed. In fact, you can find on the website the following statement: "As public and private leaders look to leverage the benefits while mitigating the risks of this emerging technology, Switzerland is in a strong position to play a vital global role in advancing the development and deployment of AI responsibly."

But are we? And how would we? I am glad, though, that nobody seems to be so naive as to think that technology itself is the (only) answer to responsibility. How we deploy AI, how leaders in politics and business will assume their call to be responsible, will matter a great deal.

In our research, we have looked at two areas where we believe a clear ethical stance is needed. First, and in the article shared here as well in a pop version published in https://lnkd.in/dKV5YwHG, AI was found to create and exacerbate employee vulnerabilities in the workplace. Drawing on Annette Baier and Hannah Arendt, we argue that this creates a call for (moral) trust. Organizations are summoned to invest in caring, in allowing employees to bring their voice into the development and deployment of technology and to bar some uses if needed.

In another article, yet to be completed, we also explain how AI can jeopardize good work. AI, like other technologies before, has the potential to dequalify and dehumanize employees. From the perspective of a virtue ethics approach, such a use is preventing the good life, of which work is a fundamental component. On the other hand, we can deploy AI (and other technologies) also in a way that allows for more good work. The choice lies in our hands, in those of responsible leaders in the private, plural, and public sector!

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.12940

18-01-2024

UNSERE VERANTWORTUNG

85000 Stunden verbringen wir in unserem Leben am Arbeitsplatz. Arbeit dürfte damit die prägende Erfahrung in unserem Erwachsenenleben sein. Arbeit kann uns Selbstwirksamkeit, Anerkennung, geistiges und soziales Wachstum vermitteln - oder sie kann uns auch dequalifizieren, entmündigen, und voneinander isolieren.

Wenn wir in der heutigen Zeit über die wachsende Anzahl entfremdeter Bürger nachdenken, dann müssen wir nicht weiter suchen. Es ist unsere Verantwortung - die von Unternehmen und die von Business Schools - endlich wieder gute Arbeit, und damit auch aktiven Bürgersinn, in den Mittelpunkt zu rücken.

Honneth hat hierzu ein wunderbares Buch geschrieben. Gute Arbeit:

🗣Ermöglicht ein faires Auskommen (sonst fehlt mir die Zeit zu politischer Teilhabe und ich muss auch schlechte Arbeit annehmen).
🗣Laugt nicht aus (darf aber beflügeln).
🗣Vermittelt mir Wertschätzung - auf Augenhöhe.
🗣Sorgt dafür, dass ich mich auf die Zumutung der Anderen einlasse.
🗣Fordert mich mental.
🗣Und lässt mich Gestaltungskraft und Selbstwirksamkeit entwickeln.

Das ist der wirksamste Hebel gegen die Verwerfungen unserer Zeit!

Wer macht mit - welches Unternehmen setzt das um? Welche Business School lehrt das?

16-01-2024

𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐄𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐦𝐚𝐧: 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐈𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐞

Wow - well meant not so well done, or not even well meant? The new Edelman Barometer is pleasing Davos based on a handful of nothing. At the core is the claim that governments (mainly) are preventing needed innovations which business otherwise would do for the good of society. OK - 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 - but whatever is the real intention here, it rests on thin grounds.

Let us take a step back and look at the data and its flaws:

🗣 As already mentioned by numerous trust researchers: the measurements itself are certainly not brilliant. Trust, the core, is measured rather one-dimensionally. Although truth to be told in the newest version they work with an „ethical score“ - still with problems but better.

🗣 The insights drawn from the data - at least written in capital letters (it looks slightly different if we venture to the technical appendix) - is clearly „overdrawn“. This is at best correlational data - hence what remains suspiciously unexamined is causality.

🗣 And what is also grossly neglected - and of particular importance: we are looking at complex social systems. Take for instance government and business and their entwinement. Edelman suggests in the subtext that government is mostly to blame and that business should „partner“ up with government. But ofc this „causality“ is neither shown through their study design, nor would we propose such a simplistic one-directional influence. Rather, if not discussed from a neoliberal ideology, the fact that some business leaders undermined and reduced government, might have created the problems in the first place. In any case it defies such a reductionist logic.

Most important though, even if their study was brilliant, „𝐢𝐬“ 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 „𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭“. Whether we "need" more technology, and which one, how technology should be implemented and used and what for - these are all (also) normative questions. And hence, pertaining to whatever ethical theory we follow, need to be deliberated. Just delegating it to the market does not work (what they acknowledge).

I believe the best business can do in this situation is to enable a better democracy and more practical wisdom for all by providing good work (which gives their employees the civic virtues, the critical thinking skills and the time to participate in democracy) - and if they indeed „partner up with government“ - then this needs to be done together with NGOs, science and the public - open and transparent.

01-01-2024

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐤: 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭?

In a recent discussion, my counterpart enlightened me: What do you mean by defining performance? It’s always clear what performance I have to deliver!


A good point, we often take our understanding of performance for granted. And yet, this precisely highlights the #responsibility companies have when developing new #performance_management_systems. The recent renewal of stacked rankings (see the link in the comment 👇🏻) shows that we all too quickly fall into a simplistic definitions with severe consequences.

Psychologists usually distinguish three forms of (individual) performance in the workplace:

🎯 Task-related performance — everything it takes to do the defined tasks well.

🎯 Contextual stabilizing performance — everything it takes to contribute to the goals of the organization in the daily changing environment and collaboration with others.

🎯 Contextual renewing performance — everything it takes to renew the way of collaboration and the goals of the organization so that the organization can be successful in the long term.

Contextual performance always goes beyond the contractually defined components, relies more on collective mindfulness, and generally requires more development work — both on an individual and collective level.

It should become clear that even for instrumental reason, we should not create a system that only focuses on task-related performance. We can assume that in modern, knowledge-based work forms, we always want to utilize all forms of performance — context-sensitive, with the wisdom of the role holder. A ‘Winner Culture’ that relies on star performers falls short here (see the deep dive article 👇 ).

But we should also ask the question: What is desirable? What kind of performance is needed in good companies? Of course, that depends on the definition of ‘good.’ If we understand ‘good’ as #excellent in the sense of ‘supporting each other in getting better’ and ‘good work’ as creating value for society, then it’s clear: we absolutely need contextual performance as well. And then we can probably already state: a system that prevents ‘helping, supporting, speaking unpleasant truths’ cannot lead to excellence.

And I know many will agree — but the sad truth is that even more companies are far too willing to take a turn into the wrong direction.

Read:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90850190/stack-ranking-workers-hurt-morale-productivity-tech-companies

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09585192.2023.2225279?casa_token=Ncv8jzmwxpsAAAAA:05nNe9uyrnMLcT0Op-9RihkOCtccGSrrRxhu0dQ4qh5H5VozEPCNwFuoJ9mvbHE1Og0drWSFLtrRehk

01-01-2024

The Myth of Meritocracy in Organisations


KISS MERITOCRACY GOOD-BYE?

Last week a heated discussion about the new (very old) SAP forced ranking model ensued, this week UBS announced that for lay-offs they plan to use meritocratic rules. Surely, well all wish there was a meritocracy to some degree — we do not want to reproduce social inequalities based on from which socio-economical group we stem from. Selecting, promoting or even dismissing people because they do not contribute, engage and use their potential is clearly better than just do this on the basis of familiarity and nepotism. But as this excellent article compiles — meritocracy in a knowledge economy is hard to come by, even and especially in business.

The article looks at several, multi-level, and interacting effects which suggest that particularly in places where there is a so called meritocratic structure (eg. a super star model or winner takes it all) we can almost expect the smallest amount of merit in most people decisions.

On the individual level not-innate competencies (eg. which school I was able to visit) and motivation “kicks” (not being chosen because of my not-innate competencies) feed into a growing disadvantage. This is compounded by the stereotypes and status beliefs on the dyadic level which all feed and are strengthened by negative effect on peoples’ social (and cultural) capital. The meritocratic ideology on the system level then often leads to a false legitimation of (still very unfair) inequalities…

But please read it 👇🏻 before you start vicious cycles nobody really wants.

Read:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2041386620930063

01-01-2024

Performance is (also) socially constructed

Recent overviews on performance management are quite outspoken: despite 30 years of research and a lot of experimentation in practice, big questions about its effectiveness remain.

Answers as to why this is so depend, of course, on the worldview of the researcher. Those who firmly believe in the hashtag#measurability (and manipulability) of performance as „something out there“ seek better ways to capture the complexity of the construct (see a very recent attempt for this in the link 👇🏻). Those who embrace an hashtag#interpretive paradigm emphasize the socially constructed nature of performance and point out that even if there is something „of high performance“ out there, all actors can do is to view, enact, and change it from their context.

A very nice example of this latter view is the German book by Nina Verheyen „invention of performance“ (see it cited in the comment 👇🏻) where she explains the social construction aspects inherent in the term performance. “But there is no performance independent of human attributions and social contexts. Performance is always a matter of perspective. Should one assess the degree of effort or the resulting outcome? How can performances in economic, cultural, sporting, and scientific fields be compared? Who decides what counts as performance? Which perspective prevails?“ And she is questioning the underlying ontology, asking whether we can ever talk about individual performance as „the conventional understanding of performance consistently overlooks the supportive efforts of others. Ultimately, behind everything that people achieve, there are the efforts of many.”

Yet, maybe surprisingly, the question Verheyen raises also unites these two „silos“. We are aware of the measurement „difficulties“ (or the „dependent on human attributions and contexts“), and we also know that the question „what is performance“ is depending on the business model (or the perspective, power). And most will readily confirm that performance is most often a team effort.

So, a natural zone of dialogue would be to go more fundamentally into all these questions — before we measure or create a new performance management system. We would be more cognizant of our cognitive boundaries, more humble from the beginning, and would maybe keep more vigilant in the search for a better way to define and capture performance, and whom we include in our search for such a better way.

Read
https://www.hanser-literaturverlage.de/buch/die-erfindung-der-leistung/978-3-446-25687-3/

26-12-2023

What is performance?

Before we embark on ‘managing’ performance, a task often embraced in companies and central to HR, it is imperative to grasp the essence of what we mean by performance.

Standard Definitions
The standard definitions I’ve encountered primarily revolve around measurement theories — already, in my opinion, a step too far, as they often sidestep more fundamental questions. Take, for example, a definition by Taris and Schaufeli (2018: 21): ‘Process performance refers to the actions or behaviors employees engage in to achieve the goals of their job, i.e., what they do at work. Conversely, outcome performance refers to the products or services that are produced and whether these are consistent with the overall strategic goals of the organization.’

While I’ve come across more on types of performance, such as the differentiation between in-role and extra-role performance (which I will delve into later), I find myself yearning for a more comprehensive understanding. This is somewhat peculiar because performance is, after all, the most frequently used dependent variable in industrial and organizational psychology and in OB.

A Critical View
In a German book examining the ‘invention of performance,’ the author, Nina Verheyen, provides a more critical lens by elucidating the social construction aspects inherent in the term ‘performance.’ ‘But there is no performance independent of human attributions and social contexts. Performance is always a matter of perspective. Should one assess the degree of effort or the resulting outcome? How can performances in economic, cultural, sporting, and scientific fields be compared? Who decides what counts as performance? Which perspective prevails?’

She questions the underlying ontology, pondering whether we can ever discuss individual performance since ‘the conventional understanding of performance consistently overlooks the supportive efforts of others. Ultimately, behind everything that people achieve, there are the efforts of many.’

Open Questions
Now, I seek more insights. To all HR researchers and managers out there, where can I find critical views on performance? Have you ever taken a step back to reflect on ‘what is performance’? Is performance for achieving clearly defined goals, or is it also for enabling new goals and redirecting wrongly specified goals? Is your understanding of performance more closely linked to the ideals of the sporting or cultural field? In redefining performance management, whose voices are heard, and whose voices are implemented in the evaluation of performance? How much does your performance practice drive your understanding of performance, rather than the other way around?”

Concluding Thoughts
As we navigate the intricate landscape of performance, let us not merely measure and manage but pause to question the very essence of what constitutes performance. The definitions and perspectives we adopt shape not only our evaluation processes but also the way we perceive individual and collective achievements.

In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, the critical lens offered by thinkers like Nina Verheyen reminds us that performance is deeply embedded in social constructions, always subject to interpretation and dependent on human attributions.

For HR researchers and managers alike, the journey into the heart of performance raises essential inquiries. Have we, in our pursuit of measurable outcomes, overlooked the nuanced interplay between effort, outcomes, and the supportive efforts of others? Does our understanding of performance align more with rigidly defined goals or the fluidity of enabling and redirecting objectives?

Reflecting on the symbiotic relationship between our performance practices and our understanding of performance itself is not just an academic exercise but a vital step toward fostering a more nuanced, and effective approach to navigating the world of achievements and aspirations.

23-12-2023

SEARCHING FOR A BOOK RECOMMENDATION

I feel that this is a topic, senior management really needs to understand well, but my problem is that nobody will read a book like Bourdieus "Masculine Domination". Hence I want the wisdom of the crowd: what would you recommend? It needs to have some depth (not an airport management book), be inspiring (and I would believe also compassionate so that it does not provoke only reactance), eye-opening and actionable...

To explain it better read the HBR 👇🏻 or also just this snippet here:

"Why do companies get caught up in illegal behavior, harassment, and toxic leadership? Our research identifies an underlying cause: what we call a “masculinity contest culture.” This kind of culture endorses winner-take-all competition, where winners demonstrate stereotypically masculine traits such as emotional toughness, physical stamina, and ruthlessness. It produces organizational dysfunction, as employees become hyper competitive to win."

https://hbr.org/2018/11/how-masculinity-contests-undermine-organizations-and-what-to-do-about-it

21-12-2023

Problems with Meritocracy

In this #deepdive, @benjamin Sachs-Cobbe discusses the recently reemerging discussion on the problems with meritocracy, or rather with institutions claiming to be meritocratic.

And institution is said to be meritocratic if it rewards merit, while merit can mean a) possession of relevant qualification, b) potential for relevant contribution, and c) having put forth or being likely to put forth effort. Most conversations (and, in fact, also his treatise) when looking at societal institutions (the education system and markets) are preoccupied with the topic of merit = qualification.

What are the problems with merit=qualification?
From a social justice view a first problem is, that access to qualification, particularly in the US but also to lesser degrees in Europe, is biased — equality of opportunity is not instantiated. In this observation philosophers are joined by education and intelligence researchers who all plausibly show that socio-economic background is pulling the levers — not “innate capabilities” when it comes to access to high-quality education.

Second, the qualifications are rewarded by the market and hence are “taste-driven” — not re-evaluated by some political or ethical judgements. If we decide to pay more for investment banking services than for nursing, then this is a consumer decision (although it is more complicated than that). Hence, markets offer moral arbitrariness (at best) — but at worst are power-infested as much as our tastes can be manipulated by the powerful (not only via marketing but also via their command of the press, social media, etc.). So we might have applauded the garbage removers during COVID, but their work remains underpaid, under-appreciated, and some would even say “rightly so.”

If we look at practice, then we might say: meritocratic institutions are failing us in the sense that they cannot provide social justice nor factor different qualities of merit. What is seen as “especially worthy of merit” is more of an arbitrary rather than a considered claim.

So what to do?

1. Make our institutions less meritocratic: e.g., by broadening access to high-quality higher institutions and distributing non-market goods (e.g., social esteem) equally or based on different criteria.

2. Making it matter less that our institutions are “meritocratic”: e.g., improving the conditions of workers who do not have elite qualifications through a different tax system.

3. Detach the normative content (“merits are deserved”) from the descriptive content (merit is whatever our institutions define as merit): e.g., stop talking about “they deserve their rewards,” stop promoting the myth of social mobility, stop valorizing skilled over unskilled labor.

And yet what neither of these suggestions embraces is the lurking question in the background: do we need to change our breed of capitalism instead?

Sandel (2020:224) demands equality of condition (as a social justice criterion) and moral markets (drawing also on virtue ethics) and thereby is pleading for a system that allows everybody to

“develop and exercise their abilities in work that wins social esteem, sharing in a widely diffused culture of learning, and deliberating with their fellow citizens about public affairs.”

If I bring both of his insights together, I cannot help but wonder why we are not also talking about economic system alternatives — both within capitalism but maybe also beyond.

References

Sachs-Cobbe, B. (2023). Recent work on meritocracy. Analysis, 83(1), 171–185.

Sandel, Michael J. The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good?. Penguin UK, 2020.

14-11-2023

HR faces a pivotal moment in a world marked by complexity and suffering. To drive meaningful change, HR must confront its existential crisis, challenging the status quo and recognizing its complicity in perpetuating suffering within organizations. The path to a just future of work demands introspection, courage, and the commitment to prioritize ethics, humanism, and sustainability over efficiency, forging a coalition of the willing to shape systemic change within our economic system.

(Based on our opening keynote for the HR Horizons conference in Amsterdam, 14-15th November 2023)

Preamble

In a world where complexity reigns, where capitalism's grip on society threatens democracy, and where suffering pervades our organizations, we find ourselves at a crossroads. In order to reshape the future of work, HR must heed the call of transformation, daring to challenge the status quo and driving change for good.

For far too long, HR has grappled with an existential crisis, losing sight of its purpose and its potential to be a force for positive change. We've professionalized, we've gathered brilliant minds, but the truth is, people are no longer truly at the heart of what we do. We've wandered in the wilderness of indifference, too often lost in a labyrinth of bureaucracy and technology.

The path to real change is not lined with quick fixes or superficial solutions. It's a winding road that demands introspection, courage, and radical honesty. HR must confront its own role in creating the suffering it purports to alleviate. We must stop to purchase indulgences in the form of DEI programs, or distract ourselves with the latest technological marvels to atone for our shortcomings.

If we fail to transform, the #futureofwork will be the exact mirroring of our troubled present. HR must take the reins of leadership and commit to subordinate effectiveness to #ethics, #humanism and #sustainability. This calls not only for new ways to imagine our organisations, but for a profound, inward journey. HR must shed the chains of dependency on those in power. It must once again nurture a dual loyalty, towards both the business and the ideals of its profession. It must unify practitioners across organizations in a shared quest for what is right and good.

It takes bravery to confront our deepest fears, and stand up for what is just. The bedrock of any good organization is good people, and HR must be willing to lead the way, so that others might follow. Leadership itself has grown morally mute, and herein might lie an opportunity for HR to show its metal and step into the void. A new HR has the potential to be the vanguard of a coalition of the willing, fostering systemic change within an unjust economic system.

The clock is ticking and it's time to decide which road you are willing to travel. Will you perpetuate the unhappiness of the past, with more of the same but new fancy clothes? Or will you take the courageous leap toward a better world, one where work exudes dignity, the economy serves humanity, and our organizations shine as beacons of a good life for all?

Peter Senge once spoke of leadership as a community's ability to shape its future. Within the HR community, let the spark of unwavering determination to craft a better world of work grow! Let our actions be the testament to our commitment to brighter, more humane organisations. That famous future, the future of work, is already upon us. Friends, let us not squander it! 

Preamble

In a world where complexity reigns, where capitalism's grip on society threatens democracy, and where suffering pervades our organizations, we find ourselves at a crossroads. In order to reshape the future of work, HR must heed the call of transformation, daring to challenge the status quo and driving change for good.

For far too long, HR has grappled with an existential crisis, losing sight of its purpose and its potential to be a force for positive change. We've professionalized, we've gathered brilliant minds, but the truth is, people are no longer truly at the heart of what we do. We've wandered in the wilderness of indifference, too often lost in a labyrinth of bureaucracy and technology.

The path to real change is not lined with quick fixes or superficial solutions. It's a winding road that demands introspection, courage, and radical honesty. HR must confront its own role in creating the suffering it purports to alleviate. We must stop to purchase indulgences in the form of DEI programs, or distract ourselves with the latest technological marvels to atone for our shortcomings.

If we fail to transform, the #futureofwork will be the exact mirroring of our troubled present. HR must take the reins of leadership and commit to subordinate effectiveness to #ethics, #humanism and #sustainability. This calls not only for new ways to imagine our organisations, but for a profound, inward journey. HR must shed the chains of dependency on those in power. It must once again nurture a dual loyalty, towards both the business and the ideals of its profession. It must unify practitioners across organizations in a shared quest for what is right and good.

It takes bravery to confront our deepest fears, and stand up for what is just. The bedrock of any good organization is good people, and HR must be willing to lead the way, so that others might follow. Leadership itself has grown morally mute, and herein might lie an opportunity for HR to show its metal and step into the void. A new HR has the potential to be the vanguard of a coalition of the willing, fostering systemic change within an unjust economic system.

The clock is ticking and it's time to decide which road you are willing to travel. Will you perpetuate the unhappiness of the past, with more of the same but new fancy clothes? Or will you take the courageous leap toward a better world, one where work exudes dignity, the economy serves humanity, and our organizations shine as beacons of a good life for all?

Peter Senge once spoke of leadership as a community's ability to shape its future. Within the HR community, let the spark of unwavering determination to craft a better world of work grow! Let our actions be the testament to our commitment to brighter, more humane organisations. That famous future, the future of work, is already upon us. Friends, let us not squander it! 

Please fill in our short event survey to gain access to the full presentation with references and further materials


Popular articles in the KnowledgeHub: Good Society