
#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.
12-10-2025



๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ณ๐ถ๐ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ ๐ช๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฆ๐ผ๐๐น: ๐ช๐ต๐ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ปโ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ
Another ritual round of hunger games layoffs despite that research has shown that even in these times dignity counts, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฆ๐ด ๐ง๐ฐ๐ญ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ?
The answer is not a lack of knowledge. It is ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐.
Ideology as a worldview that silently orients action: how the world ๐ถ๐, how it ๐ด๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฒ, what counts as ๐๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ, and what kinds of action are ๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ. Ideology is sticky because it works not only through arguments but also through powerful fantasies. It does not merely tell us what to do; it makes us ๐ธ๐ข๐ฏ๐ต to do it, even when evidence points elsewhere.
Organizations are ideological actors. They do not simply apply best practices from management textbooks. They embody a vision of what people are - cogs, agents, citizens, or serfs - and of what the company itself is - machine, marketplace, community, or sovereign. These deep beliefs shape how they respond when crisis hits.
This becomes visible in moments of profit warnings or downturns. Even with decades of research on โdecent downsizing,โ the path companies choose depends less on insight and more on ideological commitments.
A ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ firm sees the world as a machine to be repaired. Downsizing is executed like a mechanic adjusting broken parts. A ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฒ๐-๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ป firm sees the world as a marketplace of individuals: layoffs become transactions, abrupt and performance-based. By contrast, a ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ company imagines itself as a community of citizens and aims for fairness, transparency, and reciprocity. A ๐ณ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด company sees itself embedded and generative, a steward for unlocking the good, enabled by persons with dignity and vocation, seeking to regenerate and protect the common good while adapting.
And then there are the ๐ฎ๐๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป firms of our age. Their worldviews are darker, but no less coherent. The ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ป๐ผ-๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐ฑ๐ฎ๐น corporation (Meta, Amazon) imagines itself as a sovereign lord. Layoffs are decrees to be handed down: opaque, unilateral, framed as dominion over subjects. The ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ณ๐๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ corporation (Tesla, Palantir) sees itself as an ark on a frontier. Layoffs here become acts of sacrifice: dramatic, abrupt, justified as necessary for the mission of saving humanity.
So we can have research till the cows come home and show that "fairness pays" - ideology will often get the better end when decisions are taken.
That is why the question for leaders is not simply ๐ต๐ผ๐ to downsize in a downturn. It is: ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐?
๐ Reference: Durand, C. (2024). How silicon valley unleashed techno-feudalism: the making of the digital economy. Verso Books. And Taลkale, A. R. (2025). The affective politics of reactionary futurism in Silicon Valley. Critical Studies on Security, 1-5.
10-10-2025



๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ก๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฒ โ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ฒโ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐
Yesterday, forty-six CEOs asked Europe to โfreeโ them from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, claiming that regulation โburdens competitiveness.โ But what they are really asking for is the right to compete without responsibility. And Germany, more than any other country, should know how that story ends. For decades, our automotive sector turned resistance into strategy. As researchers Ina Richter and Karen Smith Stegen show, it perfected what they call the choreography of delay - a disciplined dance that protects incumbents under the guise of cooperation.
It begins with ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฆ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐จ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง - a ritual acknowledgment of environmental problems and vague promises to act.
Then follows ๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฒ - questioning data, feasibility, and timing while asking for โmore research.โ
Next comes ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ - transforming obligations into subsidies and responsibility into privilege.
Under pressure, ๐ ๐
๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ง๐๐ appear - some firms adopt token measures to showcase progress, others hide behind them.
Finally, ๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ช๐ฎ๐จ - technical fixes like converters or filters are celebrated as breakthroughs while the combustion regime remains untouched.
This is not accident; it is design. Delay became an economic model, and doubt its most profitable product. As Tilman Altenburgโs research reminds us, Germanyโs problem is not a lack of intelligence or capital - it is path dependency: an entire ecosystem of suppliers, engineers, and regulations optimized for yesterdayโs technology. That ecosystem now risks becoming our gilded cage.
The lesson for the coalition is clear. Industrial policy cannot reward delay any longer. If we continue to subsidize legacy systems, we will not preserve competitiveness - we will embalm it. The next chapter of German leadership must bind innovation to transformation: clear fleet targets, bold green procurement, charging and digital infrastructure, and patient capital for those scaling new industries instead of cushioning old ones.
Germany does not need to be freed from responsibility - it needs to be freed from inertia. If it fails to act, it will not die in crisis, but in comfort. It will die in beauty.ย
09-10-2025



LEADERSHIP WASHING โ OR MIRROR, MIRROR, WHOโฆ
Have you ever wondered why in your company the talk is all about trust, or leadership-as-coaching, yet โon the groundโ you feel very little of it?
Thatโs the first thing Fischer & Alvesson (2025) teach us: we rarely experience the kind of leadership weโre promised in textbooks or glossy brochures. Research they cite is sobering:
- Nobody really has time to do leadership.
- Most people speak negatively about their leaders
- And almost everyone - leaders included - believes theyโre more ideal than they are.
So whatโs going on?
The authors argue we should pay attention to leadership meta-talk the grand narratives presented by our โleader-philosophers.โ Even, or precisely, when those narratives donโt match reality. Because presenting oneself as a hero-quality, moral, self-aware leader has real effects on what leadership becomes.
1๏ธโฃ First, it encourages leaders to fall in love with themselves - or more precisely, to romanticize their own capacity. This self-idealization is comforting; it helps sustain an identity of being a โgood personโ in a messy world. It feeds the fantasy that through reflection and self-optimisation we can earn moral worth. But it also nourishes subtle narcissism - leadership as self-admiration in the mirror.
2๏ธโฃ Second, this kind of talk comforts followers. When leaders speak from a shared script - the language of trust, care, empowerment - it creates the illusion of harmony. The talk itself reduces anxiety, containing uncertainty and conflict beneath a layer of moral reassurance. In psychodynamic terms, leadership talk works as an organizational tranquilizer: it keeps difficult emotions under control.
3๏ธโฃ Third, and least surprisingly, this performance also works outward. Itโs part of what we might call virtue washing. Companies reward leaders who can convincingly perform moral awareness and leadership theatre thrives on precisely that. The more the leader believes their own act, the more convincing it becomes.
But the more interesting question, as always, is: why should we care?
Well, if talking leadership is almost as effective as doing it, why bother with the latter? Also when impression management is rewarded - and it often is - faking becomes functional. And most worrying of all: this theatre, and the stages companies build for it - kick-offs, strategy days, teambuilding events, far from daily work - help sustain existing power structures. They display harmony where there is, in reality, tension that needs to be addressed. They turn the messy contradictions of organizations into glossy moral performances.
Seen through this lens, leadership washing isnโt just PR. Itโs collective self-soothing. Talking about good leadership lets us feel moral, modern, and in control, even when reality is rather ordinary.
So maybe next time you hear someone talk about trust, authenticity, or servant leadership, ask yourself: Is this leadership or just the mirror talking?
08-10-2025



๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ค ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง โ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ฒ ๐ง๐จ.
When forty-six of Europeโs largest corporations sign a joint letter urging governments to scrap the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, they donโt just challenge a regulation. They challenge Europeโs capacity to lead. Their message to Presidents Macron and Merz was clear: remove the rules, and โrestore competitiveness.โ But what they are really asking for is the right to compete without responsibility.
๐๐๐ญโ๐ฌ ๐๐ ๐ก๐จ๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ญ: the claim that due diligence โburdensโ competitiveness is not new and it has always been wrong. As Michael Porter showed decades ago, nations donโt grow strong by protecting their companies from pressure. ๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ, ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ญ. Europeโs strength has always come from demanding standards that push industries to evolve. The Due Diligence Directive does exactly that: it forces companies to innovate in transparency, traceability, and circularity.
๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ฒโ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก. For too long, subsidies and political protection insulated the car industry and dulled its urgency to innovate. The result? A lost decade of clinging to the Verbrennungsmotor, while competitors abroad built the technologies that now define the future. Europe cannot regain its edge by lowering the bar again.
๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ฅ: once more, the most powerful players use their influence to tilt the field in their favor. Small and mid-sized innovators - those building sustainable materials, clean energy systems, and ethical supply chains - are already competing in a market distorted by greenwashing and lobbying. These forty-six are not defending Europeโs competitiveness. ๐๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ ๐.
Yes, Europe must reduce bureaucracy. But letโs be clear about where bureaucracy came from. We built it because trust was broken by the very industries now demanding deregulation. From diesel scandals to offshore tax evasions, every call for โless red tapeโ rings hollow when it comes from those who abused the light-touch regimes of the past. ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ, ๐ฅ๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฎ๐๐ญ, ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ.
Europeโs competitiveness will not be rebuilt by retreating from responsibility. It will be rebuilt when our industries embrace the challenge of high standards and turn them into innovation advantages.
๐โ๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ค๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฒ. Europeโs future will not belong to those who flee the rules - but to those who rise to meet them.
07-10-2025



The gig economy has not (yet) arrived in Switzerland โ and that's a good thing.
In Switzerland, the gig economy โ i.e. working on demand, via platforms or as a solo self-employed person โ has so far been a marginal phenomenon. Maybe that's not so bad after all.
A look at America shows where the development can lead. There, many of the so-called "gig workers" live in precarious conditions, often with several jobs, because the main job is not enough. Only a small, already privileged minority benefits from the new freedom.
In this country, the dynamics are (still) modest. According to Avenir Suisse, around 0.4% of the population worked via platforms in 2019; even with rental and online sales, the figure is only 1.4%. Solo self-employment is also decreasing. So there is no boom โ and perhaps that is exactly the opportunity before the risks grow.
Researchers Gretchen Spreitzer and Lindsey Cameron distinguish between two worlds of new work: a privileged, autonomous one for the highly qualified โ and a precarious, externally determined one for many others. Both exist side by side, but their relationship determines the social balance of a society.
Switzerland is faced with the choice of whether to allow the second world to grow or deliberately set limits for it. This requires clear terms instead of buzzwords. Whether "Hustle", "Solopreneurship" or "Freelancing" โ at its core, it is about commissioned work, which can be fair and self-determined or insecure and exploitable.
Politics and human resources management have a responsibility before these new forms of work become a social risk:
1๏ธโฃ Political: Creating framework conditions that combine flexibility with security โ the principle of flexicurity. And set the course for occupational health and safety on platforms as well. No one should be exploitable because he/she has no other chance.
2๏ธโฃ For companies and HR: External work is also part of value creation. Fair fees, transparent platform criteria and access to further training are part of responsible labour policy. And above all: dignity must not be a question of treaty status.
In the end, however, a simple sentence sticks with me: A full-time job must be enough to live on.
An economy in which people need several jobs to secure their livelihood has lost its balance โ regardless of whether these jobs are called "gig", "hustle" or "project work". But we should be vigilant now - thanks Dr. Hans Rusinek for the reminder!ย
06-10-2025



We wanted autonomy. We built isolation.
๐๐ถ๐ด ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐
The gig economy is often sold as the promise of freedom - flexible work, personal autonomy, and self-chosen projects. But beneath that rhetoric lies a deeper social transformation that thinkers like ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ have warned us about very early.
๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ and colleagues described two worlds of the new work. One is populated by high-skill professionals who enjoy self-determination and choice. The other by those for whom flexibility is imposed - unstable, underpaid, and precarious. It is a structural divide that runs through todayโs labour markets.
Yet even the โfirst worldโ of autonomy is not as glamorous as it looks. ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ, ๐๐๐ต๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ช๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐๐ธ๐ถ studied independent experts and found that their freedom comes with emotional costs: loneliness, identity anxiety, and the constant pressure to prove oneโs worth. Without the social and symbolic โholding environmentsโ once provided by organisations, even successful independents struggle to maintain stability and belonging. Autonomy easily turns into isolation; meaning into exhaustion.
The sociologist ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ saw this long before the rise of digital platforms. In The Corrosion of Character he described the emergence of the โflexible manโ - mobile, adaptive, but unable to build lasting commitments. The qualities that make us employable - agility, self-reliance, detachment - corrode the virtues that hold societies together: loyalty, solidarity, trust.
We are drifting toward what might be called a ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐. Formally free, yet structurally bound. Each of us an enterprise of one, negotiating with markets instead of belonging to institutions. Work relationships become transactions; colleagues turn into clients; networks replace communities. Solidarity shrinks to sympathy without structure.
The paradox is clear. Flexibility expands opportunity but erodes continuity. It rewards adaptability while hollowing out the very bonds that make collective life possible. When everyone must look out for themselves, the long term becomes no oneโs concern.
The challenge ahead is not to resist flexibility - it is here to stay - but to ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฏ๐๐ถ๐น๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ณ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ that make freedom liveable: protection from dominion, reciprocity, commitment, love and trust. Without them, the gig economy may not just change how we work.
It may change what it means to belong.
05-10-2025



WHY DOES THE ENTREPRENEURIAL ELITE SIT PEACEFULLY IN MAR-A-LAGO?
Management researcher Arun Porutiyil (2018) has formulated an uncomfortable thesis: Neoliberalism โ and with it the practice of some large corporations โ creates the conditions under which authoritarian or even neo-fascist movements can flourish.
When market logic becomes the sole interpretative framework, when efficiency and returns are placed above moral or social considerations, then society loses its political and ethical balance.
The belief that markets regulate themselves and that politics only interferes weakens institutions, opens up social fractures and creates the climate in which authoritarian promises of salvation sound plausible.
Neoliberal companies contribute to this by separating business and responsibility - according to his thesis. Their strategies are aimed at short-term gains, they externalize costs and legitimize inequality as an achievement.
The moral void that arises from this is โ according to Porutiyil โ not a coincidence, but systemic: a technocratic rationality that translates everything political into economic efficiency.
When authoritarian regimes come to power, large corporations rarely put up resistance.
They adapt โ often quietly, sometimes profitably. Such regimes secure property, weaken counter-forces such as trade unions and ensure "predictability". This is not an ideological commitment, but the continuation of economic rationality under new political auspices.
But Porutiyil also reminds us that fascism is not simply a historical accident, but a possible consequence if capitalism loses its democratic embeddedness. Whether things turn out differently depends on whether the economy becomes part of the political and moral project of society again โ and not its replacement!
Literature:
Porutiyil, A. (2018). Big Business Fascism. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 379โ396.
04-10-2025



๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐ญ, ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฅ
Have you heard of Ayn Rand? If youโre an American CEO or politician, chances are youโve not only heard of her but have been influenced by her. Some - like Alan Greenspan - were part of her inner circle. Many have absorbed her worldview indirectly: through her novels, the popular business press, or the moral language of modern management education.
Rand is famous for championing ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐ ๐จ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ. In her view, ethics is not an afterthought but a code of values guiding every choice and defining the purpose of oneโs life. She identifies survival as the most basic value: for any living being, life is the precondition of valuing anything. For human beings, values are moral when they serve oneโs survival as a rational being.
Her moral ideal is the ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐-๐ฆ๐๐๐, ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐-๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ข๐ง๐ , ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐-๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ - the heroic entrepreneur whose ambition and productivity are the highest virtues. Rand loathes collectivism, equates altruism with self-sacrifice, and defends a minimal state.
The interesting bit is how ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฌ, often without realizing it, have transmitted this moral code - implicitly, even complicitly.
๐ก Case studies valorize heroic leaders who defy convention - Welch, Musk - mirror images of Randโs protagonists.
๐ก MBA ethics curricula often frame choices as profit versus altruism, reproducing Randโs moral dichotomy.
๐ก Courses in leadership promote self-optimization as moral virtue turning self-interest into a disciplined duty.
๐ก And the ubiquitous rhetoric of authenticity and disruption continues Randโs call for independence against conformity.
Take the an HBS Tesla Case. It celebrates โa founder who refused to delegate creative responsibilityโ and โredesigned almost every systemโ to match his vision. Yet it also shows the danger in her moral ideal. When the single-minded pursuit of vision becomes organizational culture, rational independence can slide into authoritarian control. The heroic egoist, institutionalized, can turn into a system that demands total devotion.
In this sense, Randโs โmoral idealโ lives on not just in philosophy but in ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. We reward the tireless, the self-reliant, the disruptor - and we frame these traits not merely as strategies for success, but as signs of virtue.
Business schools rarely mention Rand, but her shadow lingers in how we teach leadership, purpose, and ethics. So perhaps itโs time to ask: ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฐ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ก ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐จ๐ข๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐?
And: what would it mean to teach management that also values empathy, humility, and the shared conditions of human flourishing?
03-10-2025



Many leaders respond to our seminar ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ณ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ with the words: โ๐ฐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐
๐ ๐๐๐๐.โ Often, these are people who have seriously engaged with questions of responsibility, who have developed their own ethical code, and who try to act by principle.
And yet, there lies a paradox. Because those who genuinely want to be answerable, those who see themselves as moral agents, will never be โfinishedโ with responsibility. To be responsible is to remain engaged in the ongoing struggle: to question oneโs own judgments, to recognize prejudices, to find new language for emerging dilemmas, and to enter into dialogue with others about what is good, right, and better.
The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, who more than anyone else has shaped the idea of the ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, described this kind of responsibility in powerful terms. For Taylor, human beings are not merely carriers of desires that we balance against each other. We are reflective beings, capable of turning back on our own wants and asking not only ๐๐๐๐ we want, but ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ we ought to want it. In that reflection, we open a moral space in which our actions can be judged as noble or base, dignified or undignified, deep or shallow.
Taylor calls this ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐. It differs from ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, where we simply weigh desires by usefulness or convenience. Strong evaluation means situating our lives in relation to higher goods- treating concepts like dignity, honor, and integrity as real guides to our being. And these concepts only make sense in contrast to their opposites: indignity, dishonor, loss of integrity. Such distinctions are not luxuries. They are constitutive of our very selves.
For Taylor, this is what the ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ provides: a framework that orients us between what makes life worth living, to whom we ascribe dignity, and what we find admirable. But he is equally clear: this horizon is never fixed. A good life is one in which we search for clarity precisely where none yet exists. It is a life in which we keep asking the right questions and are willing to rethink the answers we once gave.
For leaders, this means that ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ณ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ is never a settled competence or skillset. It is a stance of continuous reflection. Leaders who want to act responsibly must recognize that they themselves are never โdone.โ Good leadership consists in giving orientation amid a plurality of values, without falling into either relativism or dogmatism. Responsibility is not a burden to be carried, but the very core of a good life- an ongoing process of drawing new distinctions, developing language for new dilemmas, and remaining in dialogue.
Perhaps the strongest signal of a responsible leader is not the claim: โ๐ฐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐.โ But the humble admission: โ๐ฐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐.โ
02-10-2025



๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต๐ป๐๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ๐
The Doughnut framework has just been updated with global data (2000โ2022). It is a simple yet powerful compass: the inner ring is the ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ณ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป every person needs for a dignified life, while the outer ring is the ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด humanity must not overshoot.
๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ธ, ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐.
There has been some progress. Since 2000, more people have gained access to electricity, health services, clean water, and digital connectivity. Child survival rates have improved. But large shortfalls remain: billions still face food insecurity, lack decent work, suffer corruption, and lack political voice. These deprivations are most concentrated in the worldโs poorest 40%, showing that social foundations are far from secured.
๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ธ, ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐.
On the planetary side, the picture is stark. Seven of nine Earth systems are now in overshoot. Global GDP has more than doubled since 2000, but this growth has come with accelerating ecological transgression. Rich nations, representing 15% of the worldโs population, drive nearly half of global overshoot, while the poorest contribute little and bear the brunt of consequences. Inequality is etched into both social shortfall and ecological excess.
๐ช๐ต๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐?
Much of todayโs debate defends growth in the name of ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ: the freedom to consume more, to travel more, to expand markets. But there is another freedom at stake: ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, as described by political philosopher Philip Pettit. To be free in this sense is not merely to have options, but to live without being subject to the arbitrary power of others. Social deprivation creates domination when people lack the basics that would let them stand as equals. Ecological overshoot creates domination when one generation, or a group of nations, imposes instability and scarcity on others without their consent. Protecting freedom therefore means more than defending consumption today - it means ensuring that all people, now and in the future, can live free from domination.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฏ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐.
Companies have a pivotal choice. They can continue pursuing growth at all costs thereby deepening both overshoot and inequality. Or they can steer towards being ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฏ๐๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป. That means cutting ecological footprints across supply chains, ensuring fair wages and ownership models, and innovating in products and services that meet human needs without breaching planetary limits.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ณ๐๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐ - ๐น๐ฒ๐โ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐บ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐.
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09385-1
29-09-2025



๐ง๐๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐๐๐ง๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ ๐ช๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ช๐๐ฅ๐ก๐๐ก๐
A new integrative review pulls together what many HR leaders sense already: some of our most powerful levers can unintentionally manufacture misconduct. It maps which practices are tied to unethical behavior and why. This is a qualitative synthesis (not a meta-analysis), so think mechanisms and design choices, not effect sizes.
๐ฆ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ธ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐:
โข ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป & ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐: High-powered rewards and pay opacity can trigger reciprocity pressure, social comparison, and corner-cutting. The simple rule: ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ถ๐ด๐ต-๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐. Shift toward balanced scorecards, process transparency, and clear ethical guardrails in variable pay.
โข ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐: ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ invite sabotage and misreporting, while ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ-๐ฎ๐บ๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐๐ (or consecutively escalating) ๐ด๐ผ๐ฎ๐น๐ drain self-control and push shortcuts. The simple rule: ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ-๐ฎ๐บ๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ด๐ผ๐ฎ๐น๐. Prefer absolute standards, finite stretch cycles, developmental feedback, and human-over-algorithm fairness checks.
๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ต๐ฒ๐น๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐น:
โข ๐๐ผ๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป & ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ๐น๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐: Thoughtful variety, significance, autonomy with accountability, and feedback can reduce deviance by deepening engagement; participative goal-setting and values conversations make moral disengagement less likely.
โข ๐๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐-๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ๐บ๐: Treat ethics as a ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ๐บ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ - coverage, intensity, sophistication- not an add-on. Done well, this strengthens moral attentiveness, ethical climate, and voice.
๐ฌ๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ด๐ด๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐ป๐ธ๐ป๐ผ๐๐ป๐- ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ป๐ฒ๐
๐:
โข ๐ฆ๐๐ฎ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ด: We still donโt know which referral and algorithmic selection choices cross the line from efficiency to fairness erosion; discrimination risks remain a worry. Instrument the hiring funnel with source-of-hire ethics indicators, appeal/override pathways, and a real human-in-the-loop.
โข ๐ง๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด: We also donโt know which elements of โdevelopmentโ quietly lower justice perceptions or model bad behavior (shadowing, war stories, simulations). Audit who gets into programs, run pre/post justice pulses, and script modeling risks explicitly.
๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐: Design HR for ๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ as deliberately as you design for ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ. Steer clear of high-powered incentives, rankings, and over-ambitious goals; enrich work and embed ethics; then instrument staffing and training so your systems donโt quietly create misconduct.
Reference: Yu, W., Jiang, K., Mo, S., & Su, Y. (2025). The Moral Implications of Human Resource Management (HRM): A Review of the Relationship Between HRM Practices and Unethical Behavior at Work. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication.
27-09-2025



๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ก & ๐๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ฒ: ๐๐ฎ๐จ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ?
As our prosperity is endangered - not only by the mad hatter in the White House - economic growth is back on the agenda. For some, GDP and market cap always were core goals. Others argue fair, sustainable growth is possible. A third camp urges a shift to limited, qualitative growth. Each path brings hard tasks.
๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ก (๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ)
Strategy is to scale fast. Companies have to ride experience curves, launch new S-curves, expand markets/platforms. Implementation means keeping the ยซRateโDirectionโMethodยป coherent so speed doesnโt break operations.
Company challenges: strategic drift, culture/quality cracks, value-destroying M&A, balance-sheet strain. Hamilton & Ngโs meta-analysis (159 studies) shows high growth is seldom sustainable as spurts are short-lived, benefits uneven/volatile, and policy emphasis outpaces evidence.
Societal costs: environmental externalities, precarious work, privatized gains; winner-take-most inequality; concentrated power and policy capture.
๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ก (๐๐ซ๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ)
Strategy is to profit only when solving problems, not creating negative externalities. Implement via asset-light services, quality-led premiumization, selective integration, and reliable dividends over sheer expansion.
Company challenges: attracting ambitious talent without hyper-promotions; complacency risk; margin plays hit ceilings.
Societal challenges: largely voluntary without reform; firms can profit from harms while sounding โsustainable.โ This strategy needs a redesigned corporate law, taxation, and accounting.
๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ก (๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ-๐๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ)
Strategy: Stewardship, business enabling flourishing of and in society. Centers on sufficiency, ecological integrity, and dignity at work over revenue expansion. Implementation-wise: steward-ownership to lock mission, circular/regenerative models, federated networks, redesigned work.
Company challenges: capital access in high-return systems; scaling without recreating growth logic (not growing can be harder than growing); โnicheโ stigma.
Societal challenges: welfare, pensions, and public services assume GDP growth, making transitions complex.
๐๐ก๐ฒ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฌ
GDP growth long underwrote our institutions - yet weโre breaching planetary boundaries, democracy is eroding, conflicts intensify, inequality rises, and real wages in many places remain below pre-inflation peaks. If transition canโt be avoided, begin redesigning institutions now. In todayโs geopolitics, however, many fair-growth fixes (e.g., true-cost accounting) remain out of reach; so experiment locally - Transition Towns, B-Corp alliances etc. - and use imagination in research and education to build a better growth framework for the future.
If you want a more complete analysis with frameworks and cases (Nvidia, Unilever, Patagonia) - have a look at the deck:ย https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antoinette-weibel_growth-and-strategy-activity-7377972967584112641-m0Br?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACORmc0B-heQaIu8zy_uBuqirrRJdzq4ClQ
24-09-2025



๐๐ & ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฌ: ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐-๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ก. ๐๐๐ซ๐โ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ง๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฌ๐ค ๐๐๐๐ค.
In todayโs doctoral seminar, we discussed a framework that gives HR & OD professionals serious leverage in C-suite conversations: the concept of organizational โmetabolic capacity.โ
Most executives want AI deployment. But theyโre not asking the deeper question that determines whether their people will thrive or just survive the transformation.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ง๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ง๐๐ฑ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ :
โBefore we chase AI-powered growth, how do we reshape our learning capacities to actually digest that growth?โ
Because hereโs what the research shows: firms that learn to use AI for multiple purposes donโt just deploy tools. They expand the horizon of what their people can imagine and achieve. But that expansion requires organizational learning capabilities most companies simply donโt have yet.
๐
๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฌ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐๐๐ง ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ:
1๏ธโฃ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฏ๐ฌ. ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐: โOur learning systems move glacially. AI moves at light speed. How do we close this gap?โ
2๏ธโฃ ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ: โAI risks dulling rather than sharpening our peopleโs capabilities. Whatโs our strategy to prevent cognitive atrophy?โ
3๏ธโฃ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง: โAI reduces complexity to patterns. The more we rely on it, the less we may see of actual market reality. How do we maintain human insight?โ
4๏ธโฃ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ & ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐ง๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ: โAre we growing toward something that serves humans and the planet, or just optimizing for metrics that look good in quarterly reports?โ
๐๐๐ซ๐โ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฑ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐:
AI promises to expand possibilities, but it may just as easily narrow organizational vision. Growth that cannot be metabolized because learning is too slow, human capacities are weakened, and reality is abstracted away isnโt sustainable growth. Itโs organizational indigestion.
๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐-๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐:
โYouโre focused on growth velocity. Iโm focused on growth sustainability. Without addressing metabolic capacity, weโre setting ourselves up for AI-powered failure that looks like success until it doesnโt.โ
The executives chasing โmore, fasterโ need someone asking โwhat kind of growth is actually worth having?โ Growth that serves humans and the planet, not just shareholders and algorithms. That someone is you.
๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐โ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ: organizations that worship growth without building metabolic capacity become exactly what theyโre trying to disrupt. They become slow, rigid, and eventually irrelevant.
23-09-2025



๐จ Do we need a new society of builders?
The word builder is everywhere today. In tech, in entrepreneurship, in politics. We celebrate founders, engineers, those who launch the โnew.โ But what if our idea of a builder is far too narrow?
Hannah Arendtโs vita activa reminds us that human activity is richer than just producing or coding. She distinguished between labor (sustaining life), work (crafting durable things), and action (initiating something new in the public sphere). If we extend her thinking, we get a broader โbuilderโs vita activaโ - a society of four kinds of builders:
1๏ธโฃ Sustainers, who hold life together through care, maintenance, regeneration.
2๏ธโฃ Makers, who shape tools, infrastructures, and institutions.
3๏ธโฃ Initiators, who dare to begin something new in public.
4๏ธโฃ Meaning-Makers, who tell the stories that give endurance to our deeds.
But hereโs the tension: each of these roles is in crisis.
Sustainers are indispensable, yet undervalued and feminized. Simone de Beauvoir warned that women were historically confined to repetitive immanence, denied the projects of transcendence. Today, we still romanticize โcareโ while outsourcing the tedious parts often to those with the least power. Unless care is made visible, fairly shared, and properly rewarded, this quadrant collapses under strain.
Makers, ie. the engineers, founders, builders in the narrow sense face another challenge: automation. As AI absorbs routine making, human craft risks being hollowed out. If we donโt guard against reducing work to pure efficiency, we risk losing not just jobs but meaning: the pride in building something durable.
Initiators - those who act together in public - face shrinking space. Action depends on plurality and visibility, yet todayโs public spheres are fragile, captured, or algorithmically distorted. Without scaffolds that protect plurality and resist capture, collective action becomes brittle, fleeting.
Meaning-Makers, our artists, educators and journalists remain sidelined, seen as โextrasโ in a world obsessed with KPIs. Yet without them, even the greatest initiatives vanish into silence. Action needs memory, stories, institutions that carry meaning forward.
So what does this mean for a new society of builders?
It means we canโt reduce building to the start-up founder myth. A flourishing society values all four builder roles:
โญ๏ธ It revalues care, making it visible and fairly distributed.
โญ๏ธ It protects human craft from being hollowed out by automation.
โญ๏ธ It invests in civic infrastructure so initiators can act without capture.
โญ๏ธ It funds meaning and memory so our actions endure.
This isnโt nostalgia. Itโs a provocation. In an age of automation, care crises, and shrinking public space, the challenge is to rebalance and revalorize what it means to build.
If we want transformation that is durable, just, and human, we must expand our idea of who the builders really are and unite them!
22-09-2025



๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐ถ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ก๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ
In a superbly independent bookseller in Totnes, not so incidentally a โtransition townโ I came across a book that reminded me: ๐ป๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ปโ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐. ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ, ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ.
The word neoliberal was coined in ๐บ๐ถ๐ฑ-๐ญ๐ต๐ฏ๐ฌ๐. Austrian economists ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ธ and ๐๐๐ฑ๐๐ถ๐ด ๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐, exiled from Nazi Europe, feared Rooseveltโs New Deal and Britainโs welfare state were steps toward tyranny. In 1944, Hayek published The Road to Serfdom, claiming social democracy would slide into dictatorship.
๐ช๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ต๐ ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐, resentful of ๐๐ฎ๐
๐ฒ๐, ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ด๐๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, saw their chance. Hayekโs book turned their self-interest into a moral crusade. With serious money behind it, his ideas spread fast. Readerโs Digest condensed it (a million copies sold), and ๐๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, distributed by General Motors. In 1947, Hayek founded the ๐ ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฆ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐, creating the first โ๐ก๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น.โ
Over the decades, billionaires poured money into ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ธ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ธ๐ (Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Adam Smith Institute) and ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ (Chicago, Virginia). They funded research, lobbying, and PR, reframing neoliberalism as common sense: business freedom = personal freedom. Even ๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ปโ๐ ๐ฏ๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ๐ like Little House on the Prairie were rebranded to glorify rugged individualism.
By the 1960s, Hayek hardened the ideology: democracy and equality werenโt essentials but ๐ผ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐. The rich were recast as societyโs โ๐๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐๐โ, blazing new trails. Inequality wasnโt a problem- it was progress.
Then the 1970s crisis hit. Inflation, oil shocks, stagnation. ๐ ๐ถ๐น๐๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป stepped forward as chief salesman. His genius? Turning dense economics into catchy parables, TV shows, and simple props - like his pencil story explaining the โmagicโ of the market.
By the 1980s, ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ป and ๐ง๐ต๐ฎ๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ brought neoliberalism to power: tax cuts for the wealthy, smashed unions, privatization, deregulation, outsourcing. The ideas incubated for decades finally hatched.
And hereโs the twist: neoliberalism didnโt win mainly with technical papers. It spread through ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป - ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ผ๐ป๐, ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ด๐ฒ๐๐๐, ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป. We thought we were consuming culture; in fact, we were inhaling ideology.
Standing in that Totnes bookstore, I thought: maybe itโs time we tell our own sharp counter-cartoons. Stories that ask the questions neoliberals never wanted us to:
๐ช๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ?
๐ช๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ โ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐นโ?
to be read in Monbiot/Hutchison



21-09-2025



Why BANI is wrong
BANI sounds modern, but it's a smokescreen.
It describes uncertainty, chaos and non-linearity โ but it obscures the fact that power, interests and conscious action are at play.
BANI is an abbreviation for what economists call fundamental uncertainty. And that describes the current geopolitical chaos and a nature that has arrived at various tipping points, not so badly. Yes โ suddenly something like democracy, unthinkable ten years ago, is under pressure. Yes โ many effects are not linear, the butterfly strike and the storm. And because we have suppressed a lot, some decisions seem incomprehensible today.
But โ and this is a weighty "but" โ these things don't just happen to us. They not only demand humble adaptation and resilience.
Rather, power, planning, monetary interests, greed and a drowsiness on the less powerful side play a major role. The environment is deliberately destroyed. Social relationships are not only diluted by growing inequality, but also actively crushed by increasingly anti-democratic elites (Mr. Thiel sends his regards). And our consumerism reduces the necessary indignation.
This is exactly what BANI conceals โ as if development were an "outside-in" law of nature. What we should emphasize much more is an "inside-out" perspective: What do we have to change through vigilant actions? How can we make the plurality of legitimate interests visible? The economy must not be the only free actor, it must necessarily serve the common good. Freedom of citizens would be more appropriate โ and even more: the freedom to comply with voluntary obligations. Neoliberalism, with its narrow view of freedom, has not served us well.
On the other hand, there is the question of how we build up countervailing power. Taking power out of the markets was once the idea, but antitrust laws have failed (or have been deliberately watered down). Today, mega-players put entire states "in the bag" without any effort. That is why we need a powerful civil society, trade unions, NGOs and movements. And we must learn to work across stakeholders โ with supranetworks for the common cause.
BANI therefore needs PASO โ Power, Agency, Solidarity and Organization. And we ourselves need the strength to let ourselves be less sprinkled, to limit Netflix evenings - and to get into more conversation with each other again.
19-09-2025



๐ง๏ธ Yesterdayโs rain left us unexpectedly stranded in Plymouth.
Not the glossy tourist town you might imagine, but a city that wears its struggles openly. Shuttered shops, quiet high streets, signs of economic fragility. And yet: a vibrant university, cultural projects like The Box, the Barbican alive with new energy. Plymouth feels like a mirror of Britain beyond London - resilience mixed with hardship.
It also carries history. On 17 March 1838, four of the Tolpuddle Martyrs - Dorset farm labourers transported to Australia for daring to form a union - landed back in Plymouth after their pardon. Greeted by crowds at the Barbican, their return was celebrated as a victory for solidarity. A plaque still marks the spot.
Back then, โunionโ meant secrecy. In 1834, when six men resisted wage cuts, they swore oaths in a โfriendly societyโ - a secret association at a time when collective organisation was criminalised. Betrayed and convicted, they were sentenced to seven yearsโ transportation. Only a wave of petitions and protests forced their return. That courage helped seed the modern trade union movement.
Fast-forward to today. Unions are weakened by decades of anti-union laws and fragmented work. And yet inequality grows, authoritarian leaders flex unchecked, and billionaire โrobber baronsโ consolidate power.
So the question feels urgent: where is the counterpower now?
Perhaps we do still need โsecret societiesโ โ not clandestine oath-sworn groups, but new associations built for our century.
๐กIn Plymouth, ordinary people have pushed back. Campaigners stopped the felling of Armada Wayโs trees, forcing the council to rethink. Locals mobilised against far-right groups, saying clearly: this is not who we are.
๐กIn Totnes, just up the road, community-led projects like the REconomy Centre incubate ethical enterprise and rethink what a local economy can be.
๐กAcross Britain, social enterprises, cooperatives, grassroots networks, and even digital communities are experimenting with forms of solidarity beyond the old union model.
History shows us: power does not concede on its own. It takes organisation. It takes pressure. It takes counterpower.
The Tolpuddle Martyrs remind us that when the system seemed immovable, ordinary people found ways to whisper โenoughโ and then to shout it loudly enough to be heard.
We may not need secret oaths today. But we do need new alliances, new solidarities, new associations that can balance power in the 21st century.
โ The real question is: who builds them, and when do we start?
16-09-2025



๐ THE BEAUTY OF SERVICE LEARNING
In an age of geopolitical rupture, cultural fragmentation, and open moral conflict, developing responsible global leaders is becoming more and more of a necessity. Yet most business schools still teach leadership as if the world were stable, predictable, and value-neutral. We tend to train sharp minds, but mostly neglect moral judgment, and we cultivate performance awareness, not ontological awareness; it optimizes within systems but rarely questions their foundations.
That is what makes Project Ulysses such an interesting project. Developed by PwCโs global talent development team, and studied in depth by Nicola Pless, PhD, Thomas Maak, and Gรผnter Stahl, it represents a rare fusion of leadership education and human development. Drawing on Kolbโs experiential learning theory and Mezirowโs transformative learning framework, Ulysses takes participants far beyond the classroom and directly into the moral and cultural complexity of real life.
Over eight weeks, senior PwC professionals live and work in developing countries, embedded in NGOs and community organizations. Their task is not to advise from a distance but to engage, learn, and contribute.
The learning architecture follows Kolbโs full cycle:
โ
Concrete Experience: direct engagement with social and environmental challenges in unfamiliar contexts
โ
Reflective Observation: journaling, dialogue, and storytelling to process cognitive, emotional and moral dissonance
โ
Abstract Conceptualization: connecting lived experience to broader ethical, cultural, and systemic insights
โ
Active Experimentation: translating new awareness into changed behaviorโin leadership and life
The program is supported by deep pedagogical scaffolding: conceptual teaching, peer feedback, coaching, mindfulness practices, and team and guided reflection. The result, as per this study ( ๐ ) seem to have led to true personal transformation.
โ
Participants reported moral growth and sharper ethical awareness
โ
They developed cultural humility and a bigger circle of moral concern
โ
They acquired a cognitive capacity that embraces ambiguity and contradiction
โ
Many underwent a re-evaluation of their values, purpose, and identity as leaders.
This is what Mezirow called a โperspective transformationโ- a shift in how one understands the world and oneself within it. And it cannot be achieved through cases or simulations alone.
This is the beauty of service learning: it has the potential to educate the whole person. It confronts leaders with the real, the relational, and the uncomfortable and thereby invites them to grow through it.
We clear need much more business school education like this. Not only frameworks, but also formation. Not only technical competence, but also moral courage. Not more "best practice" management, but leadership for an uncertain, interdependent world.
15-09-2025



โจ Iโve long appreciated Ina A.s work on sustainable HRM but this paper, co-authored with Michael Muller-Camen and Brian Matthews, and building on the sustainability paradigm of Thomas Dyllick, is the one Iโd most love to recommend to all of you who are reimagining the future of work.
๐ In โCommon Good HRM: A Paradigm Shift in Sustainable HRM?โ, the authors leave the narrow logic of instrumentalism behind. They ask a bold (and in my opinion) the right question:
What if HR didn't just serve the company but truly served society?
Drawing from Dyllick & Muffโs business sustainability typology, they outline four types of Sustainable HRM and introduce a new fourth type: Common Good HRM, which reframes HR as a lever for social, ecological, and human flourishing.
๐ A Quick Summary of Their Typology:
1๏ธโฃ Type 1: Socially Responsible HRM
โ Focused on diversity, well-being, and safety but mainly to reduce reputational or legal risks. This approach treats social responsibility as an add-on to the core business model, not something that reshapes it.
2๏ธโฃ Type 2: Green HRM
โ Promotes environmentally friendly behavior (e.g., green training, green bonuses), but framed as a business strategy. While it engages ecological issues, it still operates within a logic of cost savings, branding, or compliance.
3๏ธโฃ Type 3: Triple Bottom Line HRM
โ Aims to balance people, planet, and profit. Yet this often leads to unresolved tensions and trade-offs. It opens space for dialogue and innovation, but frequently defaults to economic priorities in moments of conflict.
4๏ธโฃ Type 4: Common Good HRM ๐
โ A true paradigm shift: HR becomes a vehicle for solving grand societal challenges like inequality, climate change, and precarious work. Here, the purpose of the firm is redefined. And HR creates conditions for human dignity, democracy, and sustainability.
๐ก What Common Good HRM Does Differently:
โ
Outside-in perspective: Begins with the needs of society, not just firm strategy.
โ
Human rights in supply chains: HR takes responsibility beyond company walls.
โ
Workplace democracy: Hiring, feedback, and compensation become shared responsibilities.
โ
Job creation as a purpose: Employment is not a cost but a value in itself.
One standout example: Sonnentor, an organic tea and spice company rooted in the Economy for the Common Good movement. Their HR approach includes hiring long-term unemployed and people with disabilities as a matter of principle, not charity. They deliberately avoid full automation, investing instead in manual, meaningful work that sustains local employment and human dignity.
๐งญ This is for all of you who truly want to go furtherโwho believe HR can be more than a function. It can be a practice of care, a force for justice, and a cornerstone of a future where humans, nature, and the economy flourish together.
๐ Link to article: https://lnkd.in/dkHAxZHx
14-09-2025



BUSINESS SCHOOLS WITHOUT PURPOSE?
In another post I proposed four principles for a flourishing business school: flourishing, practical wisdom, the common good, and contestation.
So letโs hold todayโs schools up to that standard. The verdict? Systematic failure.
โ Theories that kill flourishing.
Sumantra Ghoshal warned that bad theories donโt just misdescribe reality, they make it worse. Agency theory assumes managers are selfish, so BS designed systems of distrust for practice - and managers behave accordingly. Shareholder primacy tells us greed is rational, and greed becomes normalized. Even psychology isnโt better. As Bal & Dรณci show, employability, job crafting, even โwellโbeingโ still recast people as selfโentrepreneurs, forever optimizing for the market. Where flourishing should mean energy turned into excellence in community, BS teach restless selfโoptimization in competition.
โ No practical wisdom.
Gert Biesta calls it โlearnificationโ: education hollowed out into competences, outcomes, metrics. Students collect badges of employability, professors deliver quantifiable units. But phronesis cannot be measured. It requires judgment about what is good in messy, uncertain contexts. MacIntyre shows how managerialism pretends to be neutral: efficiency as the only virtue, conflict erased. Schools produce clever technicians of efficiency yet efficiency without wisdom is directionless, and often destructive.
โ Contestation erased.
Learning requires conflict and courage. Yet BS mainly elevate consensus. Case studies end with tidy โsolutions,โ โbest practicesโ are served as gospel, while rankings reward conformity. Bal & Dรณci expose the fantasy of harmony: the myth of organizations as winโwin spaces. Laske shows how dialectical thinking - grasping contradictions, perceiving absences, imagining transformation - is never developed. Students graduate fluent in analysis but allergic to debate. A school without contestation is not a school but a factory of conformity.
โ The common good betrayed.
Business schools were founded to professionalize management for society. That mission is gone. Today success means salaries and corporate ties. Sulmasy helps us see why: schools confuse the aggregative good (private satisfactions like careers) or the supersessive good (โwhatโs good for business is good for societyโ) with the real thing - the constitutive common good. This means flourishing in community, cultivating virtues and practices together. By ignoring it, schools betray their reason for being.
The result is stark: a lot of business schools fail every part of their telos!
The cruel paradox: the very institutions that promise opportunity keep us trapped in an iron neoliberal cage, and one that tightens with every student stepping out to enter โthe real world.โ
๐ What do you think: why do bad theories persist, dialectics gets exchanged with balancing, audit culture prevails and nobody even bothers to discuss about the common good?
11-09-2025



๐จ While faculty everywhere debate AI plagiarism policies, we're missing the bigger question: Are we still preparing leaders for a world that's disappearing?
Here we are, educators supposedly preparing tomorrow's leaders, focused on catching cheaters rather than asking: if AI can write, code, and analyze better than most humans, what the hell are we actually preparing students to do? The real crisis isn't academic integrity - it's that we've swallowed a fundamentally broken story about who builds civilization.
We worship the founder myth. Tech bros launching apps, entrepreneurs "disrupting" industries, engineers coding the future. Meanwhile, people who actually keep society functioning such as nurses, teachers, janitors, caregivers are treated as expendable background characters. This isn't just unfair; it's economically suicidal. When the next pandemic hits and your unicorn startup needs cleaning, good luck paying your "builders" in equity.
Building on Hannah Arendt's work, I see four types of builders facing crises AI will amplify, not solve.
1๏ธโฃ Sustainers do invisible work keeping life going- care, maintenance, healing. We've systematically devalued this work, outsourcing it to whoever accepts poverty wages. AI can optimize schedules but can't change diapers or talk someone off a ledge. Yet instead of finally paying care workers properly, we'll probably use AI efficiency gains to pay them even less.
2๏ธโฃ Makers are having their existential crisis now. As AI eats routine coding and design, we're discovering much of what we celebrated as "building" was pattern matching. Survivors won't code faster than GPT-5; they'll orchestrate AI tools while maintaining judgment about what's worth building ethically. Most business schools aren't teaching thisโthey're still teaching optimization.
3๏ธโฃ Initiators creating democratic change face shrinking space as public spheres get captured by algorithmic manipulation and billionaire whims. You can't have genuine collective action when platforms controlling discourse are owned by people with toddlers' emotional maturity and nation-states' power.
4๏ธโฃ Meaning-makers get dismissed as luxury goods in our efficiency-obsessed culture. But as AI floods the world with generated content, distinguishing signal from noise becomes the scarcest skill. We desperately need people who can tell true storiesโjust as we've defunded journalism, arts, and education.
Here's what building the capacity for future work means on a policy level: Tax AI productivity gains to properly pay care workers. Force tech companies to fund retraining instead of pocketing automation savings. Build public digital infrastructure so democracy doesn't depend on Musk's Twitter whims.
Business schools on the other hand need to figure out how to enable the full spectrum of human capability. If not BS will optimize themselves into irrelevance while wondering why nothing works anymore.
09-09-2025



A Non-Disciplining Market
Yesterday I read a post by Hans Steegeman that brought two perspectives together in a way that wonโt leave me:
๐ Adam Tooze on the โsequelโ to polycrisis (FT, 2025)
๐ Lawrence, Homer-Dixon et al. on the causal mechanisms of polycrisis (2024)
Tooze observes something eerie. Despite Gaza, Ukraine, Trumpโs second term, ecological stress markets are calm. Equities float on AI hype. Treasury markets stay liquid. Where many expected turmoil, capitalism hums along. His provocation: maybe this isnโt even โcrisisโ anymore. Maybe weโve shifted into a postliberal order, where capitalism no longer disciplines politics or upholds liberal legitimacy. Rather it just keeps functioning, detached and indifferent.
Lawrence et al. insist the opposite: todayโs capitalism is the engine of polycrisis. Its globalized, hyper-connected, efficiency-obsessed design produces the stresses - ecological breakdown, inequality, political fragility - that cascade across systems.
Put them together and a sharper picture emerges:
โก๏ธ The capitalism Tooze calls eerily resilient is the same capitalism Lawrence et al. show to be fragility-producing.
โก๏ธ But it is no longer neoliberal. Neoliberalism at least pretended that markets were โepistemologically wiseโ (Hayek) by discovering information, coordinating efficiently, disciplining states.
โก๏ธ Postliberal capitalism has shed the pretense. It doesnโt need to justify itself as wise or stabilizing. It doesnโt need to guard liberal order. Its only function is to keep giving the wealthy and powerful more wealth and power.
Thatโs why markets can remain calm even as politics and ecology unravel. Calm is not a sign of stability, it is detachment. For capital, everything is fine. For everyone else, the polycrisis deepens.
And hereโs the real danger: if we no longer recognize this as crisis, we lose the chance to act. A crisis (from the Greek krisis) means a turning point it allows for recovery or collapse. If collapse is normalized, catastrophe creeps in unnoticed, efficiently, profitably.
๐ Thatโs why semantics matter. Call it polycrisis or call it postliberal capitalism, the point is the same: unless we see this as an actionable crisis, we wonโt mobilize. And without mobilization, catastrophe becomes the new normal.
06-09-2025



How to Applaud Your Own Precarity (and Call It Growth) โ or Why America Is Cheerfully Marching Over the Cliff, Gaga in MAGA
This is ๐๐ผ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐น๐โ๐ neoliberal self-control at its finest.
Tech companies lay off thousands - โ9,000 gone,โ โ12,000 gone,โ โ11,000 moreโ - to massage stock prices, while revenues, investments, and share prices soar.
And the employees? They are telling themselves:
๐ โFear becomes fuel.โ
๐ โUncertainty becomes opportunity.โ
๐ โSunday scaries become strategy sessions.โ
This isnโt resilience. Itโs the ๐ฆ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐บ ๐ฆ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ of the contemporary workplace: workers applauding their own precarity, mistaking cortisol spikes for creativity hacks.
The irony is brutal: mass layoffs dressed up as โneural rewiringโ for innovation, liked 735 times. A living demonstration of how ideology works. How capitalismโs progressive face making people thank the system that just cut them loose.
And perhaps also an explanation of why America seems so ready to march over the cliff right now - not resisting, but cheering, โgrowth mindsetโ all the way down.
03-09-2025



NOT MORE WORK. BETTER WORK.
If you listen to European leaders like Friedrich Merz or business voices echoing Silicon Valley mantras, the message is clear: Europe needs to work harder to stay competitive. Work longer, retire later, push harder. Tech leaders like Zuckerberg echo the same gospel: hustle harder, optimise performance, sacrifice rest for "impact."
This ideology of more is wrapped in responsibility and merit. But in reality, it is a treadmill: it destroys health, corrodes democracy, and drives us deeper into ecological overshoot.
A post-growth perspective asks a different question: not how to increase work, but how to make work good.
To unpack this, imagine work along two axes:
โฆ Macro vs. Micro โ system-level vs. lived experience.
โฆ Direct vs. Indirect โ the work itself vs. the conditions shaping it.
That gives us four dimensions of good work:
โ What we produce (MacroโDirect) Work must heal, not harm. Orienting production towards planetary repair and human need: circular economy regulations, eco-social years contributing to care and climate, industrial policy steering investment from fossil to regenerative sectors.
โ How much we work (MacroโIndirect) Paid work cannot expand infinitely. We need systemic boundaries. Working-time reduction lowers material throughput and redistributes time fairly. Job guarantees create socially useful employment. Transition supports protect workers as carbon-intensive industries wind down.
โ How we experience work (MicroโDirect) Good work gives autonomy, meaning, growth and relationships. Universal basic income gives freedom to refuse bullshit jobs and choose care, art, or community. Vocational retraining re-skills workers for green and care sectors. Social and cultural infrastructure creates non-commodified spaces for flourishing.
โ How work is governed (MicroโIndirect) Workplaces are political spaces. Stronger collective bargaining, a Decent Work Promotion Act, and cooperative ownership models return dignity, recognition, and decision-making power to workers.
โ This isn't about accepting decline: it's recognizing that working less on harmful production while working intentionally on care, repair, and community increases real prosperity and security. And this vision is already emerging across Europe: Belgium's four-day work week trials, cooperatives in northern Italy, care income pilots in Finland, circular economy strategies in Dutch industrial policy.
While we also have the yesterdays' European policy debates: calls to abolish social supports and replace them with harsher systems tied to compulsory labour, proposals to extend working hours by scrapping protections - all marketed as "flexibility," but meaning longer shifts and more stress.
The future of work is not about squeezing more labour out of exhausted societies. It is about reshaping work itself.
01-09-2025



๐ฃ๐๐ฟ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐น๐น๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ผ ๐ฏ
โLead with purpose.โ โEmbed meaning.โ โAuthenticity matters.โ
Corporate reports overflow with these promises. But how much is genuine - and how much is purpose-washing?
To see through the fog, it helps to turn to sociologist ๐๐๐ฐ ๐๐ผ๐น๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ธ๐ถ (with รve Chiapello, The New Spirit of Capitalism). They argue that modern capitalism constantly absorbs critique. After the 1960s, workers and social movements demanded autonomy, creativity, community, and authenticity. Capitalism didnโt ignore this. No, it repackaged it.
The result was what they call the ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐
๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ: a cultural logic that celebrates networks, flexibility, diversity, projects, and purpose. It wears a progressive face. But these values are rarely treated as ends in themselves. Instead, they are converted into tools for competitiveness, productivity, and growth.
๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐: ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฃ๐๐ฟ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ
McKinseyโs 2021 article Help Your Employees Find Purpose or Watch Them Leave looks convincing: employees want meaning, leaders should provide it. But read closely, and civic/inspired language (โauthenticity,โ โcommunity,โ โmeaningโ) is consistently folded back into market and industrial logics (retention, efficiency, innovation, competitiveness).
๐ See the analysis table below. It shows not only what is being claimed, but how the rhetoric works: borrowing higher โorders of worthโ and closing them back into performance talk.
When we coded the piece, the result was clear: about 75% of its purpose rhetoric turned out to be bullshit - authentic words absorbed back into KPIs.
And this isnโt just an academic exercise. I have my students use our Purpose Bullshit Detector in class. We scan texts, and code the claims, and quickly see how much is genuine purpose talk and how much is instrumental spin. You can spot the pattern in seconds (even when it is not so easy as it is forseeably with McK)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐น๐ฎ๐ด๐ ๐ฉ
โ Purpose always justified by performance โ productivity, retention, profits
โ Authenticity as technique โ leaders โrole-modelโ sincerity to keep people engaged
โ Civic ideals reduced to KPIs โ well-being, diversity collapsed into metrics
โ No walk, all talk โ purpose lives in posters and speeches, not in daily decisions
โ Given up in bad weather โ the first thing sacrificed in a downturn or crisis
โ Top-down cascades โ purpose handed down as a slogan, not co-created with employees
โ Purpose โ practice โ lofty board statements, but incentives tied only to short-term returns
โจ Purpose is too important to be left to bullshitting.
If it remains trapped in the connexionist spirit of neoliberal capitalism, it wonโt transform work as it will just re-legitimate the same logic.
โ Genuine purpose should orient organizations toward human flourishing and the common good, not just serve as the latest HR lever in the war for talent.
Further reading:ย https://www.academia.edu/download/48743293/s10767-006-9006-920160911-6196-77bbx3.pdf
31-08-2025



๐ฅ๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ: ๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐ก๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ช๐ผ๐ฟ๐น๐ฑ-๐๐๐ถ๐น๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
We are all kept alive by invisible hands and yet philosophy has often struggled to value this work properly.
๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ฎ๐ต ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ called it labor: cycles bound to necessity, leaving nothing lasting. ๐ฆ๐ถ๐บ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฟ showed how women became trapped in domestic immanence while men reached transcendence. ๐๐
๐ฒ๐น ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ต revealed how care gets erased from recognition. Despite their insights, traditional frameworks place care at the bottom or in lululand.
This dismissal has been profoundly gendered. Reproductive labor was deemed "unproductive" precisely because it was women's work. Beauvoir exposed the trap: women confined to maintaining life while men created meaning.
๐๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น?
๐ง๐ถ๐บ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐๐ผ๐ป and colleagues propose an alternative. They argue that carING, in their words "the work done by nature, and that done in the commons and in the household", isn't just necessity but world-building. Freed from exploitation, care work sustains conditions that make everything else possible and is intrinsically rewarding. Maintaining and repairing the world creates lasting value for future generations.
๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐๐ผ๐ป'๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ดโ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ?
The skeptic has reason to doubt. Much care or caring for work remains exhausting no matter how we reframe it. The night-shift nurse isn't experiencing transcendence; they're burned out. And elevating care risks romanticizing women's unpaid labor.
Yet Jackson's reframe might matter because our current approach and homo faber is failing. Climate breakdown and care crises expose what happens when we treat maintenance as marginal.
๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐๐ป'๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐, ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฝ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฒ'๐ ๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐ป๐ด.
This connects to Arendt's concept of ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: appearing together in public to disclose what we value. When caregivers organize strikes, when activists demand repair over growth, care ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ๐ political.
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ means more than changing words:
โ Organizations must recognize hidden care such as mentoring, emotional support, maintaining culture as real work.
โก Households must share routines equitably, refusing to naturalize women as default carers.
โข Economies must invest in health, education, and repair instead of chasing productivity alone.
โฃ Politics must make care visible as a foundation of justice.
Whether Jackson's reframing works may depend less on theory and more on what happens when we act as if care work matters in a world facing ecological collapse.
Care isn't only about getting by. It's about what kind of world endures and who has a voice in sustaining it.
30-08-2025



๐ฅ๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ: ๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐ก๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ช๐ผ๐ฟ๐น๐ฑ-๐๐๐ถ๐น๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
Care is everywhere. Cooking, cleaning, nursing, repairing, teaching, restoring an ecosystem. Yet in much of philosophy, care has been treated as the lowest rung of human activity: necessary, but repetitive, dirty, even futile.
๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ฎ๐ต ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ called this labor: bound to necessity, leaving nothing lasting. ๐ฆ๐ถ๐บ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฟ described women trapped in immanence: endless domestic cycles that offered no transcendence or freedom. ๐๐
๐ฒ๐น ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ต reminds us that such work, though essential, has been systematically excluded from recognition. All three warn against romanticizing care: it is indispensable, but it can also be exhausting and disempowering.
And it has been profoundly gendered. For centuries, reproductive labor was deemed โunproductive,โ precisely because it was womenโs work. Beauvoir exposed the oppression here: women confined to immanence while men reached transcendence. Honneth adds that the โdirtyโ work of sustaining life must be more fairly shared across society.
But what if care is not only necessity? ๐ง๐ถ๐บ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐๐ผ๐ป and colleagues ask us to look again. They describe carING - โthe work done by nature, and that done in the commons and in the householdโ - as central to sustaining the world. Freed from coercion and detached from the logic of endless productivity, such work can be transcendent: leaving something behind, upholding conditions for future generations. Repairing and maintaining the world, they argue, is world-building. It bridges to Arendtโs work and Beauvoirโs transcendence.
Jackson also warns us: the traditional homo faber, builder and maker of artifacts, has given us industrial growth and ecological overshoot. Not all world-building is benign. To transform care is also to rethink fabrication within ecological limits.
And then there is Arendtโs provocation: action. To appear in public, to disclose who we are, to act together in plurality. Care itself may not be action. But when caregivers, feminists, or climate activists bring care into public life by demanding recognition, redistributing burdens, redefining its value then care becomes political. It becomes a way of saying: this is the world we want to sustain together - and we should!
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ means more than changing our words. It means:
โ Organizations must recognize hidden care such as mentoring, emotional support, maintaining culture as real work.
โก Households must share tedious routines equitably, refusing to naturalize women as default carers.
โข Economies must invest in health, education, and ecological repair instead of chasing productivity alone.
โฃ Politics must make care visible - from nursesโ strikes to climate movements - as a foundation of justice.
Care is not only about getting by. It is about what kind of world endures and who has a voice in sustaining it.
28-08-2025



The ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐บ๐ is a vision of an economy where care, rather than restless expansion, is the central organizing principle. In practical terms, itโs a blueprint for organizing production and social life so that the guiding aim is to maintain, restore, and improve human health (in the WHOโs broad sense), not growth for its own sake.
Tim Jacksonโs new book offers a different narrative of prosperity: ๐๐น๐ผ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ, caring, crafting, creating, as contribution, and economy as the system that ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ๐ such care. It echoes William Morris, who wrote: โThe reward of labour is life.โ Work becomes craft again, valuable ๐ถ๐ป ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐น๐ณ. That usually means being less โproductiveโ in the narrow sense, yet more fulfilling and ultimately ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ต-๐ฒ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด for people and planet.
Even the cover tells the story. โThe swish symbolizes the ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ผฬ in Zen, drawn in a single, mindful brushstroke, symbolizing action with presence, care, and completeness rather than perfection.โ Thatโs the pivot: ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ณ๐๐น, ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด, ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ in what we do (and in who we become) instead of squeezing ever more โproductivity per hour.โ Jackson calls this the productivity trap: the more productive each worker becomes, the fewer workers are โneeded,โ the more growth is required to reabsorb labour and the more the less health.
As a scholar of work, my question is institutional: ๐ต๐ผ๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ ๐๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐น๐ผ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น? Jacksonโs articles point to multi-level reform:
๐๐ป ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฟ๐บ๐
โข Re-center ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ over throughput; think ๐ถ๐ธ๐ถ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ / ๐ธ๐ฎ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ป beyond cost-cutting.
โข Protect ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป where quality depends on them (care, education, repair).
โข Measure what matters: ๐ผ๐๐๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ and planet.
๐๐ป ๐ฝ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐
โข ๐ช๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด-๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป with guardrails against intensification.
โข ๐ช๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ & ๐๐ฎ๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ that privilege relational quality.
โข ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ผ to meaningless or harmful jobs (basic income security plus ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐).
โข ๐ง๐ฎ๐
๐๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐๐ that move burden off labour and onto ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ฒ/๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ด๐ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต๐ฝ๐๐ and rents; invest proceeds in care, health, housing, transit, restoration.
None of this dominates todayโs agenda - quite the contrary. Thatโs why narrative work matters. We wonโt legislate what we canโt ๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ. Jackson doesnโt just add policies; he reframes the story: ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ = ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ต, ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐บ๐ = ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ, ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ = ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐น๐ถ๐ณ๐ฒ.
If that feels utopian, remember Morrisโs line: the reward of labour is life. Perhaps the first step is simply to ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ผฬ - to act with presence, care, and completeness - then build institutions that let more of us work that way.
26-08-2025



๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ
The great CSR deception: organizations perfect the performance of responsibility while avoiding its substance.
Most organizations believe they're evolving toward responsible business. They launch sustainability reports, hire CSR officers, speak passionately about stakeholder value. Yet they remain trapped: ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ด๐ผ๐ผ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐'๐ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐, ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐'๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ณ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ?
A review by Franรงois Maon, Lindgreen & Valรฉrie Swaen mapped seven stages of CSR development: Organizations often evolve through Reluctance โ Grasp โ Embedment, maturing from profit-maximizers into moral stewards. The framework identifies a trajectory: Dismissing CSR, Self-Protecting through compliance, Capability-Seeking through dialogue, Caring through values, Strategizing for advantage, and finally Transforming society.
But three critical blindspots in their article might expose why organizations remain stuck in sophisticated instrumentalism:
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐: Power struggles shape CSR trajectories. When ExxonMobil funds climate research while blocking climate policy, that's political strategy, not cultural evolution. The model underplays how corporate power shapes the rules.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ง๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฝ: Culture doesn't evolve naturally. Entrenched ideologies create resistance making transformation contested. Shareholder primacy isn't a phase organizations outgrow: it's a worldview defended by powerful interests.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ป๐๐๐ฟ๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ผ๐น๐น๐ฎ๐ฝ๐๐ฒ: By framing "strategizing" as business advantage, the model could collapse into business case logic. Organizations reach Stage 6 declaring victory: we've made CSR strategic! But strategic for what? The model is not clear enough in distinguishing sophisticated instrumentalism from authentic transformation.
What's missing: organizational identity. The authors build on posture but don't explore how identity evolves from "we are profit-makers" to "we are moral leaders." Without linking CSR to identity transformation, we treat it as practice adoption rather than fundamental redefinition of who we are.
๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ด ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ some "๐ข๐ฅ๐ท๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฅ" ๐๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐จ๐ณ๐ข๐ฎ๐ด ๐ง๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต๐บ. Real transformation requires confronting uncomfortable truths: CSR development isn't just about stages and culture. It's about politics, ideology, structural resistance, and identity revolution. It's choosing between being a business that does good things and being a force for good that operates as a business.
The question haunting every sustainability report: What are you really optimizing for: stakeholder value or shareholder returns in stakeholder language?
๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ค๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ด ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐จ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ป๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ท๐ฐ๐ช๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ?
Link to article: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/443967594.pdf



THE MYTH OF THE FREE MARKET
When myths become dogmas, reality chooses its poison.
We live surrounded by economic fairy tales that have become so ubiquitous that they seem invisible. The most powerful: the belief in the "free market". In a wonderful book, Ha-Joon Chong reveals these fairy tales.
Ha-Joon Chang's first myth goes to the heart: "There is such a thing as a free market." Chang shows that every market is defined by rules โ usually by the state. "Free" is an illusion.
Think about how we talk about markets as if they were laws of nature. "The market has decided." As if "the market" were a divine entity, rather than a man-made system of institutions, laws, and power structures.
Chang calls it the "rules of the game" โ always there, even if we pretend they don't exist. They determine who gets to play, who wins. Patenting medicines is a free market, but minimum wages are distortion? Banks rescue follows market principles, but trade unions are cartels? Capital flows freely, but migrant workers stay out โ where is the consistency of this market ideology?
This intellectual dishonesty is not accidental. The myth obscures the fact that every economic order reflects political decisions. It transforms conflicts of interest into laws of nature, political decisions into amoral imperatives.
The consequences of the last three decades: deregulation of the financial markets led to crises, not stability. Privatisation of public services to poorer quality and higher prices. labour market flexibility leads to stagnant wages and growing inequality.
The myth loses its power as soon as we ask: Whose freedom is protected? Whose rights are enforced? Which rules are considered natural, which are intervention?
In a world where economic myths shape politics and business, the most radical act is to ask: What if the story is not true?
What "market-based truth" have you never questioned?
Link to article:
https://www.academia.edu/download/32015659/23_Things_they_dont_tell_you_about_Capitalism.pdf25-08-2025



๐๐ข๐จ๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ข๐ฃ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ก๐๐ก๐ ๐ช๐๐ก๐ง๐๐
When learning became performance, critical thinking chose exile.
Most organizations excel at fixing errors yet fail spectacularly at questioning the assumptions behind them. They polish deck chairs while sailing toward crises, congratulating themselves on efficiency as fundamental problems persist.
Single-loop learning asks "How do we fix this?" Double-loop learning dares to ask "Why did we think this was right?"
๐ฆ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐น๐ฒ-๐น๐ผ๐ผ๐ฝ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ. ๐๐ผ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ-๐น๐ผ๐ผ๐ฝ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐ฟ๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ๐. One treats symptoms; the other questions governing rules, values, and assumptions that create our reality.
A systematic review of 128 studies reveals: despite decades of research, double-loop learning remains elusive. Leadership coaching, continuous improvement, simulations - all producing incremental fixes while fundamental problems persist.
Why? Organizations remain trapped in Model I reasoning: defensive fortresses where questioning assumptions triggers panic. These systems suppress responsibility, hide mistakes, and strangle transformative inquiry.
We need conditions that make double-loop learning possible. Two mechanisms stand out:
1๏ธโฃ First, "relational leadership" that holds a triadic relation bringing leader and team together in the practice of questioning assumptions where the shared purpose (creating better ways of working toward better goals) provides vital focus for their interaction. This I-Thou-It structure gives way to independent engagement with purpose itself.
2๏ธโฃ Second, affording structures which are disciplined practices that make reflection routine rather than heroic. Like Torbert's liberating disciplines, these create containers for inquiry: regular forums for surfacing assumptions, protocols that protect vulnerable exploration, and rhythms that embed questioning into organizational life.
If we then create a beloved 2x2 - relational leadership (weak/strong) versus organizational design (weak/strong - four worlds emerge:
๐ง ๐ก๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ (both weak): Leadership collapsed into ego-protection, organization calcified into defensive routines.
๐ง ๐๐ป๐๐๐ฟ๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด (strong design, weak leadership): Sophisticated processes treating people as objects, producing learning's illusion.
๐ง ๐๐น๐ผ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ป๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ (strong leadership, weak design): Reflective leaders trapped within structures that cannot sustain breakthroughs.
๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ (both strong): Where double-loop learning becomes embedded and transformative.
Can we create leaders and communities that make transformation possible? Or will we perfect single-loop fixes while the world demands double-loop "wisdom" (although spoiler for wisdom one question remains strikingly absent: what is good ;-)).
๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐จ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ป๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ช๐ด ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ง๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ?
24-08-2025
22-08-2025



๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ก๐ฉ๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ
When academia became a performance, real understanding chose its poison.
We built an entire industry on a beautiful promise: money could save the world. The checks got bigger, the rhetoric got bolder, and everyone felt very good about themselves. There was just one problem: the researchers studying this industry forgot to study the one thing that actually matters.
A jaw-dropping new review has emerged with a conclusion that should terrify every business school professor publishing on ESG: ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐๐๐ฑ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐. How did the entire academic community studying impact investing manage to avoid studying the actual impact?
Because researchers chose the comfortable questions over the essential ones, building careers on studying everything except what matters.
Academics measure what gets them tenure. They avoid what's hard: real-world outcomes, systemic change, lives genuinely improved. The assessment is brutally clear: researchers obsessively focus on "outcome measurement at the individual investee-level" while completely ignoring "the aggregate societal impact" that is supposedly the entire point.
We have hundreds of papers analyzing how impact investors choose their portfolios, and almost zero studying whether those portfolios change the world. Our performative universities reward publications, not problem-solving, creating tenure systems that incentivize studying the process while ignoring the purpose. The researchers call out the academic community directly: despite impact investing's "intention to create measurable social impact," this impact, literally the field's reason for existing, "is not scrutinized in the literature."
๐๐ค๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ช๐ข ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ง๐ฆ๐ค๐ต ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ: ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐จ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ถ๐ฅ๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด ๐ง๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ช๐ด๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ค๐ฉ.
The tools exist to measure real impact, eg. longitudinal studies tracking societal changes, or systems-level analysis across time and communities. We just choose not to use them because measuring what's hard doesn't fit our conference schedules or publication timelines.
This is the age of homo academicus - the unwise scholar - methodologically sophisticated yet practically obsolete. A field that mistook rigor for relevance, and now finds itself writing about everything except the thing it claims to study.
Our proud academic world probably won't change with a breakthrough, but with a LinkedIn post.
How could we know so much about impact investing, and understand so little about impact?
If you care for all the citations go here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7364688063693840385/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A7364688063693840385%2C7364691482991017984)&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7364691482991017984%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7364688063693840385)&dashReplyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7364693039501426688%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7364688063693840385)&replyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A7364688063693840385%2C7364693039501426688)
21-08-2025



๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ก๐ฉ๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ข๐ ๐๐ข๐ฅ?
...๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ต๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐; ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ผ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ธ๐ป๐ผ๐. Deike Schlรผtter et al. ( ๐ ) conduct a ๐ท๐ฎ๐-๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด qualitative meta-analysis of the literature and come to the conclusion: research on impact investing is completely ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐.
Now this is ๐๐ฅ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ rather than contributing to grand challenges. But how is this possible? The authors provide one very telling explanation: because we work with ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฒ๐-๐บ๐ผ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ (not their original wording ;-)). We avoid the hard things: measuring impact, looking at impact across levels and across time, diving deeper into generative mechanisms. So we pick the data that is convenient, look at the complex issue reductively by focusing on investors, and often miss the chain of effects ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ ๐บ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฑ ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ด๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐-๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐.
And they also nicely show that we would have the means to go much deeper: longitudinal ethnographies to understand unfolding processes, or life cycle analysis to assess impacts across value chains and system boundaries. And much more...
So probably the issue lies deeper. We sit in ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ and need to make sure that we brush up our publication record - no time to go into depth and length. And we also learn that ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐, whilst a glossy goal of all universities right now, is mainly translated into ๐ป๐ผ๐ป-๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น-๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐น๐ฑ ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐: publications, rankings, teaching evaluations. So why should we start to think about it in more depth in the real world when ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ seems to suffice?
In addition, and as evident also in the CSR literature - where another meta-analysis showed that we are great at measuring the effect of CSR on profit but hardly anybody looked at its effect on social value - we are still trained that ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ matters. And performance is almost always read as ๐๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐. So it is seductive to look at the efficiency of impact investing, the appropriateness, the fitting to the needs of the investee and the investor. After all, ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ: ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ด๐ผ๐ผ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ.
๐๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ถ๐ ๐ด๐ผ๐ผ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟโฆ investors (who look responsible), academics (who stay employable), and universities (who tick their glossy โimpactโ boxes). But maybe not, it seems, for ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐.
Until we dare to measure impact itself - across systems, across levels, across time - we risk becoming part of the very problem we claim to solve.
๐ What would it take for us to put the good back at the centre of (not only) impact investing research?
20-08-2025



When even "psychological safety" becomes an obligation to perform... THE SELF-REINFORCING SPIRAL OF NEOLIBERAL WORK
This is the silent paradox at the heart of modern work. In their article "Neoliberal Ideology in Work and Organizational Psychology", which is well worth reading, Bal & Dรณci (link below๐) show how neoliberal ideology permeates our organizations (and also research). Using political, social, and fantasy logics, they analyze how instrumentality, individualism, and competition have become unquestioned truths. Even scientific findings often serve to increase efficiency โ not to search for meaning.
But the real perfidious thing is that neoliberalism does not work through coercion, but through fantasies. Namely: to be free. Self-determined. Successful if you only give enough. Those who fail were simply not committed enough in this logic (see also the language of the CDU at the moment). And it is precisely because this feels liberating that it is so effective โ and so difficult to question.
This is where a self-reinforcing negative spiral begins: Organizations are based on the assumption that people are rational, self-reliant, and competitive. They create structures that generate exactly this beh * avior: self-optimization, peer competition, inner performance control. And it is precisely this behavior that seems to confirm the original theory.
The ideology thus proves itself. When the system fails, it does not look for the fault in itself โ but in the individual. The answer: resilience training, coaching, feedback loops:
๐ฆธ Exhaustion is reinterpreted โ as an "opportunity for growth".
๐ฆธ Criticism becomes performance.
๐ฆธ Resistance to service. And so psychological safety also becomes a product line.
Google case study:
The company is considered a pioneer in "psychological safety" โ at least since the internally acclaimed Project Aristotle, which identified psychological safety as a central factor for high-performance teams. A company that presents itself as a future laboratory for good work.
And at the same time?
At the end of 2022, Google introduced a new performance system that requires up to 6% of employees to be classified as "low performers" โ regardless of actual team performance. (CNBC, 12/22/2022) In addition: regular, quiet layoffs. While this is not a traditional stacked-ranking it is still results-oriented. Calculated.
The episode?
You can speak openly โ but please with output.
You can feel safe โ as long as you deliver.
You can live purpose โ as long as you don't slow down.
And you can look forward to your own self-optimization including a "warm feeling".
But that's already the spiral. It does not drag itself out because it works โ but because it so elegantly translates its own failures into self-responsibility.
The phase-out begins there, where we stop treating the individual โ and begin to demystify systems.
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108
19-08-2025



GOOD EDUCATORS
As I wrote the other day, the ideal business school must enable ๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ , not just utility or well-being. Flourishing means the full realization of human and social potential through ๐๐ฑ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ and ๐ฏ๐ข๐ซ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ in community. It is eudaimonic rather than hedonic: not only feeling well, but becoming good. Where well-being and utility would reduce education to what Biesta termed "learnification" based on "revealed" preferences, flourishing asks more. It asks us to form humans and future leaders who aspire not only to comfort but to excellence, not only to consumption but to contribution.
This what makes teaching demanding, this is why ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐. A practice is not just a set of skills, but a profession that must be ๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐, struggled for, and pursued with standards of excellence in community. Teaching is not a sideline to โreal businessโ; it has its own goods, its own virtues, its own contributions to the university and to society.
Biesta shows that good education pursues three aims at once: ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (developing knowledge and skills), ๐ฌ๐จ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (initiating students into traditions and communities), and ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (helping them become free and responsible agents). Stolz, drawing on MacIntyre, adds that this requires the integration of four forms of knowledge:
๐ถ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ง๐ข๐๐๐ฅ โ knowing the methods, tools, and techniques that make action possible.
๐ถ ๐๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ โ developing the sensitivity to read contexts, people, and situations wisely.
๐ถ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐จ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฉ๐ก๐ข๐๐๐ฅ โ clarifying purposes and principles, asking not just how but why.
๐ถ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ โ forming connections of trust and mutual respect that make collective learning and action possible.
Put together, these insights show that "ideal" professors should be professionals in their own right, whose vocation is to bring these aims and knowledges together in the formation of flourishing human beings. That is why their education takes ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐, why it requires ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง as much as information, and why its standards cannot be reduced to metrics or market demand.
From this standpoint two things stand out: (1) we need to make sure that teaching becomes more appreciated and (2) ๐๐จ-๐ญ๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ with leaders from practice becomes a central dialogue, not substitution. Executives bring experience of the world as it is; professors could bring wisdom to discern what it might yet become through education. Together, they can cultivate graduates who not only succeed in business, but who ๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ก and help institutions, communities, and societies to flourish as well.
๐ Do you agree that ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ should be seen as a profession and practice in its own right? MacIntyre was sceptical about this but even more sceptical about managers.
18-08-2025



๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ณ๐ถ๐ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ ๐ช๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฆ๐ผ๐๐น: ๐ช๐ต๐ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ปโ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ
After my last post on Metaโs layoffs, I was asked a pressing question: if research has shown for decades how to downsize responsibly, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฆ๐ด ๐ง๐ฐ๐ญ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ?
The answer is not a lack of knowledge. It is ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐.
Ideology as a worldview that silently orients action: how the world ๐ถ๐, how it ๐ด๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฒ, what counts as ๐๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ, and what kinds of action are ๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ. Ideology is sticky because it works not only through arguments but also through powerful affects and fantasies. It does not merely tell us what to do; it makes us ๐ธ๐ข๐ฏ๐ต to do it, even when evidence points elsewhere.
Organizations are ideological actors. They do not simply apply best practices from management textbooks. They embody a vision of what people are - cogs, agents, citizens, or serfs - and of what the company itself is - machine, marketplace, community, or sovereign. These deep beliefs shape how they respond when crisis hits.
This becomes visible in moments of profit warnings or downturns. Even with decades of research on โdecent downsizing,โ the path companies choose depends less on technical insight and more on ideological commitments.
A ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ firm sees the world as a machine to be repaired. Downsizing is executed like a mechanic adjusting broken parts. A ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฒ๐-๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ป firm sees the world as a marketplace of individuals: layoffs become transactions, abrupt and performance-based. By contrast, a ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ company imagines itself as a community of citizens and aims for fairness, transparency, and reciprocity. A ๐ณ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด company sees itself embedded and generative, a steward for unlocking the good, enabled by persons with dignity and vocation, seeking to regenerate and protect the common good while adapting.
And then there are the ๐ฎ๐๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป firms of our age. Their worldviews are darker, but no less coherent. The ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ป๐ผ-๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐ฑ๐ฎ๐น corporation (Meta, Amazon) imagines itself as a sovereign lord. Layoffs are decrees to be handed down: opaque, unilateral, framed as dominion over subjects. The ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ณ๐๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ corporation (Tesla, Palantir) sees itself as an ark on a frontier. Layoffs here become acts of sacrifice: dramatic, abrupt, justified as necessary for the mission of saving humanity.
So we can have research till the cows come home and show that "fairness pays" or similar - ideology will often get the better end when decisions are taken.
That is why the question for leaders is not simply ๐ต๐ผ๐ to downsize in a downturn. It is: ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐?
๐ Reference: Durand, C. (2024). How silicon valley unleashed techno-feudalism: the making of the digital economy. Verso Books. And Taลkale, A. R. (2025). The affective politics of reactionary futurism in Silicon Valley. Critical Studies on Security, 1-5.
16-08-2025



๐๐ผ๐๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ช๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฆ๐ผ๐๐น: ๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ฎโ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ณ๐ณ๐ ๐ง๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต ๐จ๐
Every crisis summons leaders to a crossroads - cut costs, or also preserve trust and humanity?
Every leader is summoned to that crossroads in times of crisis. On one side lies the imperative to protect the organizationโs financial health. On the other lies the responsibility to preserve the dignity, trust, and future of the people who constitute that very organization.
The management scholar Wayne F. Cascio (see ๐ ) has studied downsizing for decades. His conclusion is unambiguous: most companies downsize badly. They cut broad and deep, lose critical talent, damage morale, and often fail to achieve the promised financial results. Downsizing is not just a technical choice; it is a strategic one (and as I argue an ethical).
From his research, five principles of decent downsizing emerge:
1๏ธโฃ ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐. Employees are more likely to accept hard decisions if the process is transparent, consistent, and respectful.
2๏ธโฃ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐. Crises inevitably reshape the implicit bonds of trust, loyalty, and reciprocity. Leaders must manage this actively.
3๏ธโฃ ๐๐ป๐๐ผ๐น๐๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐. Engagement turns passivity and cynicism into energy and creativity.
4๏ธโฃ ๐๐ณ ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ณ๐ณ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ, ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ด๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ. Indiscriminate cuts undermine long-term competitiveness.
5๏ธโฃ ๐๐
๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐. Tools like voluntary programs, sabbaticals, or shared reductions can preserve both talent and trust.
Now consider Metaโs recent layoffs, where about 3,600โ4,000 people were cut:
Fairness? Many employees reported surprise: even high performers saw abrupt downgrades in evaluations before being let go. The perception of arbitrariness undermined fairness.
Psychological contract? Meta had scaled up aggressively during the pandemic, signaling long-term growth. The sudden reversal broke the implicit promise of stability, fueling anxiety and mistrust.
Involvement? The process was highly top-down. Employees were informed, not consulted. This deepened a sense of powerlessness.
Targeted? Cuts spanned across WhatsApp, Instagram, and Reality Labs. Broad-based reductions suggested expedience rather than strategic workforce planning.
Creative alternatives? Unlike companies that experimented with voluntary or flexible arrangements, Meta defaulted to layoffs. Opportunities for less disruptive solutions were missed.
Cascioโs research reminds us: downsizing may sometimes be necessary, but how it is done determines whether organizations emerge weaker or stronger.
I would go the step further: at the heart lies an ethical question every organization must confront: ๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ? Is it the pursuit of short-term shareholder value, or do we also take responsibility for ensuring prosperity and humanity?
๐ Reference:ย https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrm.20034
15-08-2025



Why smart organizations keep doing stupid things?
Most of us have been in the room when an obviously poor decision is made by a group of intelligent, experienced people. We leave wondering how so much collective capability could result in something so absurd. This is not an occasional mistake or a product of one weak leader. It is a broader, systemic phenomenon: organizational stupidity.
Organizational stupidity is not simply incompetence, although it can look like it. It is the set of patterns and practices that disable reflexivity, slow learning, and normalize wasteful or nonsensical activity.
Guilherme Azevedo recent work offers a typology that helps us see these patterns more clearly. He distinguishes three main lenses for understanding them:
1๏ธโฃ The systemicโmechanistic lens sees the organization as a machine whose design is flawed. Poor structures, outdated processes, or missing resources trap people in unproductive routines. In this view, the obvious remedy is to redesign the system and remove the bottlenecks. The difficulty, of course, is that systems are run by people, and the human side is rarely as straightforward as the technical side.
2๏ธโฃ The criticalโsociological lens focuses on human behaviour and collective dynamics. Stupidity here is the result of conformity, groupthink, and sometimes moral compromise. Leaders may protect their own egos or positions at the expense of open debate. People avoid asking difficult questions. The remedy proposed is to cultivate reflexivity, dissent, and better learning processes. But this is far more challenging than simply implementing a new structure.
3๏ธโฃ The culturalโfunctionalist lens is more provocative. It asks whether some apparent stupidity serves a useful function. Rituals that seem pointless may help maintain stability. Roles that look redundant may keep livelihoods intact. Strategic ignorance can protect people from burnout. In this view, not all stupidity is dysfunction; some of it is survival.
The reality, of course, is rarely one lens alone. Most cases are an entanglement of all three: flawed systems, unreflective human behaviour, and power/politics. A policy may be a relic of poor design, reinforced by leadership interests, and embedded in cultural meaning that makes it resistant to change.
The question, then, is not simply how to eliminate stupidity. It is which elements are actively harmful, which are functional and for whom, and how any change can be made without undermining the stability that people rely on. Stupidity is not a glitch in the system, rather it seems part of the system.
Understanding how and why it operates is the first step to making informed choices about whether to change it, challenge it, or accept it. We will discuss this in class today...(read the poem)
Source: Guilherme Azevedo, โInto the Realm of Organizational Folly: A Poem, a Review, and a Typology of Organizational Stupidity,โ Management Learning (2023).
12-08-2025



Trump Isnโt Doing Industrial Policy - He Just Thinks He Is
Everyoneโs talking about industrial policy. From Washington to Brussels to Bern, leaders promise to โbring industry homeโ. It sounds bold. But most of whatโs called industrial policy today is just a mix of subsidies, tariffs, and corporate tax breaks. These grab headlines but fall far short of the deliberate, structural transformation that has historically worked.
Real industrial policy as Antonio Andreoni and Ha-Joon Chang define it (hashtag#deepdive) is about reshaping an economyโs structure over decades. Itโs not just protecting national champions. Itโs about fostering industries that can drive productivity, innovation, and quality jobs and linking them so they reinforce one another. Itโs about aligning finance, skills, technology, and regulation.
History is full of examples. Hamilton and List in the 19th century argued for state-led strategies to build capabilities. Mid-20th century structuralists like Hirschman and Prebisch promoted coordinated โbig pushโ strategies to overcome underdevelopment. Post-war Japan, Korea, and Taiwan perfected disciplined, export-oriented approaches that built national capabilities from the ground up.
Andreoni and Changโs work identifies four fundamental challenges that any serious industrial policy must master and the strategies to meet them:
1๏ธโฃ Structural Tensions & Dualism
Industrialisation is messy and uneven. Some sectors surge ahead, others lag. Without coordination, bottlenecks strangle growth. Solution: Map and manage sectoral interdependencies, using state-led vision and careful sequencing.
2๏ธโฃ Institutional Misalignment
New industries demand new institutions in finance, skills, and standards. Misaligned policies cancel each other out. Solution: Design policy packages, not isolated measures, and adjust them as industries evolve.
3๏ธโฃ Conflict Management
Industrial policy redistributes power and resources. Resistance is inevitable from incumbents, rivals, even within government. Solution: Build political coalitions, create transparent support rules, and link benefits to performance.
4๏ธโฃ Global Pressures
Global value chains, financialisation, and trade rules limit room to manoeuvre. Solution: Use strategic leverage - from procurement to standard-setting - to retain domestic value capture.
This is what separates real industrial policy from political theatre. Itโs a long-term, coordinated, and politically savvy process aimed at structural transformation. Without it, governments risk spending billions on short-lived wins while leaving their economies vulnerable.
Next: weโll put Trumpโs 2024โ25 industrial policy and โAgenda 2025โ under the microscope. Spoiler: itโs not close to the gold standard.
๐ Reference: Andreoni, A., & Chang, H.-J. (2019). The political economy of industrial policy: Structural interdependencies, policy alignment and conflict management. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 48, 136โ150.
07-08-2025



The EU's Nobel Peace Prize: A Call to Remember Who We Are
In 2012, the Nobel Committee didn't just honor the EU for ending wars - they celebrated something deeper: Europe as a living testament to human dignity and shared values.
The Values That Won the Prize:
Human Rights as Foundation: "One cannot become a member without first having adapted their legislation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights" - The EU made human rights non-negotiable.
Democracy Through Membership: From Portugal's 1974 revolution to Eastern Europe's liberation - "several generations of Europeans have shown again and again that their choice for Europe was also a choice for freedom."
A Community of Dignity: As President Barroso stated: "Our Union places the person and human dignity at its heart... it gives a voice to diversity while creating unity."
A Global Inspiration The Nobel Committee recognized the EU as "a powerful inspiration for many around the world" - proving that former enemies can become family, that democracy strengthens through cooperation, that economic integration creates lasting peace.
But for some years already these values have been under pressure both internally through the rise of populism as well as externally. The latter clearly coming to an apex with the government of Trump.
The Nobel Committee warned us: "We must stand together... without this European cooperation, the result might easily have been new protectionism, new nationalism with the risk that the ground gained would be lost."
This is our moment to choose.
As Europeans, we must raise our voices for the Europe that won the Nobel Prize. We must defend the values that transformed our continent from battlefield to beacon. We must remember that democracy, human rights, and international cooperation aren't guaranteed - they require our active protection.
The Europe our grandparents dreamed of is worth fighting for.
Will you stand up for these values?
Source: Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony 2012, Oslo City Hall
05-08-2025



LEADING WITH PRACTICAL WISDOM IN A TIME OF PERMANENT CRISIS
The United Statesโ decision to impose tariffs of up to 39% on European partners is not just a trade policy shift. It is a reminder that stability is no longer the norm and crisis no longer the exception. For CEOs and political leaders, this is not an โeventโ to be managed - it is a condition to be lived with, learned in, and navigated with wisdom.
Elena P. Antonacopoulou & Zachary Sheaffer (2013 ๐) show that in such contexts, the decisive capability is practical wisdom: the cultivated ability to make context-sensitive, ethically grounded judgments when the context is uncertain and interests are manifold, time is short, and consequences are profound.
In chronic crisis, the loop between information, decision, and action is continuous, shaped by three forces:
1๏ธโฃ Sensemaking under ambiguity: Understanding that โfactsโ are contested and that a shared understanding must be constructed through dialogue, while truth must be searched with much more depth.
2๏ธโฃ Action with moral clarity: Decisions must reflect not only strategic advantage but the values we are prepared to live by.
3๏ธโฃ Institutionalised reflection-in-action: Reflection must be embedded in the very act of leading and governing, not postponed until the crisis has passed.
In practice, for European CEOs and policymakers, this means cultivating a number of capacities:
๐ก Strategic foresight as ethical stewardship โ Anticipate trade disruptions not only to protect profits but to safeguard the livelihoods and trust of those whose work and communities depend on cross-border exchange.
๐ก Judgment under incomplete intelligence โ Act with provisional clarity, making choices that can be revised as realities unfold, rather than waiting for impossible certainty.
๐ก Relational capital as a strategic asset โ Build and maintain trust with a diverse range of partners, knowing that relationships are a form of liveblood and offer resilience no tariff can erode overnight.
๐ก Value-consistent decision-making under pressure โ In moments of economic strain, ensure that expedience does not erode commitments to fairness, reciprocity, and the common good.
๐ก Governance that channels politics into learning โ Accept that trade policy is political; structure decision-making so that competing interests lead to richer understanding, not paralysing division.
The U.S. tariffs will test not only Europeโs economic resilience. But they also test our wisdom; our ability to steer towards the good life. The challenge is not how quickly we return to โnormalโ trade, but how we cultivate the capacity to act decisively, ethically, and adaptively in a world where normality is the illusion.
True leadership in such waters might not about predicting the stormโs end but more about steering with phronesis, knowing that crisis is no longer the interruption, but the ocean itself. And this will also demand that we find back to some core values we seemingly forgot.
Link to article:ย https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elena-Antonacopoulou/publication/274970149_Learning_in_Crisis_Rethinking_the_Relationship_Between_Organizational_Learning_and_Crisis_Management/links/55a7d93608ae481aa7f4f655/Learning-in-Crisis-Rethinking-the-Relationship-Between-Organizational-Learning-and-Crisis-Management.pdf
04-08-2025



BUSINESS SCHOOLS ARE DEAD โ LONG LIVE BUSINESS SCHOOLS IV
Welcome to the lab and a very, very, very first collection of realist utopias. ๐
Critique is never enough. If business schools fail to cultivate flourishing, wisdom, the common good, and contestationโฆ what could alternatives look like?
Sociologist Erik Olin Wright tells us to judge โreal utopiasโ with three tests:
1๏ธโฃ Desirability: do they embody the moral yardstick we aim for?
2๏ธโฃ Viability: can they function sustainably?
3๏ธโฃ Achievability: can we get there from here?
Three cases show how this could work.
๐ก Lancaster: critique without emancipation?
In the 1990sโ2000s, Lancaster University Management School was a global flagship for Critical Management Studies. Students were told not to come if they wanted a conventional business education. Contestation was its hallmark. But the project was better at dismantling neoliberal ideology than forming wise practitioners. Its desirability lay in critique, not flourishing. When leadership changed, its viability collapsed. No alliances, no pathways to scale: the โcritical enclaveโ was ripe to be dismantled and is currently even more at danger to be so.
๐ก LIS: innovation without a constitutive common good?
The London Interdisciplinary School, founded in 2017, blends arts, sciences, and humanities to tackle โwicked problems.โ It is desirable as an antidote to disciplinary silos and cultivates problemโbased wisdom. It has serious viability too: over ยฃ24m in investment, regulatory approval, strong faculty. But its vision of the common good is thin, leaning on employability and impact. Its achievability depends on graduate success. If alumni thrive, LIS could inspire imitation. If not, it risks remaining a boutique experiment.
๐ก Mondragรณn: cooperation in practice?
Mondragรณn University in Spainโs Basque Country is the worldโs first cooperative university, rooted in the Mondragรณn Corporation of 90+ worker coโops. It is desirable because it seems to embed flourishing, some sort of practical wisdom, common good, and contestation in cooperative practice. It is viable, tied to a robust ecosystem with financial solidarity and participatory governance. And it is achievable: it grew step by step from a technical school in the 1940s. Its limitation? Replication. Mondragรณn works because of a deep cooperative culture not easily transplanted. But it proves that real utopias in business education are possible.
The preliminary lesson?
Lancaster shows critique alone isnโt enough. LIS shows innovation without thick common good could be fragile. Mondragรณn shows alternatives can be desirable, viable, and achievable if embedded in supportive ecosystems.
๐ Over to you: Where should we borrow from Lancaster, LIS, and Mondragรณn? But more importantly: please tell me your favorite realist utopia - and send me case studies, articles to go (much) deeper into this!
Source:ย https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0896920520950387
02-08-2025



BUSINESS SCHOOLS ARE DEAD โ LONG LIVE BUSINESS SCHOOLS III
Last time I proposed four principles for a flourishing business school: flourishing, practical wisdom, the common good, and contestation.
So letโs hold todayโs schools up to that standard. The verdict? Systematic failure.
โ Theories that kill flourishing.
Sumantra Ghoshal warned that bad theories donโt just misdescribe reality, they make it worse. Agency theory assumes managers are selfish, so BS designed systems of distrust for practice - and managers behave accordingly. Shareholder primacy tells us greed is rational, and greed becomes normalized. Even psychology isnโt better. As Bal & Dรณci show, employability, job crafting, even โwellโbeingโ still recast people as selfโentrepreneurs, forever optimizing for the market. Where flourishing should mean energy turned into excellence in community, BS teach restless selfโoptimization in competition.
โ No practical wisdom.
Gert Biesta calls it โlearnificationโ: education hollowed out into competences, outcomes, metrics. Students collect badges of employability, professors deliver quantifiable units. But phronesis cannot be measured. It requires judgment about what is good in messy, uncertain contexts. MacIntyre shows how managerialism pretends to be neutral: efficiency as the only virtue, conflict erased. Schools produce clever technicians of efficiency yet efficiency without wisdom is directionless, and often destructive.
โ Contestation erased.
Learning requires conflict and courage. Yet BS mainly elevate consensus. Case studies end with tidy โsolutions,โ โbest practicesโ are served as gospel, while rankings reward conformity. Bal & Dรณci expose the fantasy of harmony: the myth of organizations as winโwin spaces. Laske shows how dialectical thinking - grasping contradictions, perceiving absences, imagining transformation - is never developed. Students graduate fluent in analysis but allergic to debate. A school without contestation is not a school but a factory of conformity.
โ The common good betrayed.
Business schools were founded to professionalize management for society. That mission is gone. Today success means salaries and corporate ties. Sulmasy helps us see why: schools confuse the aggregative good (private satisfactions like careers) or the supersessive good (โwhatโs good for business is good for societyโ) with the real thing - the constitutive common good. This means flourishing in community, cultivating virtues and practices together. By ignoring it, schools betray their reason for being.
The result is stark: business schools fail every part of their telos!
The cruel paradox: the very institutions that promise opportunity keep us trapped in an iron neoliberal cage, and one that tightens with every student stepping out to enter โthe real world.โ
๐ What do you think: why do bad theories persist, dialectics gets exchanged with balancing, audit culture prevails and nobody even bothers to discuss about the common good?
01-08-2025



BUSINESS SCHOOLS ARE DEAD โ LONG LIVE BUSINESS SCHOOLS II
Yesterday I argued that business schools are not just classrooms but ideological machines. They donโt just teach capitalism - they reproduce it in us.
If thatโs true, where do we even begin to change them? The sociologist Erik Olin Wright offers a roadmap: transformation begins not with critique but with values and moral principles. Before we ask what is wrong or how to fix it, we must ask: what should guide us? What is the legitimacy for change? What is the good life to strive for?
For business schools, I believe four principles stand out. Each challenges a mainstream idea and offers a richer alternative:
๐น Flourishing, not wellโbeing or utility.
Education is not just about maximizing comfort, pleasure, or employability. It is about becoming excellent through practice, and realizing our potential in community. People aspire not only to feel good, but to be good. Flourishing captures this deeper telos: who we become through what we do, together.
๐น Practical Wisdom, not rationality alone.
Managers donโt just need tools to calculate and optimize. They need phronesis: the ability to judge what is good in messy, uncertain situations. Rationality tells us how to be efficient. Wisdom asks: what is worth doing? And without wisdom, even the smartest strategy risks being directionless.
๐น The Common Good, not the private good.
The purpose of business is not simply to deliver private benefits such as profits, salaries, prestige. It is to create shared goods: products, knowledge, relationships, and virtues that enable all to contribute and thrive. The common good is not opposed to personal success, but it insists that true prosperity must be shared, enabled in common and sustainable.
๐น Contestation, not best practices.
There are no final โbest practices.โ Business schools should be arenas of debate about ends as well as means. True learning requires disagreement, dialogue, and courage instead of conformity to neutral templates (say good-bye to the 10 habits of successful entrepreneurs or the McKinsey best practice news of the week). Contestation reminds us that management is always a moral and political practice, never just a technical one.
Taken together, these four principles give us a new telos for business schools. They remind us that management is not a neutral science, but a moral practice. And they set the benchmark by which todayโs institutions and tomorrowโs alternatives can be judged.
๐ What do you think? How would you critique these "principles" - what is missing?
Sources: https://leadershipsociety.world/ and https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/62E41482551D6CF4BC293D44A96150B1/S0028428900013639a.pdf/div-class-title-the-very-idea-of-a-university-aristotle-newman-and-us-div.pdf?casa_token=DqSFcnFQ0bgAAAAA:gu8tcL_SZTmoczuXSag7QhfCCOINSnaUgeRzVDTF4AeFeP0DjrdgyG871fflZHIE8EWefXGcI2k and ofc https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.7227/IJS.21.2.2
30-07-2025



BUSINESS SCHOOLS ARE DEAD โ LONG LIVE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
Squashing critique by Otti Vogt and many before him raises an uncomfortable question: are business schools beyond rescue?
Working inside one, watching motivated and intelligent young minds (and hearts) prepare to become tomorrowโs leaders, I cannot quite accept that. If some businesses can be a force for good, why not business schools too? But before we talk about change, we must understand the problem. And today Iโd like to start on the lighter side - with some first critique from my side (a deeper critique will have to follow).
Hereโs the paradox. Business schools claim to produce responsible leaders. Yet the dominant ideology they teach and embody is still neoliberalism:
๐ฏ Markets are natural.
๐ฏ Competition is virtuous.
๐ฏ Shareholder value is the only true measure of success.
This worldview is not neutral. It tells a story about order (markets and managerial elites rule), about the good (efficiency and growth), and about praxis (deregulate, compete, manage technocratically). And it does something even more powerful: it shapes who students and professors become.
Think about it. Business schools are not just classrooms. They are as Gianpiero Petriglieri explains identity workspaces. They mold how future managers see themselves: as competitive, mobile, selfโinvesting and self-optimizing agents whose worth is measured by salary and prestige. This is how ideology works: it doesnโt just fill minds with theories, it anchors desire in fantasies. The fantasy to talk in Zizekian terms is beatific - wealth, prestige, global careers. The nightmare is horrific - failure, irrelevance, exclusion. Even when students are cynical, they canโt quite escape the pull.
This is why โfixingโ business schools is not as simple as adding an ethics course or a sustainability track. Ideology runs deeper. It shapes visions, practices, and identities. If we take ideology seriously - as I have defined it in my series on ideology - as descriptive, normative, and actionโoriented, then we must admit: business schools donโt just teach adverbial capitalism, they reproduce it in us.
And yet if ideology can be taught, it can also be transformed. In this series, Iโll explore how.
๐ What do you think โ are business schools doomed to reproduce the past, or can they become places of flourishing for the future, and how? I will explore this here in the coming weeks - but I will need the help of others, also insiders. Remember another truism: it is always easier to critique from the outside, than to change from the inside.
30-07-2025



WHEN ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY FAILED AND SUFFERING REMAINED UNNOTICED
The other day, Rebecca Tillery gave a thoughtful talk on Philippa Foot - but what lingered for me was the deeper question that shaped the world of Iris Murdoch and her philosophical peers: why does no one notice the drowning of Icarus?
In Bruegelโs painting, Icarus falls into the sea and disappears. But the ploughman keeps ploughing, the ship sails on, the world continues, unchanged and unbothered. A human being suffers and is lost - and it barely registers.
We are in that painting again.
Why do so many people fail to really see whatโs happening in Gaza? Or the quiet violence in the United States as it slips further into authoritarianism? The information is there. The images are there. But something is missing.
Iris Murdoch gave this a name: a failure of moral attention. For her, itโs not about lacking facts. Rather itโs about not seeing clearly. Moral life isnโt mostly about choosing between good and bad actions, as if weโre standing before a list of options. It starts deeper: with how we see the world, and how distorted our vision often is be it by ego, prejudice, habit, ideology, and fear.
To really attend to another person means letting go of those distortions (as far as we can). It means being open. Vulnerable. Willing to be affected. Thatโs why attention is hard. Itโs not passive. It requires effort: to notice when our vision is off, to pull ourselves back from distraction, and to accept what we see, even when itโs uncomfortable.
Murdoch calls this โobedience to reality.โ We donโt just learn the truth - we have to want to see it! That desire, that careful attention, is what gives moral life its shape.
And this is why attention matters so much now. Itโs easy to scroll past someone elseโs suffering, to keep ploughing the field, sailing the ship, doing our job. But the challenge Murdoch gives us is to look again - and this time, to see.
More literature: https://lnkd.in/dWySf2aW
29-07-2025



IDEOLOGY, FLOURISHING, AND TRANSFORMATION: ERIK OLIN WRIGHTโS REAL UTOPIAS
Financial capitalism survives on a story: โThere is no alternative.โ This is not analysis but ideology, designed to shrink our sense of the possible. Erik Olin Wrightโs project of real utopias directly attacks that story. By proving that alternatives can exist, function, and spread, he reclaims imagination as a tool of realism.
Wright begins with two foundational propositions:
1๏ธโฃ Much human suffering and many deficits in flourishing are caused by existing institutions.
2๏ธโฃ Transforming those institutions in the right way can reduce suffering and expand the possibilities for flourishing.
From this follows a clear procedure: articulate moral principles (in his case equality, democracy, sustainability); diagnose harms; design alternatives; and propose strategies for transformation.
But what makes an alternative real? He sets out three criteria:
1๏ธโฃ Desirability: Does it embody emancipatory values?
2๏ธโฃ Viability: Can it function without self-destruction?
3๏ธโฃ Achievability: Are there pathways from here to there?
Among these, viability is crucial. If people cannot believe that alternatives will actually work, they will not fight for them. Demonstrating viable alternatives is therefore itself an ideological intervention: it expands the horizon of the possible.
And such alternatives exist. Participatory budgeting, worker cooperatives, solidarity finance, and basic income pilots are not castles in the air but institutions that embody different logics: democracy over technocracy, solidarity over competition, equality over hierarchy.
For Wright, transformation is not one path but a grammar of strategies:
1๏ธโฃ Ruptural: confrontational breaks with dominant institutions.
2๏ธโฃ Interstitial: building alternatives in the cracks and margins.
3๏ธโฃ Symbiotic: reforms that empower the many while addressing systemic problems.
4๏ธโฃ Encompassing: scaling alternatives until they reshape the system.
The most promising lies in the interplay of interstitial and symbiotic strategies: prefiguring flourishing futures in the present while opening cracks in the dominant order.
What makes Wrightโs framework enduring is that he never separates critique from construction, or ideology from institutions. Real utopias destabilize not only materially but ideologically, by proving that hierarchy, competition, and commodification are not natural laws but social choices.
The challenge for us today is to push this project further. Wright gave us the tools to connect ideology, flourishing, and transformation. But we must ask: which institutions - businesses, digital platforms, civic networks - will carry this work forward? And how do we design them not only to redistribute resources, but to cultivate freedom, and flourishing?
Because emancipation is not only about building better systems. It is about making better lives thinkable - and livable.
๐ Where do you see real utopias emerging?
27-07-2025



IDEOLOGY EXPOSED โ AND THEN ลฝIลฝEK RUINS IT ALL
In our ongoing series on ideology, we've explored how ideas like growth, performance, and utility continue to shape our institutions - even after we've stopped believing in them. We know they're flawed. We see the contradictions. We joke, critique, roll our eyes.
And yet: we comply!
This is what ลฝiลพek calls ideological cynicism: the paradox where knowing that something is nonsense doesnโt set us free. On the contrary, our very awareness becomes part of the systemโs functioning. We say: โOf course KPIs are reductive, of course strategy decks are performative, but what can you do?โ So we keep going.
No ideology captures this better than managerialism. Managerialism appears most objective precisely when it is most ideological. It hides its values - performance, control, efficiency -behind the mask of neutrality and science (or evidence-based). It speaks the language of dashboards, maturity models, โbest practices,โ and evidence-based everything. And because it sounds like science, it escapes scrutiny.
But even the loudest critics rarely escape its grip.
Models like Teal or Humanocracy claim to liberate us from hierarchy and bureaucracy. They flatten structures, elevate autonomy, celebrate wholeness. But they still promise universality. They still optimize. They still scale. They sell freedom - but only through the next system. Meaning becomes a productivity tool. Autonomy becomes a design feature. Purpose becomes measurable.
This might be managerialism with a human face - but it is still managerialism - only soothing, flexible, but still in control.
ลฝiลพekโs point is brutal: seeing through the illusion isnโt enough. Weโre not trapped because we believe rather weโre trapped because we canโt imagine a meaningful alternative. And so we cling to structure, technique, and the fantasy that one more framework might fix the system.
But maybe the real shift isnโt methodological. Itโs moral.
What if we asked different questions?
Not โHow do we perform better?โ But โWhatโs worth doing?โ
Not โHow do we manage people?โ But โHow do we live well together?โ
Beyond ideology lies not another model, but a different spirit: one of wisdom, discernment, responsibility. Not freedom within the system but freedom from the logic that everything must be managed.
Thatโs not a framework. That is a commitment.
26-07-2025



SUMMER READING
Want to understand ideology? Start here.
If youโre curious about how political ideologies shape our thinking - whether in politics, business, or daily life - Andrew Heywoodโs Political Ideologies: An Introduction is the best place to start.
๐ This book is clear, smart, and deeply informative. And - not always the case in political philosophy - it is very well written, even fun to read. It doesnโt just list โleft vs. rightโ but explores the core ideas, values, and tensions inside each ideology. It shows how our beliefs are framed by traditions we may not even be aware of and how these frames influence our assumptions about fairness, freedom, growth, justice, or leadership.
๐งญ What ideologies are covered?
Heywood explains the big traditions that still define political and organizational life today:
- Liberalism (from classical to neoliberal)
- Conservatism
- Socialism (including social democracy and Marxism)
- Anarchism
- Fascism
But then also goes towards newer traditions:
- Feminism
- Environmentalism
- Multiculturalism
- Religious Fundamentalism
- Postmodernism and Post-ideology
Each ideology is introduced through its core concepts, internal divisions, historical roots, and current relevance. Itโs not just theory itโs also about how ideas live and mutate in real societies.
๐๏ธ How is it structured?
Each chapter begins with a conceptual map, then breaks down the core values, typical beliefs, and internal debates within each ideology. The book ends by reflecting on what ideology even means today especially in an age of populism, polarization, and โpost-truthโ politics.
๐ก Why should ordinary people care? And why is this also important for leaders of all realms?
Because ideology doesnโt stop at politics. It silently shapes how we run organizations, how we talk about leadership or merit, how we define success, and what we think is "realistic." From growth-at-all-costs to CSR, from libertarian founders to stakeholder capitalism ideological assumptions are everywhere. If you want to lead with clarity, you need to understand the waters youโre swimming in.
๐ For the open-minded reader - manager, policymaker, citizen - this book offers not just knowledge, but orientation. Highly recommended.
25-07-2025



LIBERATING THE FUTURE: FROM TINA TO TRANSFORMATION
In my last post, I unpacked the ideological grip of TINA โ โThere Is No Alternativeโ โ particularly around the growth imperative. But the point of critique is not despair. It is to reopen imagination. As Jin Xue argues in her excellent paper on ideology and critical realism, we can challenge the โideological closureโ of TINA through a threefold process: exposing contradictions, imagining alternatives, and experimenting with transformation.
Letโs illustrate this with a hard case: business schools and degrowth.
๐ Step 4: Expose Contradictions, Arouse Dissatisfaction
Most business schools reproduce the TINA logic. Growth is seen as a self-evident good. Degrowth? Fringe, unscientific, economically irresponsible. But look closer. Our curricula promote shareholder value while discussing โstakeholder capitalism.โ We teach โsustainabilityโ without touching planetary boundaries. We praise innovation while ignoring that much of it fuels overconsumption. These tensions arenโt minor. They point to a deep inconsistency between the world we train leaders for and the world we actually inhabit. Xue calls this the โgenerative contradictionโ โ the cracks through which dissatisfaction grows.
๐ Step 5: Imagine Alternatives
Here imagination becomes political. Can we imagine business education beyond growth? What would it mean to teach sufficiency instead of scalability, regenerative design instead of linear optimization, interdependence instead of competitive advantage? Degrowth does not mean collapse. It means reorienting enterprise towards wellbeing, care, justice, and ecological health. Business schools could be pioneers here: experimenting with new metrics (e.g. doughnut economics), new theories (e.g. commoning, solidarity economies), new partnerships (with communities, cooperatives, the informal economy). This is what Bhaskar would call โconcrete utopiaโ โ not abstract dreams, but real, rooted alternatives.
๐ Step 6: Experiment with New Practices
Imagination alone is not enough. Xue insists on โtransformative praxisโ โ testing new paths in practice, even within old institutions. What if HR and procurement collaborated to favour sufficiency-driven suppliers? What if strategy courses tackled limits to growth as a design constraint, not a side note? What if the rankings that drive global business education rewarded social and ecological flourishing instead of alumni salaries?
These are not utopian ideas. They are invitations to think otherwise. And if business schools โ with their resources, reach, and intellectual capital โ cannot take this step, we might be in the wrong business.
The work of dismantling ideology is not just critique. It is co-creation. We do not need to know the whole path to take the next step.
22-07-2025



IDEOLOGY AND TINA
There are many reasons why at present I am drawn to analyze ideology - but one is personal. I want to understand how good organisations can help transform the economy. Yet again and again, I encounter the same wall: a deep resistance to even considering alternatives.
And Iโm not talking about policymakers or lobbyists. I mean colleagues - highly cited economists, well-intentioned management researchers - who repeat, without blinking, that โwe need growthโ or that โpost-growth is nonsense.โ These arenโt arguments. Theyโre reflexes. The idea that a flourishing economy might be possible beyond growth is treated as unserious - or worse, as dangerous. And this, Iโve come to see, is ideology at work.
TINA - There Is No Alternative - is most famously associated with Margaret Thatcher. But the philosopher Roy Bhaskar offered a deeper diagnosis. A TINA formation is not just dogma. It is a system of ideas and institutions that makes certain paths appear necessary - not by evidence, but by framing alternatives as impossible. It works through a bundle of mechanisms: necessity narratives that present contingent choices as structural imperatives; symbolic substitutions like โgreen growthโ that patch over contradictions without resolving them; panic that casts alternatives as reckless; and syntony, i.e. the deep structural alignment between ideology and institutional form.
The growth imperative exhibits all of this. Growth is portrayed as the condition for employment, social stability, even sustainability. Doubts are pre-emptively neutralised through โwinโwinโ visions of decoupling or circularity, despite thin empirical support. Contradictions such as rising inequality, ecological collapse, eroded well-being are treated as regrettable side effects, not symptoms of systemic failure. Meanwhile, every policy lever, metric, and market signal reinforces the logic of expansion. This institutional echo chamber doesnโt just defend growth but it makes life beyond growth hard to imagine.
And thatโs the point. Ideology isnโt just about what people believe. Itโs about what they can believe. It narrows the horizon of the thinkable. And when that narrowing happens under the guise of rational necessity, it becomes all the more powerful because it no longer looks like ideology at all.
I used to naively think that alternatives would be welcome - not to attack the current system, but to prepare for the possibility that it may no longer hold. Now I see: even imagining an alternative can be threatening when the dominant ideology has become second nature.
21-07-2025



GROWTH IDEOLOGY AS TINA FORMATION
Following on my last post on ideology ( ๐ ), this piece examines how the logic of โThere Is No Alternativeโ (TINA) operates in practice โ and how growth ideology exemplifies it.
The ideology of economic growth is a textbook case of what Roy Bhaskar called a โTINA formationโ: a structure of thought and practice that presents contingent, contested arrangements as necessary, non negotible thereby foreclosing real alternatives. A recent paper can serve as a sharp analysis of how the growth imperative has been normalized, defended, and perpetuated despite deepening ecological, social, and psychological contradictions.
1๏ธโฃ The first feature of a TINA formation is the assertion of false necessity. Growth is framed as an economic and political imperative - not as a normative choice but as a prerequisite for employment, stability, and even sustainability. As the authors show, this presumption renders degrowth or post-growth alternatives not only marginal but irrational by definition. The possibility space is collapsed in advance.
2๏ธโฃ Second, growth ideology is sustained through compensatory narratives or what Bhaskar termed โcompromise formations.โ Faced with mounting evidence that growth undermines planetary limits and yields diminishing returns for well-being, defenders invoke notions like โgreen growthโ or โdecoupling.โ These do not resolve the contradiction between perpetual expansion and ecological constraints. They mostly defer it, can act complementary but not on their own.
3๏ธโฃ Third, the contradiction is lived. Growth is justified as a pathway to social welfare, yet correlates with inequality, environmental breakdown, and mental distress. This is ideological auto-subversion: a system undermining the very goals it claims to serve.
4๏ธโฃ Fourth, the durability of growth ideology lies in its synch with institutional structures. From GDP to fiscal policy and capital markets, modern governance is calibrated to reward growth. This structural alignment makes alternatives seem not only radical but unworkable. Political imagination is pre-emptively narrowed.
5๏ธโฃ Finally, critiques of growth are often dismissed not just as misguided, but as dangerous. This rhetorical strategy - portraying alternatives as utopian or irresponsible - enacts what Bhaskar called โdenegation of absence.โ The problem is not the nonexistence of alternatives, but that they are rendered unthinkable and thereby excluded from the field of legitimate discourse.
In short, growth ideology exhibits all the hallmarks of a TINA formation: false necessity, ideological compromise, internal contradiction, institutional reinforcement, and the suppression of alternatives. Naming it as such is not merely critique - it reopens the space for moral and political imagination.
Paper: https://lnkd.in/dSavGHfy
20-07-2025



How Ideology Shapes the Way We Manage โ and How to Crack It
Yesterday I defined ideology as the way organizations (often implicitly) embody normative, epistemic, and action-guiding assumptions that appear natural, necessary, or without alternative - though in fact they are socially constructed, historically contingent, and open to change. The term neoliberalism captures one such framing: it fuses individual freedom, market competition, and performance orientation into a hegemonic logic.
It is powerful because it also operates beneath the surface - as common sense. Today we begin to unmask it, drawing on Jin Xue critical realist theory ( ๐ ). Her framework outlines six steps to understand and challenge how ideologies shape (and limit) institutional action and progress. We illustrate the first three steps using SAP as the case exemplifies a broader trap.
1๏ธโฃ Step 1: Identifying the Ideology
SAP operates within a performance-based, meritocratic logic. Its updated performance system (โSuccessFactors 2H 2024โ) promotes tighter calibration and individual accountability. At the same time, the firm is cutting up to 10,000 jobs to finance a new AI strategy and appease shareholders.
This framing rests on a specific ideology: that individual merit determines outcomes, growth ensures viability, and shareholder value is the primary goal. But it is also flawed. True meritocracy is impossible: performance is shaped by collaboration, and value also accrues to stakeholders. As Xue drawing on Zizek notes, ideology does not need to be coherent to be effective โ only plausible.
2๏ธโฃ Step 2: Uncovering Ideological Closure
When dissent arises - from employees or the public - SAP responds with TINA logic: โThere Is No Alternative.โ The global tech race, AI wave, and investor pressure make these choices seem inevitable.
Xue builds on Kleinโs insight: ideology absorbs contradictions. Discomfort is reframed as realism. Internal resistance becomes naivetรฉ. The effect is profound: collective agency is undermined, and the very possibility of alternatives is foreclosed.
3๏ธโฃ Step 3: Tracing (Re)production Mechanisms
Ideology persists not just through ideas, but through structures:
โ Executive bonuses tied to cost savings
โ Passive capital from founders sustaining the status quo
โ HR routines that reward individual over collective contributions
โ Limited forums for rethinking strategy or voice from below
SAPโs system stabilizes the frame. People act as if it were natural - because the system rewards conformity and punishes deviation. This is not about individual cynicism. It is structural reproduction.
This post ends with a provocation: if we want transformation, we must first face the contradictions - at least according to critical realism. In the next post, weโll explore Steps 4โ6: how to unlock imagination, generate alternatives, and initiate real change. Until then, where do you see the traces of ideology in your own organization?
19-07-2025



Why Ideologies Matter in Management
In both management studies and organizational practice, we often try to keep things โneutral.โ We speak of best practices, evidence-based strategies, or performance indicators as if they were free of values or politics. We rely on technical tools, managerial frameworks, or data-driven decisions often without questioning what lies behind them. But in doing so, we risk masking the political assumptions that shape how we organize and lead.
This is where ideology comes in. I understand ideologies as action-oriented configurations of political ideas. They help us make sense of the world by answering three questions:
1. What is the current order?
2. What would a good society or organization look like?
3. How do we get from here to there?
In that sense, ideologies are always descriptive, normative, and praxeologic. They do not just reflect ideas - they shape how we act. And crucially, every account of โorderโ also includes an account of power: who holds it, how it is justified, and for what purpose.
This is true in organizational life as much as in politics. Consider how the belief in meritocracy influences hiring, promotion, or evaluation systems. Or how market-based thinking shapes our assumptions about efficiency, value, and impact. These frameworks are not neutral - they are political ideas that carry implicit answers to what kind of organization we believe in and who it should serve.
When we ignore this, we do not escape ideology - we simply leave it unexamined. And when dominant ideologies present themselves as common sense or technical necessity, their influence becomes harder to question. As others have said: the most political act is often claiming something is not political at all.
For both scholars and practitioners, the challenge is not to step outside ideology, we canโt, but to become aware of the one we are part of. That includes understanding the ideas we rely on, the structures we reinforce, and the assumptions we carry forward. It also includes recognizing the possibility for change: ideologies are not fixed. They are shaped and reshaped through structures, practices, and our own thinking.
So instead of asking whether something is ideological, we might ask: What vision of order is being promoted here? Whose interests does it serve? And what alternatives are being made invisible?
Needless to say that this needs to become a fundamental part of management education and research.ย
16-07-2025



๐ THE BEAUTY OF SERVICE LEARNING
In an age of geopolitical rupture, cultural fragmentation, and open moral conflict, developing responsible global leaders is becoming more and more of a necessity. Yet most business schools still teach leadership as if the world were stable, predictable, and value-neutral. We tend to train sharp minds, but mostly neglect moral judgment, and we cultivate performance awareness, not ontological awareness; it optimizes within systems but rarely questions their foundations.
That is what makes Project Ulysses such an interesting project. Developed by PwCโs global talent development team, and studied in depth by Nicola Pless, PhD, Thomas Maak, and Gรผnter Stahl, it represents a rare fusion of leadership education and human development. Drawing on Kolbโs experiential learning theory and Mezirowโs transformative learning framework, Ulysses takes participants far beyond the classroom and directly into the moral and cultural complexity of real life.
Over eight weeks, senior PwC professionals live and work in developing countries, embedded in NGOs and community organizations. Their task is not to advise from a distance but to engage, learn, and contribute.
The learning architecture follows Kolbโs full cycle:
โ
Concrete Experience: direct engagement with social and environmental challenges in unfamiliar contexts
โ
Reflective Observation: journaling, dialogue, and storytelling to process cognitive, emotional and moral dissonance
โ
Abstract Conceptualization: connecting lived experience to broader ethical, cultural, and systemic insights
โ
Active Experimentation: translating new awareness into changed behaviorโin leadership and life
The program is supported by deep pedagogical scaffolding: conceptual teaching, peer feedback, coaching, mindfulness practices, and team and guided reflection. The result, as per this study ( ๐ ) seem to have led to true personal transformation.
โ
Participants reported moral growth and sharper ethical awareness
โ
They developed cultural humility and a bigger circle of moral concern
โ
They acquired a cognitive capacity that embraces ambiguity and contradiction
โ
Many underwent a re-evaluation of their values, purpose, and identity as leaders.
This is what Mezirow called a โperspective transformationโ- a shift in how one understands the world and oneself within it. And it cannot be achieved through cases or simulations alone.
This is the beauty of service learning: it has the potential to educate the whole person. It confronts leaders with the real, the relational, and the uncomfortable and thereby invites them to grow through it.
We clear need much more business school education like this. Not only frameworks, but also formation. Not only technical competence, but also moral courage. Not more "best practice" management, but leadership for an uncertain, interdependent world.
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.10.2.zqr237
15-07-2025



It feels like weโve re-entered an age of messianic leadership - a term Simon Western uses to describe our longing for haloed figures who not only claim to know the right path, but who also are claimed to embody moral virtue, inspire us, ignite our inner spark, and somehow make each of us feel special.
Not only do we seem to crave such superhumans (or are they now transhumans? ๐ ), we amplify their mythos in the echo chambers of social media. And yes, research offers clues about this urge: perhaps it stems from deep insecurity, a yearning for protection, or from the illusion that those who have โmade itโ- the wealthy, the admired - must somehow be the chosen ones. Who knows?
But when such charisma is fused with a redemptive narrative be it New Work, heroic entrepreneurship, teal, or some other โliberatingโ blueprint for turning organizations into (often) meritocratic dream-machines - our critical faculties often fall silent. Weโre seduced by the promise of success, freedom, and excellence, while neglecting the darker sides of these leaders and their business models.
Take Bill Anderson, for example - appointed CEO of Bayer in 2023, tasked with transforming a company burdened by the toxic legacy of Monsanto. Charismatic and fluent in the language of agile empowerment, Anderson has pushed for radical decentralization and cultural renewal. In his public messaging, he speaks of the need for โcourage to go places previously unexplored,โ encouraging employees to call out problems, take risks, and act with clarity.
And yet, behind this halo remains an agrochemical empire whose structural logics remain largely untouched. Under Anderson, Bayer continues its aggressive lobbying efforts by opposing stricter EU regulations on glyphosate, promoting deregulation of gene-editing technologies, and resisting calls for greater transparency in pesticide safety data. According to watchdogs such as Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl, Bayer remains one of Brusselsโ most influential corporate players, even as it publicly champions values like sustainability and integrity.
Thatโs precisely why we must look at the whole package. Not just the leaderโs words, but the business model. Not just the change narrative, but the systems that persist underneath. Is the transformation really tackling those issues which are clearly negative for the world? Are incentives changed and wealth better handled? Is there real change in the value chain? We must ask not only what inspires us, but whatโs obscured by that inspiration. We need more than dazzling success stories. We need courage, yes - but the kind that transforms structures, not just slogans. We need integrity, justice, and organizations that serve the common good - not just the โbetter womanโ who wins. Or not?ย
13-07-2025



MEANING GOOD DOES NOT MEAN GOOD
Why Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is often bound to fail.
Capitalism doesnโt run smoothly. Rather it runs on contradiction. Exploitation and inequality. Ecological overshoot. Declining trust in institutions. These ruptures threaten the systemโs legitimacy and its survival. But instead of forcing transformation, CSR helps seal the cracks.
As Schneider (2020) argues, CSR plays a systemic role: it stabilizes capitalism by managing its contradictions, not resolving them. It integrates critique into business-as-usual, preventing rupture while keeping the logic of accumulation intact.
๐น 1. Market Deepening (Economic Contradiction)
To stay competitive, firms rely on low-cost global supply chains. Yet pressure mounts for fair wages, safe conditions, and sustainability. CSR answers with supplier codes, audits, certifications. But who pays? Typically, not the lead firm. The costs are pushed upstream to small suppliers, workers, NGOs. In effect, CSR deepens commodification by pulling new actors and relationships into capitalist circuits under the guise of responsibility without altering how value or risk is shared.
๐น 2. Symbolic Expansion (Moral Contradiction)
Capitalism lacks an inherent moral language, yet firms must justify themselves. CSR fills the void but only in managerial terms: KPIs, ESG scores, dashboards. Moral complexity is flattened into metrics. Reflection becomes a reporting duty. Audit culture and functional stupidity abound, This symbolic expansion allows the system to absorb dissent by translating it into audit categories. Ethics is no longer about asking whether growth should be questioned rather itโs about proving itโs โsustainable.โ
๐น 3. Political Legitimation (Political Contradiction)
Structural harm calls for systemic reform. But CSR offers an alternative: stakeholder dialogues, sustainability reports, voluntary pledges. These deflect demands for binding regulation. Instead of democratizing power or redistributing wealth, CSR legitimizes corporate autonomy. It offers credibility without transformation by ensuring the system can reproduce itself politically through narratives of care, not constraints on capital.
Schneiderโs conclusion is sobering: CSR doesn't fail because it falls shortโit fails because it functions exactly as the system needs it to. It helps capitalism adapt, not evolve. It reframes harm as strategy, dissent as engagement, and responsibility as brand.
๐ And yes, newer forms like B Corps risk the same trap. Even with better intentions, they often moralize without politicizing, individualize systemic issues, and uphold voluntarism over regulation. The pathologies might repeat unless the system truly changes.
Why must care, sustainability, and ethics always pass through the market?
๐ Link to article:ย https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0007650319856616
12-07-2025



MORAL DISENGAGEMENT IS NOT NORMALLY DISTRIBUTEDโNOR NORMAL
A colleague recently claimed that since most people are decent, we donโt really need to worry about morality or responsibility in organizations. Just hire smart, competent peopleโand everything else will take care of itself.
I beg to differโloudly.
Research on moral disengagement tells a more troubling story. Moral disengagement refers to the mental maneuvers we use to act against our values without feeling guilt - like euphemistic labeling (โjust businessโ), diffusing responsibility (โjust following ordersโ), or dehumanizing others (โthey brought it on themselvesโ). Yes, some individuals are more predisposed, for instance those high on narcissism, psychopathy, or Machiavellianism. But these are indeed the exception, not the rule.
The real danger lies elsewhere: organizations themselves can systematically produce moral disengagement.
A major review by Newman et al. (see comment ๐ ) shows how performance pressure, rigid hierarchies, silencing climates, hypercompetitive structures, and workplace injustice donโt just enable unethical behavior but make it even feel reasonable. These settings deactivate peopleโs moral self-regulation. Even decent, well-meaning employees begin to rationalize harm and disengage from responsibility.
And this matters. We spend 85,000 hours of our lives inside organizations. If those environments are designed around targets, efficiency, and control, without moral safeguards, then weโre not just risking isolated misconduct. Weโre engineering moral apathy at scale.
So no (!) technical competence is not enough. It never was. The question isnโt just โcan people do the job?โ but โwhat kind of human being and humman community does the job turn them into?โ
Because organizations donโt just reflect our character. They form it.
04-07-2025



โจ Iโve long appreciated Prof. Dr. Ina A.โs work from her early research on trust to her later studies on sustainable HRM. But this paper, co-authored with Michael Muller-Camen and Brian Matthews, and building on the sustainability paradigm of Prof. em. Dr. Thomas Dyllick (emeritus professor at the University of St. Gallen), is the one Iโd most love to recommend to all of you who are reimagining the future of work.
๐ In โCommon Good HRM: A Paradigm Shift in Sustainable HRM?โ, the authors leave the narrow logic of instrumentalism behind. They ask a bold (and in my opinion) the right question:
What if HR didn't just serve the company but truly served society?
Drawing from Dyllick & Muffโs business sustainability typology, they outline four types of Sustainable HRM and introduce a new fourth type: Common Good HRM, which reframes HR as a lever for social, ecological, and human flourishing.
๐ A Quick Summary of Their Typology:
1๏ธโฃ Type 1: Socially Responsible HRM
โ Focused on diversity, well-being, and safety but mainly to reduce reputational or legal risks. This approach treats social responsibility as an add-on to the core business model, not something that reshapes it.
2๏ธโฃ Type 2: Green HRM
โ Promotes environmentally friendly behavior (e.g., green training, green bonuses), but framed as a business strategy. While it engages ecological issues, it still operates within a logic of cost savings, branding, or compliance.
3๏ธโฃ Type 3: Triple Bottom Line HRM
โ Aims to balance people, planet, and profit. Yet this often leads to unresolved tensions and trade-offs. It opens space for dialogue and innovation, but frequently defaults to economic priorities in moments of conflict.
4๏ธโฃ Type 4: Common Good HRM ๐
โ A true paradigm shift: HR becomes a vehicle for solving grand societal challenges like inequality, climate change, and precarious work. Here, the purpose of the firm is redefined. And HR creates conditions for human dignity, democracy, and sustainability.
๐ก What Common Good HRM Does Differently:
โ
Outside-in perspective: Begins with the needs of society, not just firm strategy.
โ
Human rights in supply chains: HR takes responsibility beyond company walls.
โ
Workplace democracy: Hiring, feedback, and compensation become shared responsibilities.
โ
Job creation as a purpose: Employment is not a cost but a value in itself.
One standout example: Sonnentor, an organic tea and spice company rooted in the Economy for the Common Good movement. Their HR approach includes hiring long-term unemployed and people with disabilities as a matter of principle, not charity. They deliberately avoid full automation, investing instead in manual, meaningful work that sustains local employment and human dignity.
๐งญ This is for all of you who truly want to go furtherโwho believe HR can be more than a function. It can be a practice of care, a force for justice, and a cornerstone of a future where humans, nature, and the economy flourish together.
๐ Link to article:ย https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482218303917
01-07-2025



ESG: AGGREGATE CONFUSION
The ESG world is in disarray. A company celebrated as a sustainability leader by one rater may be labelled a laggard by another. This isn't a rounding error, this seems to be a structural confusion. And the consequences are far-reaching: for investors, firms, researchers, and regulators alike.
A recent paper by my colleague Julian Kรถlbel, together with Florian Berg and Roberto Rigobon, reveals the depth of this problem with empirical precision and conceptual clarity. In Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings (Review of Finance, 2022), the authors examine ESG ratings from six major agencies - KLD, Sustainalytics, Moodyโs ESG, S&P Global, Refinitiv, and MSCI - and ask: Why do they disagree so much?
Their answer? Itโs not just noise. Itโs systemic.
THE PROBLEM
Correlations as compiled by other papers between overall ESG ratings range from 0.38 to 0.71 - far from reassuring. But it gets worse as their own analysis shows. At the category level, say, โclimate risk managementโ or โlabor practicesโ, correlations are often low, and sometimes even negative. That means one agency may rank a company high on, say, water management, while another gives it a low score on the exact same issue. This is not just divergenceโitโs contradiction.
THE DIAGNOSIS
The authors dissect this chaos into three drivers:
๐ถ Scope divergence (38%): agencies include different ESG issues.
๐ถ Measurement divergence (56%): even when they look at the same issue, they assess it differently.
๐ถ Weight divergence (6%): agencies prioritize issues differently.
The real "villain" here is measurement, i.e. the โhowโ of ESG, not just the โwhatโ or โwhyโ. Adding to the concern is a documented rater effect (15% of variation): agencies tend to rate firms consistently high or low across categories, suggesting subjective bias or organizational blind spots.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Such divergence weakens incentives for firms to improve, muddles investor decision-making, and undermines the legitimacy of ESG as a signal. It also limits our ability to link ESG to firm value, performance, or ethical behavior in academic research or policy frameworks.
THE WAY FORWARD
Berg, Kรถlbel, and Rigobon do not argue against ESG ratings per se. Rather, they emphasize the urgent need for:
๐ถ Harmonized disclosure standards (like those under the CSRD),
๐ถ A clear EU-wide taxonomy of ESG categories,
๐ถ And greater transparency in how ESG data is generated and interpreted.
THE TAKEAWAY
If ESG is to live up to its promise, we need more than good intentions. We need clarity, consistency, and credibility. Otherwise, we create a system where opacity rewards those least committed to change.
๐ Full (open access) article here: https://lnkd.in/df38A34j
29-06-2025



What would happen if we understood security not only as freedom from fear, but as a moral maturation environment?
๐ In the tradition of Lawrence Kohlberg, this is exactly what has been researched โ under the term "Socio-Moral Climate" (SMC).
In an empirical study, Pircher, Verdorfer, Weber, Unterrainer & Seyr (2012) show:
Organizational democracy fosters a climate in which people feel not only safe, but also morally taken seriously, included, and called to account.
What characterizes such a climate?
1. Open confrontation with conflicts
2. Diversity of perspectives is recognised and discussed
3. Taking responsibility and care are encouraged
4. Participation in decision-making processes
5. Mutual respect and appreciation
Why is this important?
Because a socio-moral climate not only strengthens the thinking capacity, but also promotes the moral development of employees โ and thus also the democratic resilience and ability to cooperate in the company.
And this is where Responsible Leadership comes into play:
Responsible leadership does not only mean making ethical decisions โ but also creating ethical spaces. Spaces in which conflicts are not avoided, but thought through together. In which people are allowed to learn to be responsible instead of just "performing". (See also https://lnkd.in/d47BUwSC)
Leadership then does not mean control, but:
๐งญ create the conditions for moral maturation
๐ค exemplify dialogical practices
๐ช see themselves as fellow learners
But: SMC is not a soft skill โ it is a systemic construct! If you want to promote such a climate, you also have to rethink cooperation:
๐ธ Enable participation in decision-making
๐ธ Do not dampen conflicts, but work through dialogue
๐ธ Valuing different points of view
๐ธ Creating spaces where responsibility is shared
๐ธ Understanding leadership as an enabler of moral development
Final Thought:
Psychological Safety is a start. But in a time of multiple crises, organizations need more than that. We need to take responsibility, the ability to be democratic, and the will to shape things together. This is exactly what promotes a socio-moral climate โ if we take it courageously and systemically seriously.
๐ Source: Pircher Verdorfer, A., Weber, W. G., Unterrainer, C., & Seyr, S. (2012). The relationship between organizational democracy and socio-moral climate: Exploring effects of the ethical context in organizations. Economic and Industrial Democracy
27-06-2025



In my last post, I explored Dirk Mattenโs idea that fascism isnโt just a political regime but that itโs a managerial ideology: one that promises to solve social problems through control, order, and depoliticised administration.
But these ideologies donโt emerge in a vacuum.
To understand where they flourish today, we might want to turn back to a paper that examined the so called Californian Ideology - a cultural fusion of three unlikely figures: the hippie, the nerd, and the libertarian.
In the 1990s, Barbrook and Cameron (https://lnkd.in/d2XcH4nd) showed how Silicon Valley combined countercultural dreams, hacker ethos, and free-market zeal to produce a seductive narrative: technology would liberate us but of course only if the state stayed out of the way.
At first, it had utopian qualities. An electronic agora. Radical decentralization. Liberation through connectivity.
But underneath, the contradictions ran deep.
โ The hippie brought dreams of freedom but soon swapped collective struggle for lifestyle individualism and egocentric yoga optimisation.
โ๏ธ The nerd brought curiosity and code but ended up building monopolies and surveillance empires.
๐ฝ The libertarian brought suspicion of authority yet sanctified the market as a new form of domination.
Together, they built an ideology that promised individual empowerment, while ignoring the systemic exclusions on which that freedom depended: racialised labor, digital redlining, and public infrastructure built through collective sacrifice.
As inequalities deepened, the ideology had no answers. It had already deleted the concept of society.
And here - already in the 80ies enter the โangry white male.โ As Barbrook and Cameron foresaw, this culture slid easily into reactionary politics. Tech elites sided with Gingrich, celebrated deregulation, and distanced themselves from โundeservingโ populations. Libertarian dreams gave way to gated platforms, encrypted currencies, and post-human fantasies of transcendence.
The result? A techno-culture that preaches liberation while managing populations, enforcing fragmentation, and calling it โinnovation.โ This is where Mattenโs fascist managerialism finds its first life. When contradiction is surveilled and manipulated rather than addressed, when freedom is reserved for the few, when code replaces law and efficiency trumps justice. We donโt get a revolution. We get a digitised restoration.
And its prophets still think theyโre rebels.
But the funny thing is that the authors put their hope in Europe - as the place with a social democracy, with a democratic culture, with an understanding of egalitรฉ and fraternitรฉ and not only liberty. Will Europe finally accept the call and step into the "Schlamassel" - speak up, stay with at least some solidarity? Or will we have these tech bros letting to take over?
26-06-2025



What if fascism isnโt just a relic of history but a live ideology re-emerging in todayโs management culture?
In a provocative new paper (https://lnkd.in/dtEas_Uv) Dirk Matten argues that while todayโs tech elites arenโt overt fascists, their style of leadership, treatment of stakeholders, and view of the future eerily echo fascist ideology: strongman authority, glorified purpose, contempt for democratic messiness, and the fusion of power with moral destiny.
This isnโt just about bad people. Itโs about the ideological structure of management itself.
For much of the 20th century, corporate governance was shaped by liberal-democratic idealsโbalance, professionalism, stakeholder negotiation. But Matten shows that these ideals have eroded. Late-stage neoliberalism didnโt just replace democracy with markets and it made way for a new logic: visionary founders as sovereigns, answerable only to their mission.
๐นElon Musk: โWhen I ask for something, you fucking give it to me.โ Authority becomes destiny.
๐นPeter Thiel: โCompetition is for losers.โ Stakeholders become means to an end.
๐นMark Zuckerberg: Society, he says, is โneuteredโโwe need more masculine energy.
๐นMarc Andreessen: โEverything good is downstream of growth.โ Tech becomes moral compass.
Mattenโs argument is clear: these companies donโt just shape the economy. They embody and spread a new moral order, one that romanticizes hierarchy, suppresses pluralism, and rebrands domination as innovation.
And this is not a sideshow; itโs mainstream. In VC circles, TED stages, and founder cults, we see a management style that is charismatic, anti-political, and aggressively utilitarian. When power wears a hoodie and calls itself โdisruption,โ it becomes harder and not easier to question.
๐งญ Still, Mattenโs critique isnโt flawless. It doesnโt fully address the contradictions within progressive liberalism or the ways other management ideologies contribute to the current moment. The risk: overplaying one dark pattern while underexamining others.
But his core question remains essential:
If management always embodies ideology - then whose ideology is winning?
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034515
25-06-2025



In his provocative and well-argued paper Fascism as a Management Philosophy, Dirk Matten makes a daring claim: fascism is not just a political danger of the past: it is resurfacing today through corporate leadership, especially in Silicon Valley. Drawing on Robert Paxtonโs five-stage model of fascist movements, Matten argues that corporations today exhibit several defining features of fascism in their organizational and moral logic. The central thesis is not that companies are becoming fascist regimes in the classical sense, but that they increasingly mirror fascismโs philosophical core: the glorification of strongmen leaders, the instrumentalization of people for mission, the rejection of pluralism, and a faith in technology and destiny over democratic deliberation. What emerges is not just a critique of individual CEOs or practices, but a powerful narrative of how contemporary capitalism may be incubating forms of authoritarian moral order. This is a sober reflection on how corporate ideology is shifting from pluralist ethics to technocratic power.
Matten illustrates this by identifying four domains in which fascist logic has crept into management:
1๏ธโฃ Leadership Styles: Fascist leadership thrives on personal charisma, central authority, and the silencing of dissent. Elon Musk has cultivated exactly such a persona. He has called himself a โnano-manager,โ fired employees for questioning him, and famously tweeted: โWhen I ask for something, you fucking give it to me.โ
2๏ธโฃ Stakeholder Relations: In fascist logic, people exist to serve the mission. Peter Thiel expresses this instrumental view bluntly: โCompetition is for losersโฆ monopoly is the condition of every successful business.โ
3๏ธโฃ Patriarchy and Disdain for Minorities: The rejection of pluralism also manifests in gender and race dynamics. Mark Zuckerberg once claimed:
โSociety has become neuteredโฆ we have embraced feminine energy too much.โ
4๏ธโฃ Mystification of Technocapitalism: Where fascism mystified the nation or race, todayโs technocapitalism mystifies the company. Marc Andreessenโs Techno-Optimist Manifesto declares:
โWe believe everything good is downstream of growth.โ The corporation becomes a sovereign actor, animated by destiny, not bound by democratic oversight.
One word of Caution: Mattenโs paper is a powerful and convincing critique of authoritarian drift in Silicon Valley. Yet, in highlighting the shadows of management, it sometimes flattens the landscape overlooking the pluralism within other leadership philosophies and avoiding a deeper critique of progressive liberalismโs own blind spots. Still, it is a timely and necessary provocation- one that forces us to ask not just where leadership is going, but what moral orders we are building along the way.
Link to article:ย https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5203477
24-06-2025



In an open letter in the Guardian, 31 Nobel laureates and hundreds of intellectuals warn of the return of fascism. Her words are clear:
"The threat of fascism is back โ and it is growing on the fringes as well as in the centers of world politics. Silence is no longer an option."
It is a rare but necessary moment: people whose authority is based on knowledge use their voice โ not for reputation cultivation, but for public responsibility! (see here: https://lnkd.in/dHgU4KV5)
France stands for the tradition of the intellectuel engagรฉ โ the morally speaking individual who takes sides on principle. With J'Accuse, รmile Zola opposed anti-Semitic state arbitrariness in the name of universal justice. Simone de Beauvoir publicly fought for equal rights and against patriarchal structures with language that defended human rights, not relativized them.
In the USA, a different tradition was formed: resistant pragmatism. Cornel West speaks from an experience that is not abstract, but historically wounded โ he calls America's betrayal of its promises by its name. Judith Butler defends the dignity of vulnerable bodies against state control as a critical corrective to the liberal order (for the differences, which sometimes lead to misunderstandings, see below).
We are living in a time of moral tests: in Gaza, in Ukraine, in the election campaigns of Western democracies. What unites these moments is not only violence, but the supposedly ideological gutting of public language. Euphemisms replace analysis. PR replaces attitude.
But right now, intellectuals are needed โ not as experts, but as consciences. They have to name the cracks that produce systems. They must be allowed to be uncomfortable.
After all, we are not in a crisis of knowledge. We are in a crisis of courage.
What we need is not more content. But more conscience.
23-06-2025



We need the return of the intellectuel engagรฉ; and we need them now.
The French tradition of public intellectuals once held the powerful to account with unflinching moral clarity. Zolaโs JโACCUSE was not a tweet, no it was an act of moral risk. Sartre, de Beauvoir, Foucault, Bourdieu - these thinkers refused silence in the face of injustice, from colonial violence to state repression to neoliberal atomization. They didnโt sell frameworks. They stood firm, even when unpopular.
William James, across the Atlantic, offered a different but equally vital model: the pragmatist intellectual. He warned against โbignessโ, i.e. systems that flatten conscience, ideologies that smother experience, institutions that demand loyalty over truth. His heirs include thinkers like Cornel West, who names American imperialism and racism for what they are; Danielle Allen, who works to restore civic trust; Judith Butler, who defends the precarity of life against the rhetoric of control; and Martha Nussbaum, who brings emotional and ethical depth to public reasoning.
Today, when authoritarianism no longer hides, we see both traditions reawaken.
In moments of rupture - think of Trumpism, Gaza, Modiโs India, democratic erosion across Europe -hundreds of scholars and 31 Nobel laureates recently signed a joint letter in The Guardian warning that โthe threat of fascism is back.โ Among them: Timothy Snyder, Jason Stanley, Masha Gessen, Eric Maskin, Barry Marshall, Daron Acemoglu. These are not consultants or pundits; they are thinkers who name danger when others euphemize it. They remind us that intellectual life is not an academic exercise. It is a form of resistance.
And yet, in this urgent hour, the dominant platforms of business ideas remain silent. Thinkers50, the self-proclaimed โOscars of Management Thinking,โ is a prime example. It elevates voices that optimize organizations, not confront them. Its model rewards performance, clarity, and scalability, but not contradiction, dissent, or moral inquiry. While democracy burns, it celebrates โthought leadersโ who sell productivity hacks, culture decks, and agile mindsets. You will find no Timothy Snyder, no Masha Gessen, no รdouard Louis on their lists. Why? Because their ideas are not marketable. They are uncomfortable.
The problem isnโt that Thinkers50 and others promote mediocrity. Rather they promote compliance with power. It thrives on frameworks that assume neutrality in the face of structural injustice. It does not ask what kind of world we are managing as it simply tells us how to manage it better.
We are not in a crisis of intelligence. We are in a crisis of courage. Letโs stop mistaking visibility for virtue. Letโs demand more from our thinkers - because the stakes are no longer theoretical.
Link to article:ย https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/13/nobel-laureates-fascism
22-06-2025



Why does misinformation remain so dangerously effective even when disproven? Lewandowsky et al.โs review (๐deep dive) into the psychology of misinformation offers a chilling answer: humans prefer a false story over an incomplete truth. If a claim provides narrative closure - like weapons of mass destruction justifying war - its retraction often fails to change beliefs unless a more coherent replacement is offered. Corrections without alternatives leave cognitive voids. And when misinformation aligns with identity, emotion, or fear, it becomes even stickier, surviving in memory long after facts have been clarified.
To counter this, the authors identify four essential strategies:
โ replace myths with full alternative explanations;
โก inoculate audiences early against manipulation;
โข use credible, trusted sources; and
โฃ frame corrections without attacking worldviews.
Itโs not enough to โdebunk.โ Corrections must be better stories, ie. timely, human, and explanatory. Without this, the โcontinued influence effectโ dominates public reasoning and history repeats.
This morning, President Trump released a memo warning that Iran is โracing toward nuclear warheads.โ No fresh evidence was presented just recycled language. In contrast, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi reiterated this week that Iranโs programme remains under international safeguards, with no confirmed weaponisation. The juxtaposition is stark. A politically charged claim, dropped in the heat of a campaign. A scientific body, issuing a measured, evidence-based report. Two stories competing for narrative dominance. Not taking sides here just observing how the terrain is being shaped.
Weโve walked this path before. The Gulf of Tonkin โattackโ that justified Vietnam. The invented story of Kuwaiti babies taken from incubators before the Gulf War. The โsmoking gunโ of Saddamโs imaginary WMDs. Each episode, a turning point. Each driven by emotionally potent but factually fragile claims. Corrections came but far too late to prevent war.
Which raises urgent questions: How should the press respond when emotionally compelling misinformation surfaces again? What duty do other Western governments have when narrative asymmetries shape global sentiment? Can science-led institutions like the IAEA proactively communicate before political storytelling dominates the stage? And most importantly who will write the stronger, truer story first?
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034515
19-06-2025



โฆbut without it, everything gets harder.
That might sound like a commonplace after three days of deep dives into trust research but itโs the insight I take home with most conviction.
Two moments struck a particular chord.
First, our symposium on vulnerability. Andrea Piccaluga opened with examples of regenerative entrepreneurship: businesses that start from vulnerability - whether personal, social, or structural - and turn it into a site of innovation. Entrepreneurs who design solutions inspired by their own struggles or those of people they love. Companies that create dignified work for people whose lives began with fewer options.
But hereโs the catch: this kind of regeneration only becomes possible when we trust the vulnerable and when the vulnerable trust that their dignity will be honored. We need more of this kind of entrepreneurship. The world would be better for it.
Second, a set of insights on distrust. Itโs easy to talk about trust. Harder to really engage with how distrust unfolds and how it might be reversed. Several colleagues Frรฉdรฉrique Six and Tiziana Gaito showed that once distrust takes root, it operates in insidious ways: self-reinforcing, relationally corrosive.
And yet, it can be brought to the point where at least listening and talking becomes possible again, at least before it calcifies into protracted conflict. But it requires:
๐กtrusted third parties
๐กserious reflexivity
๐กhumility from those in power
๐กand often invisible backstage work long before official dialogue resumes.
All this made Trumpโs โdeal-makingโ approach to geopolitics look even more dangerously naive ๐.
So yes, trust research matters - a lot. But research alone wonโt cut it. We need to get our hands dirty in practice. Only then can trust insights become not just interesting, but transformative.
16-06-2025



Anne Tsuiโs landmark essay ๐ exposes a silent flaw in (business) research: the enduring belief that science can, and should, be โvalue-free.โ This ideal claims that scientists should pursue only epistemic values like objectivity and validity, keeping moral or political concerns out of their work.
But Tsui shows this is both unrealistic and harmful. In social science, epistemic values themselves are socially and politically shaped. What counts as a valid method, a relevant theory, or a publishable finding often reflects academic norms, career pressures, and journal tastes - not just scientific logic.
Crucially, Tsui highlights inductive risk: every research decision involves a risk of error, and errors have real-world consequences. Choosing to avoid one type of mistake over another (e.g., falsely claiming a CEO pay model works) isnโt neutral. Rather it reflects implicit social judgments.
This brings her to a paradox in business schools: while they claim to seek both rigor and relevance, they often reward neither. Research tends to serve academic prestige rather than social purpose. Peer review punishes novelty. Theory is fetishized over problem-solving. And flawed theories - like agency theory - get normalized despite evidence of harm.
Tsui calls for a shift: Responsible Science. She outlines four reforms:
1๏ธโฃ Choose problems worth solving, not just gaps in theory.
2๏ธโฃ Conduct research with both epistemic and social careโacknowledge risks and consequences.
3๏ธโฃ Publish for impact, not prestige.
4๏ธโฃ Reform peer review to make hidden values visible.
Her call is simple but radical: science must be both rigorous and responsible. Not neutral, but honest. Not insulated, but accountable.
โWe cannot afford to pursue rigor without relevance, nor knowledge without conscience.โ
My take? โNormal science,โ which runs smoothly when the system runs smoothly, reveals its fragility when that system is being abused. If I study trust but fail to show how trust can be manipulated, or if I write about psychological safety but never ask if it's just virtue-washing, then my research, and my thinking, becomes a slave to power. At minimum, we need more reflexivity. But ultimately, I believe science must serve the greater good. And sometimes, that means speaking not just with clarity, but with courage: truth to power.ย
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-08-2015-0101
12-06-2025



TRUST IS NOT NEUTRAL โ AND NEITHER IS TRUSTWORTHINESS
Iโve often heard: โEven the mafia has trust.โ So: should trust and above all trustworthiness be morally neutral? Is there really no difference between trusting Trump and trusting Mother Teresa?
Some of our most-used models seem to suggest that. Mayer, Davis & Schoormanโs influential framework defines perceived integrity as โthe perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles the trustor finds acceptable.โ In other words: if I think you follow principles I approve of, youโre trustworthy; regardless of what those principles actually are.
This reduces trust to value congruence and trustworthiness to alignment, not ethical quality. No reflection on whether those values are just, inclusive, or life-affirming.
Why does this persist? Maybe because it keeps trust research within the bounds of a liberal paradigm - one that avoids taking a stance on what counts as good or just. But that neutrality is not innocent. By avoiding substance, we legitimize systems that reward performance over principle, utility over virtue.
And there is a cost.
When trust is defined without ethical reflection, we risk flattening important distinctions. We may end up treating instrumental alignment as equivalent to moral integrity. This can obscure how trust functions differently in democratic institutions, exploitative regimes, or purpose-driven organizations. Over time, such minimal definitions make it harder to hold individuals and systems accountable to more than efficiency or loyalty.
But we have alternatives โ thinkers who anchor trustworthiness in moral depth:
๐น Annette Baier reminds us that trust is moral because it involves vulnerability โ and trustworthiness means responsibility toward the otherโs dependency.
๐นBernard Barber links trust to social roles and moral obligations, arguing that professions must act with integrity, not just competence.
๐นRobert Solomon sees trust as an emotional-moral commitment, grounded in authenticity, not mere calculation.
๐นOnora OโNeill insists that trustworthiness comes from honesty, competence, and respect for othersโ autonomy - a Kantian standard that binds.
๐นLuigino Bruni calls for a relational economy, where trust is rooted in reciprocity and gratuitousness, not strategic alignment.
These views donโt shy away from moral philosophy. They deepen our understandings about trust. They re-moralize it.
So let me ask: If we want a society worth trusting, shouldnโt we start by redefining what makes someone trustworthy? What would it take for trust to be not just useful but just?ย
10-06-2025



DEEP DIVE: teaching on poverty
Why is poverty still missing from business education? Itโs not just an oversight. Itโs an ethical failure.
Poverty is treated as a marginal topic in most business schools and if addressed at all, itโs buried under โCSR,โ โsustainability,โ or framed as a charity case.
But poverty is not peripheral to business. It is a systemic outcome of how global markets are structured, managed, and legitimized.
So why the silence?
Because confronting poverty means confronting uncomfortable truths:
๐คThat many business models depend on low-cost labor and regulatory arbitrage.
๐คThat shareholder primacy often rewards value extraction from the vulnerable.
๐คThat the global economy produces poverty, even as it claims to fight it.
This isnโt just a blind spot. Itโs a value choice. Weโve built a curriculum that can track consumer behavior to the millisecond but canโt explain why billions remain economically excluded.
๐ This post draws on an article by Mark Neal (2017), who argues that we must place poverty at the heart of management education; not as a moral add-on, but as a lens to understand business itself.
Hereโs how:
Teach business students to:
๐กAnalyze corporate involvement in povertyโas both creator and potential alleviator (e.g. FDI in Vietnam).
๐กDebate the ethics of microfinanceโis it empowerment or institutionalized debt?
๐กInterrogate the โBottom of the Pyramidโโare we meeting real needs or marketing dependency?
This isnโt about virtue signaling. Itโs about pedagogy and power. If we donโt teach students how business intersects with poverty, weโre graduating leaders unfit to govern in a world of inequality.
๐งญ Poverty is not a niche topic. Itโs the mirror business education avoids.
Time to look in. And it might save democracy too.
Link to article:ย https://www.jstor.org/stable/26400164
08-06-2025



Sunday Musings: Business Schools and Poverty
A colleague made me pause. She shared that for their Grand Challenges conference, a significant number of papers addressed environmental crises. Some explored the neglect of human rights in global value chains. But very few tackled poverty. And a quick search on google scholar revealed that this was true for our larger research on management science too.
Even fewer asked the hard question: how do corporations, especially large ones, exacerbate or alleviate poverty? Not only in less industrialized countries, but right here, in industrialized economies. How do corporate decisions widen inequality or build more inclusive job markets? How do they generate either extremely well-paid or precariously underpaid work? How do their hiring practices either open or close the door to workforce participation for people with fewer resources? And how does tax optimization - letโs call it what it is, legal avoidance - drain the very state budgets meant to reduce poverty?
Itโs a strange silence. Because how can we expect people struggling to pay rent or put food on the table to care about climate, AI ethics, or biodiversity loss if theyโre barely surviving?
And if business students never engage with the full picture, if they never learn how business decisions shape the economic conditions of the poor, how can they be expected to design the novel, systemic solutions we so badly need?
Of course, business schools are driven by rankings. And rankings have, in fairness, nudged us toward better environmental and sustainability metrics. But on poverty, they remain largely mute. And as usual we have not really taken the intiative from our side (McKinsey did not consult us to ๐.
Maybe itโs time to leave the ivory tower and take a hard look around. Even in our own countries, the numbers speak volumes:
๐กIn the UK, roughly 1 in 5 people (22%) live in relative poverty after housing costs.
๐กIn the EU, around 95.3 million people (21.6% of the population) were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2023.
๐กIn Switzerlandโone of the wealthiest countries on Earthโmore than 720,000 people (8.5%) live in income poverty, and over 13% are at risk of social exclusion.
These are not edge cases. This is the systemic underside of the economies we teach our students to manage.
Poverty isnโt someone elseโs problem. And itโs long past time we taught it that way.
07-06-2025



THE MORAL PSYCHOLOGY OF U.S. CONSERVATISMโAND ITS THEOLOGICAL ROOTS
I am still trying to make sense of how the current US executive can call themselves deeply religious and at the same time behave so mercyless towards those outside their (rather narrow) moral circle of concern. So: Why does todayโs U.S. right-wing moral discourse emphasize purity over justice, loyalty over care, rule-following over consequences?
A meta-analysis by Saroglou & Craninx (2021) offers clues.
Synthesizing dozens of studies, they show that religiosity is strongly associated with:
๐ Loyalty (group cohesion and allegiance)
๐ Authority (deference to tradition and hierarchy)
๐ Purity (avoidance of moral and social contamination)
And only weakly linked to:
๐ Care (sensitivity to suffering)
๐ Fairness (equity and justice)
Religious individuals also tend toward rule-based (deontological) morality, even when it leads to harm. โSpiritualโ individuals, by contrast, align more with fairness- and compassion-based ethics.
But of course this begs the questionof what kind of religion is being measured here? Though the paper treats religiosity as a general category, what it captures is likely the moral psychology of Protestantism, especially in its Calvinist-Puritan form in the U.S.
As Michael Walzer (via Charles Taylor) argues, Puritanism was born from a profound horror at disorder in both social (vagabonds, beggars) and personal (licentiousness, idleness) areas. Its remedy was a disciplined, self-governing elite: individuals whose visible conduct., i.e. steady work, self-restraint, moral rigor, signaled inner regeneration. The resulting order was not liberal democracy, but a covenantal hierarchy between the regenerate and the unregenerate. The former ruled themselves through moral discipline and mutual admonition; the latter were to be ruled coercively if needed. In this framework, purity functioned as a moral boundary, loyalty as a test of belonging, and authority as the expression of earned moral standing. Care and fairness were largely reserved for those within the elect community; echoing todayโs findings.
This makes the paper empirically insightful but ontologically and politically naรฏve. It treats โreligionโ as a monolith, failing to distinguish between divergent ethical traditions based on different religions, for instance Catholic social teaching, Jewish covenantal justice, Islamic mercy ethics, or Buddhist compassion.
Hence it seems that we might not need less religion in politics. But that we must ask: Which religion? Which morality? Which politics? And how do they interlink? At the very least we should ask this in research before we come to such rather sweeping "said-to-be" causalities.
Link to article:ย https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X20301834
06-06-2025



๐ What if the biggest problem with our politics isnโt partisanship but our imagination?
Charles Taylor taught us that every society lives within a social imaginary: not just a set of theories, but a felt understanding of how life fits together: who we are, what we owe one another, and what institutions are for. Itโs the cultural โbackground humโ that shapes both identity and institutional design.
For decades, that background has been one of neoliberalism: a social imaginary of the autonomous individual, free to choose, compete, and consume. It has shaped us from toe to head: from the language of self-optimization to the structure of our economies and governance. But it has also eroded social bonds, hollowed out institutions, and left many isolated and precarious. It rendered many societies prey to new authoritanism and populism - because of the (so) many loosing out*, no solidarity left and the fantasm of "it is all your own fault".
๐ In an interesting, Marcia Pally and Adrian Pabst offer an alternative: a social imaginary of the commons.
Rather than choosing between individualism or collectivism, they propose an ontology of โseparability-amid-situatedness.โ We are distinct, but never disconnected. Identity is not self-made, but co-constituted. It is formed in webs of care, place, infrastructure, and mutual recognition.
And just like the neoliberal imaginary shaped institutions built for competition and extraction, this relational imaginary could inform institutions designed for reciprocity, resilience, and repair.
๐ฑ But how do we get there? Here are their thoughts:
โAccounting for separability and situatedness together requires not an economic or legal codex but a process of reciprocal consideration, of seeing and seeing to the networks of relations and physical infrastructures that inform individual identity and broad-based opportunity.โ
And it starts with a politics of formation:
โThe task of politics is to ask: do societal arrangements cultivate among the citizenry, its leaders, and the next generation an understanding of our interdependent, reciprocal situation? Do institutionsโฆ provide the means for economic development, problem-solving, and decision-making based on the inter-dependence of those involved?โ
This is more than policy: itโs a transformation of what we value, how we educate, how we govern, and who we become.
*approximately half of the US have very low literary skills (read border to functional analphabetism according to a Gallup study), and according to LISEP around 25% are considered to be functionally unemployed which includes those who earn a wage which leaves them under the poverty line).
05-06-2025



WHEN HARMFUL JOBS PAY MOREโAND ATTRACT THE WRONG PEOPLE
New research (see in the comment Schneider and colleagues๐) challenges the idea that labor markets are morally neutral. It shows that industries like tobacco, gambling, or arms donโt just offer higher pay because the work is unpleasant. Rather they offer more because the jobs are morally tainted. Most people need extra money to justify doing them. But crucially, those who donโt need that justification, those with low moral aversion, are also the ones most likely to take the job.
The researchers test two key hypotheses:
๐ Immorality Premium โ immoral jobs pay more to compensate for moral discomfort.
๐ Moral Sorting โ people who care less about morality are more likely to accept these jobs.
They back this up with four studies:
๐งช Study 1: Swiss labor market data show that industries perceived as immoral systematically pay more, even after controlling for education, occupation, and firm size (see figure 1).
๐งช Study 2: In a lab experiment, participants accepted harmful tasks (e.g., misleading others) only when paid more. People with low moral sensitivity were significantly more likely to accept.
๐งช Study 3: Survey data showed a stark sorting effect, i.e. those with higher moral aversion avoid working for immoral firms and industries (see figure 9 - and zoom in as it is also interesting to see what students saw as immoral).
๐งช Study 4: An external validation confirmed that the โimmoralโ job used in the lab caused real harm and was judged as such by neutral observers.
The most disturbing insight: the people most willing to work in harmful sectors are the ones least likely to challenge them from the inside or to excercise prudence in difficult situations (think about the weapons industry for instance). Where we need moral courage, we find moral indifference.
This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: Immoral jobs pay more โ attract the least ethically sensitive โ repel those who care โ reinforce the culture of harm. Itโs not just about incentives. Itโs about whoโs left standing in the room when things go wrong.
What can we do?
๐ก Reward moral work. Roles in care, education, and responsible governance are undervalued but vital. Letโs recognize and reward them both financially and socially.
๐ก Tell better stories. Highlight those who say no to unethical work or exit harmful companies. Make moral refusal visible.
๐ก Renew the license to manage. Just as law and medicine require ethical certification, morally hazardous leadership roles should demand competence in ethics and responsibility (Otti Vogt).
We say leadership is about character. Time to design for it.
03-06-2025



When even "psychological safety" becomes an obligation to perform... THE SELF-REINFORCING SPIRAL OF NEOLIBERAL WORK
This is the silent paradox at the heart of modern work. In their article "Neoliberal Ideology in Work and Organizational Psychology", which is well worth reading, Bal & Dรณci (in the commentary ๐) show how neoliberal ideology permeates our organizations (and also research). Using political, social, and fantasy logics, they analyze how instrumentality, individualism, and competition have become unquestioned truths. Even scientific findings often serve to increase efficiency โ not to search for meaning.
But the real perfidious thing is that neoliberalism does not work through coercion, but through fantasies. Namely: to be free. Self-determined. Successful if you only give enough. Those who fail were simply not committed enough in this logic (see also the language of the CDU at the moment). And it is precisely because this feels liberating that it is so effective โ and so difficult to question.
This is where a self-reinforcing negative spiral begins: Organizations are based on the assumption that people are rational, self-reliant, and competitive. They create structures that generate exactly this beh * avior: self-optimization, peer competition, inner performance control. And it is precisely this behavior that seems to confirm the original theory.
The ideology thus proves itself. When the system fails, it does not look for the fault in itself โ but in the individual. The answer: resilience training, coaching, feedback loops:
๐ฆธ Exhaustion is reinterpreted โ as an "opportunity for growth".
๐ฆธ Criticism becomes performance.
๐ฆธ Resistance to service. And so psychological safety also becomes a product line.
Google case study:
The company is considered a pioneer in "psychological safety" โ at least since the internally acclaimed Project Aristotle, which identified psychological safety as a central factor for high-performance teams. A company that presents itself as a future laboratory for good work.
And at the same time?
At the end of 2022, Google introduced a new performance system that requires up to 6% of employees to be classified as "low performers" โ regardless of actual team performance. (CNBC, 12/22/2022) In addition: regular, quiet layoffs. Results-oriented. Calculated.
The episode?
You can speak openly โ but please with output.
You can feel safe โ as long as you deliver.
You can live purpose โ as long as you don't slow down.
And you can look forward to your own self-optimization including a "warm feeling".
But that's already the spiral. It does not drag itself out because it works โ but because it so elegantly translates its own failures into self-responsibility.
The phase-out begins there,
where we stop treating the individual โ
and begin to demystify systems.
02-06-2025



THE SELF-FULFILLING SPIRAL OF NEOLIBERAL WORK
Thatโs the silent paradox at the heart of modern work.
In their brilliant article ๐ , โNeoliberal Ideology in Work and Organizational Psychologyโ, Bal & Dรณci dissect how neoliberal logic has captured both workplace practice and the discipline meant to study it. Through the lens of political, social, and fantasmatic logics, they show how instrumentality, individualism, and competition have become the unquestioned truths of our time. Even Work and Organisational Psychology research often serves to fine-tune performance, not question purpose.
But the authors go deeper. They argue that neoliberalism does not just govern through structures or incentives - it works through fantasy. It seduces us with the idea that we are free agents, choosing our paths, responsible for our own outcomes. If we work hard enough, we will succeed. If we fail, we must not have tried hard enough. This fantasy persists even in the face of burnout, inequality, and disillusionment. It is precisely because it feels empowering that it becomes so hard to resist.
This is where I would argue the negative spiral begins. Neoliberal assumptions about human nature, namely that people are rational, self-interested, and motivated by competition, are embedded in organizational systems. These systems, in turn, shape how people behave: employees learn to self-optimize, to treat colleagues as competitors, to manage their own motivation as if it were a resource. These behaviors appear to confirm the original assumptions, making the ideology seem not only true, but natural.
Through the shared phantasy (and note how we here go beyond Theory Y/ McGregor and even beyond Ghoshal) when things go wrong, the system does not blame itself. Instead, it places responsibility on the individual, who is encouraged to be more resilient, more agile, more self-aware. Interventions focus on mindset, not on power. Critique becomes another performance tool. Even exhaustion is reframed as a growth opportunity.
๐ Every โsolutionโ (coaching, mindfulness, peer feedback) reinforces the belief that change lies within the individual.
๐ Even resistance becomes productized - sold as purpose or psychological safety.
๐ The system becomes both invisible and irresistible.
Insidious, isn't it? This is how ideology becomes structure, and structure becomes self. And all the while, the underlying promise- "that this is what freedom looks like" - remains intact. The spiral tightens not because it works, but because it is so good at explaining away its own failures. That is the genius of its design and the challenge of breaking free.
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108
28-05-2025



๐ Why Academic Freedom Matters โ From Humboldt to Weber
Academic freedom isnโt a luxury. Itโs the lifeblood of critical inquiry, societal progress, and democratic resilience. It began with Wilhelm von Humboldtโs vision in early 19th-century Prussia: a university should be a space where Lehre (teaching) and Forschung (research) are united in the pursuit of truth, free from political or economic interference. The university, in his eyes, should cultivate not just knowledge, but autonomous individuals.
Decades later, Max Weber sharpened this ideal: Scholars must speak inconvenient truths even if it costs them. In his famous lecture "Science as a Vocation" (1919), Weber called for integrity over ideology, responsibility over influence.
Today, this freedom is under pressure but defending academic freedom is not about privilege. Itโs about preserving the conditions that allow societies to reflect, innovate, and hold power to account.
With Harvard we stand (or fall)!
28-05-2025



๐ Why Academic Freedom Matters โ From Humboldt to Weber
Academic freedom isnโt a luxury. Itโs the lifeblood of critical inquiry, societal progress, and democratic resilience. It began with Wilhelm von Humboldtโs vision in early 19th-century Prussia: a university should be a space where Lehre (teaching) and Forschung (research) are united in the pursuit of truth, free from political or economic interference. The university, in his eyes, should cultivate not just knowledge, but autonomous individuals.
Decades later, Max Weber sharpened this ideal: Scholars must speak inconvenient truths even if it costs them. In his famous lecture "Science as a Vocation" (1919), Weber called for integrity over ideology, responsibility over influence.
Today, this freedom is under pressure but defending academic freedom is not about privilege. Itโs about preserving the conditions that allow societies to reflect, innovate, and hold power to account.
With Harvard we stand (or fall)!
26-05-2025



THEORY IS DEAD. LONG LIVE EXPERIMENTS?
The other day a colleague in economics told me: โWe donโt do theory anymore. Science today is about experiments.โ
It sounded innocuous. Evidence over ideology. Precision over speculation. What could be wrong? But I heard John Locke in the background. This is the punctual self Charles Taylor describes: a disembedded agent, disengaged from history or value, made legible only through behavior. In this view, science begins from sensation, avoids reflection, and reduces understanding to data. But when theory is abandoned, much more is lost than speculation.
What remains hidden?
โถ Orientation: Without theory, data lacks direction. Experiments tell us what works, but never whatโs right, whatโs human, or whatโs just. Policy designs based on โimpactโ often presuppose questionable values: utility, compliance, behavioral adjustability.
โถ The Subject: Lockeโs model of a self-regulating unit echoes in "randomized controlled trials" and behavioral economics (and also for much of psychology for that matter). But people arenโt programmable modules, they are also narrating, interpreting, embedded beings. What gets erased? Identity, contradiction, moral striving.
โถ Reflexivity: The social sciences are not like physics. As Giddens put it, they involve a double hermeneutic: we study beings who study themselves and adjust accordingly (which also "ruins" our findings). When we reframe humans as utility-maximizing or irrational nudgers, we donโt just describe we also always shape. Beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies. And management theories once meant as tools become norms that deform.
โถ Responsibility: Ghoshal warned us: a theory that assumes people are selfish, or even opportunistic, and mechanistically influenceable will create practices - and people - that make it so. Theory is never innocent. And abandoning it doesnโt avoid distortion. Rather it ensures it.
So no, sorry to say, theory is not dead! Itโs just gone underground. It has gone embedded in unexamined assumptions, power-laden categories, and silent norms. Without it, science cannot critique itself. It becomes technically sound (maybe) but morally blind.
๐ก A truly human science doesnโt just measure. It orients. It reflects. It engages. It remembers that the way we see the human affects the way we treat the human.
In a disoriented world, we donโt need fewer theories.
We need better ones. Your views?ย
25-05-2025



FROM EVALUATION TO ENCOUNTER: RETHINKING DIVERSITY THROUGH THE FUSION OF HORIZONS
Why does mutual understanding feel increasingly out of reach? As Robert Putnam once noted, we have moved from we to I, and often to division. One reason may lie in our confidence that we can assess others from a so-called view from nowhere. This is a stance that claims neutrality but typically reflects an unexamined moral horizon and thereby introduces our own prejudices without us becoming aware of it.
This becomes especially visible in how organizations approach diversity and inclusion. Diversity is often reduced to visible difference or statistical variety. Inclusion, in the traditional DEI view, becomes a question of integrating others into pre-established norms. Meanwhile, HR is tasked with โevaluatingโ people through standardized criteria - as if human beings were isolated, interchangeable inputs rather than selves situated in moral space, shaped by histories, frameworks, and aspirations.
Charles Taylor, drawing on Hans-Georg Gadamer, offers a deeper vision: the fusion of horizons. This is not mere tolerance of difference. It is the ethical encounter with another as a (moral) self, oriented by their own understanding of the good. It means entering into dialogue. The aim is not to erase difference, but to articulate our respective frameworks, to listen, and to allow ourselves to be morally stretched.
This is what genuine understanding demands: not just participation, but shared articulation of what matters. And this is what diversity truly offers: not just variety of attributes, but the presence of persons who orient toward different goods, each capable of enriching our collective understanding (but not necessarily so).
Such encounters, then, would not flatten difference - they would deepen it. And in doing so, they can reveal more about who we are, too.
So what if work became a place where dialogue, not data, shaped how we relate? What if our frameworks for diversity moved from formal rights to mutual recognition AND to risk being fully present to one another? What if inclusion meant co-creating a shared moral space, rather than fitting people into an existing one?
We might discover that such fusion of horizons would be deeply generative - enabling us to become better versions of ourselves (and finding better solutions together for the troubles ahead).
24-05-2025



Trust Isnโt a Checklist. Itโs a Moral Achievement!
For some reason, everyone seems to love the HBR trust triangle. And maybe even as more rigorous trust researchers we could eventually make peace with it.
Our own beloved three legged ABI model (Ability, Benevolence, Integrity) does capture something important: that trustworthiness is judged along multiple dimensions.
๐คAbility maps to competence and reason.
๐คBenevolence corresponds to care, even empathy.
๐คIntegrity suggests a kind of moral coherence, or at least consistency.
And we know: goodwill - the โBIโ part - carries the lionโs share. Competence might be enough for contracting. But not for vulnerability. The popular HBR triangle (Logic, Empathy, Authenticity) reinforces this in more digestible terms.
It works. But it flattens - personality indicators instead of self with commitment and depth. And this is where Aristotleโs triangle still outshines them all.
Unlike modern models, Aristotle doesnโt reduce trust to traits or checkboxes. His rhetor is not a triangle of functions but a vision of the human being as capable of moral growth and shared discernment. It consists of:
๐๏ธEthos is not just โbeing yourself.โ It is excellence. It is character, practical wisdom (phronฤsis), and goodwill (eunoia). It is integrity in the sense of being integrative, not simply โauthenticโ- even if โyourselfโ is, frankly, an asshole.
๐๏ธPathos is not just empathy. It is the capacity to arouse commitment to a higher good. To invoke solidarity, courage, or hope when needed most. Empathy may be part of it but itโs more than feeling with. Itโs moving toward.
๐๏ธLogos is not just logic. It is knowing and communicating the good. Not just what works - but what is just. It is the ability to speak from a horizon, not just from inside a system.
So what does this mean?
That we would come to trust a leader for their character, for their respect and moral clarity, for their understanding of the good- ethical and political - and for their ability to inspire shared movement toward it.
Not an easy feat. It takes time, formation, reflection. But wouldnโt it be something tohave leaders who donโt just demand our trust, but truly merit?
23-05-2025



On the Disappearanceโand Possible Returnโof the Common Good in the University
You might think this is the academic ideal: a community in universitas, striving together in dialogue, struggling in good faith toward the truth, and seeking a common good. A space where tensions refine our convictions, where disagreement carves new horizons.
And yet - think again.
Enter the performative university.
Here, what counts are audits and rankings, metrics and outputs. Time is money - so why wrestle too long with hard questions? In the age of procedural liberalism, we settle for a watered-down tolerance: to each their own good, because a common one feels too difficult to articulate.
Even truth is no longer shared labor. Instead, weโre caught in the old epistemological turf war: correlation-mongers versus hermeneuts, with little space for ontological depth. Our shared ontology is flat and so, increasingly, are our ambitions.
But reality may bite back.
In the age of AI, a renewed struggle for truth and the good may become not just desirable but essential. Without it, the university may dissolve into mere content provision, and our students may find themselves enrolling in McAI, taught by shallow generative models trained on noise and nonsense.
What we need now is a leap of faith: A belief that intelligent and well-hearted people can still orient toward a common good. And arecognition that productive tensions are not distractions but the groundwork of shared insight.
Because the alternative is not only uninspiring. It is, quite simply, untrue to what learning demands of us.
22-05-2025



Good Work?
For some reason, โgood workโ seems to be the new hype. That could be good news, but often, itโs not. A lot of initiatives popping up today havenโt spent much time thinking about what exactly they claim to be good. Is โgoodโ just the new โnewโ? A fresh spin on flexible work, remote options, with some coaching vouchers thrown in? Or is โgoodโ just โgood for businessโ i.e. being nice because it pays off, happy cows give more milk?
To explore that, Iโve brought together three radically different understandings of โgood work.โ But letโs start with the Yellow view - the neoliberal version -which, for now, seems to dominate. Here, โgoodโ means โmore good than bad,โ your typical utilitarian shortcut. In practice, it usually just means โgood for business.โ
Now I hear you say: But whatโs wrong with that? Isnโt it great that even the WEF is thinking about good work? And isnโt โa bit betterโ still better than nothing?
Well. Iโm not so sure. Or rather: no, not good at all!
First, this definition of โgoodโ offers a convenient way out. Change the mood, change the metrics. A new American president comes in and out go the DEI quotas (as done by some of the WEF signatories). Look at the KPIs: not ambitious, not structural, not transformative. No audits, no public scrutiny, no mechanisms for accountability. If โgoodโ is just a formula, you can always tinker with the bits and usually the bits that matter most to workers.
But thatโs only the beginning of the problem.
Look at their view on embeddedness. In this model, business alone defines whatโs good. No unions. No government. No public deliberation. Itโs the same old libertarian fantasy of the heroic free enterprise: deciding the rules and reaping the glory. And just like before, thatโs unlikely to lead to real change. Bad companies will still outperform the โgoodโ ones, because neither the state mandates nor unions enforce the shift. Being better is optional and often, it's only skin deep.
Not to mention the dubious assumptions that go unchallenged. Workers are still treated as factors, not persons; lone agents, not relational beings. And when things go wrong, the system is never questioned - itโs always the individual who needs fixing.
So next time you see another event or special issue on โgood work,โ do yourself a favour: read the language carefully.
๐ If they lead with โthe business case,โ steer clear.
๐ If the speakers are all from business schools and corporations, steer clear.
๐ If they treat โgoodโ as self-evident, steer clear.
Instead, go where youโll be challenged by unions, philosophers, critical scholars. Go where the ideas are too complex, the practices too ambitious, the discomfort too real. Where โnext practicesโ matter more than โbest practices.โ
Because only then will you start facing the real tensions.
And maybe, just maybe begin doing good work.
21-05-2025



HRWorld Summit for Good โ Here We Come!
Weโre hugely looking forward to connecting and co-creating with many wise and eager HR leaders who are ready to reimagine the future of work.
At last yearโs Summit, we introduced our HR Flourishing Manifesto. This year, weโre excited to share ARC โ our transformation theory for organizations ready to move beyond survival mode.
ARC maps the path from a relentless, competition-driven, performance-obsessed systemโฆtoward businesses that enable common prosperity and unleash the generative potential of people and institutions.
If youโre wondering whether this is a session for you (weโre pretty sure it is), here are a few nuggets to ponder:
๐ Has your CEO recently declared a return to โmeritocracyโ โ while sidelining HRโs efforts to strictly promote only i also maturity, integrity, and character fit - beyond pure sales performance?
๐ Has your company rebranded from employee satisfaction to employee excellence โ convinced that excellence can be captured in a single KPI?
๐ Have you sat through conferences proclaiming โNew Work is dead, Good Work is the new black,โ while still preaching that "happy cows give more milk"?
Then you might be working in what we call a yellow organization: one that grants more autonomy, but ultimately still worships at the altar of growth and profit. A place where even HR reinvention depends on whether the political winds in Washington shift.
If youโre tired of that, if you believe there are better ways to work and live and if
ou believe organizations can help people grow into their best selves while solving real, urgent problems:
โฆthen join us.
Help us.
Push the system toward flourishing โ not just better performance management.
20-05-2025



The Persistent Myth of Meritocracy
โNot class or birth, but merit.โ
A powerful idealโonly we never quite got there.
In the postwar decades, especially the 1960s, we made some progress in reducing the bad luck of birth. But since then, social mobility has stagnated. Itโs still immensely harder to get into top universities if you come from a working-class background - and thatโs just the beginning. Despite all the talk of objective metrics and fair performance management, modern organizations often amplify unequal starting conditions rather than correct them.
Zoom out to the global stage, and what grows isnโt meritocracy but brogligarchy: networks of privilege, wealth, and selective gatekeeping. Success is still more tied to your golf handicap or bank balance than to talent or effort.
Michael Young foresaw all this. His 1958 satire The Rise of the Meritocracy imagined a future where the ruling class believed they truly deserved their power because they had โearnedโ it. The result was not fairness, but a new kind of tyranny: smug, closed, and self-justifying.
Instead of defending a broken ideal, maybe itโs time to shift the goal.
Not just equal opportunity to compete, but equal freedom to contribute.
Not meritocracy - but contributive justice. And rewards go to those who contribute to society at large.
Letโs redesign systems so everyone can shape, build, and belong.
Link to article:ย https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
18-05-2025



๐ก Why You Should Care About Theory
As a girl, I loved books. As a scholar, I still do. But whether in academia or in business, Iโve often been told: โGet a grip. Go do something. Be practical.โ
And I get it. We live in a world obsessed with evidence, action, outcomes. So when you offer theory be it concepts, frameworks, or structured thought youโre often met with skepticism. Even in academia, the pressure to produce โdataโ often outweighs the encouragement to think.
Some try to bridge the gap by becoming โpracademicsโ (as Julian Kirchherr puts it). And yes, I absolutely believe in engaged scholarship, ie in framing problems with practitioners, staying close to the tensions of real life.
But I also believe this: practice has a theory deficit.
And I wish weโd say it more often. We talk a lot about bias, but rarely about theoretical bias. Most people operate from implicit theories theyโve never made conscious; about human nature, power, value, success, responsibility. And without theory, we rarely challenge those assumptions. We just act them out.
So maybe itโs time we turned the tables. Instead of always telling scholars to โget practical,โ maybe we should ask practice to โget reflective.โ Start theorizing.
This is where the typology by Alvesson and Sandberg is so useful. It shows that good theory isnโt just abstract: it explains, helps us comprehend, reorders, reveals hidden processes, and sometimes provokes us to think in entirely new ways.
A good theory can:
๐ Help us see the lens through which we interpret the world (and how distorted it may be).
๐ Group things together we never thought belonged.
๐ Reveal why we keep reliving โGroundhog Dayโ at work.
๐ Or make visible what weโve trained ourselves not to see.
Theory, in this sense, isnโt the opposite of action.
Itโs what makes meaningful action possible. So next time someone retreats into data or leans too hard into โjust do itโ logic, I might be tempted to say:
Get a grip. Start theorizing!
The world needs more reflection, not less.
16-05-2025



Can you have your chocolate and eat it?
Turns out, Big Tech can.
Over the past decade, tech giants like Google and Meta didnโt just get our data; no they colonized it. They collected it under the sweet promise of connection, traded it like candy across thousands of companies, and now use it to predict, manipulate, and monetize our every click.
The results?
โข $600 billion in ad revenue.
โข Political influence through microtargeted persuasion.
โข Monopoly rents from network effects.
โข And a rising bromarchyโa tightly knit elite of data barons who know us better than we know ourselves.
Just 5% of users have their data shared with over 2,800 companies. Four website visits are enough to re-identify 95% of us. And 81% of Americans are worried but at the sane time stuck.
Data is the new oil, yes. But unlike oil, you are the well.
The question is: when will we stop letting them?ย
15-05-2025



Can a Company Be a Good Employer If It Undermines the Common Good?
We are quick to praise companies for their internal reforms: de-bossing, self-management, psychological safety. We applaud progressive HR policies, leadership humility, the dismantling of hierarchy.
And yet, something crucial is often left unexamined.
A company is not just a workplace. It is a node in a web of relationships - ecological, economic, political. What it does to the world matters as much as what it does for its employees. And these things are not separable. Because we grow into the work we do. We become who we are, individually and collectively, through our labor and its consequences.
This question came alive for me as I studied the seed industry.
Bayer, widely admired in some business circles for its organizational culture, acquired Monsanto in 2018. Monsanto is known for:
๐ฑaggressively patenting seeds and suing farmers whose crops were accidentally contaminated,
๐ฑpushing genetically modified monocultures that threaten biodiversity and food sovereignty,
๐ฑghostwriting scientific articles and suppressing evidence about the risks of glyphosate.
This is not ancient history. These practices have shaped agricultural systems, legal frameworks, and public discourse in profound ways.
So the question persists: Can a company foster โgood workโ while producing bad outcomes?
Is it ethical to be a โliberatedโ worker inside a system that concentrates power, silences dissent, and undermines planetary well-being?
Too often, we separate internal excellence from external ethics. But governance is not just internal. Culture is not just about values: itโs about character. A place that treats its people well while harming the commons teaches complicity, not character.
As scholars, practitioners, and citizens, we must stop admiring surface-level innovation when it masks systemic harm. We must resist the seduction of workplace โrevolutionsโ that ignore relational and ecological realities.
Because integrity is not a vibe. Itโs a total pattern.
13-05-2025



Don't go orange - ugliness will not pay!
For those abandoning DEI initiatives in the wake of Trump's election, the data should make you think twice.
After my previous ethical appeals fell on deaf ears, perhaps the financial impact will finally get your attention. This isn't just about doing what's right anymore; it's about your bottom line.
The evidence is methodologically robust. Ronda et al. (2021) employed an adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis (ACBC), not the usual wishlist studies that merely rank preferences. This method mirrors actual decision-making processes where candidates first eliminate unacceptable options before making trade-offs among remaining choices.
Their findings are striking: Corporate Social Responsibility emerges as the second most important non-negotiable attribute (31%), surpassed only by salary (44%). This isn't just a preference โ it's a screening mechanism that removes your company from consideration for nearly one-third of candidates before they even evaluate your other offerings.
Even more compelling, Kanwal & Van Hoye's (2023) longitudinal study demonstrates the critical importance of consistency between stated values and actual practices. Their hierarchical regression analyses reveal that Consistency has the strongest impact on employer attractiveness (ฮฒ = 0.57), organizational identification (ฮฒ = 0.32), and employee ambassadorship (ฮฒ = 0.47) โ far outweighing other factors.
Two critical warnings for companies "going orange":
๐ If you abandon your DEI commitments, you will lose out on a significant talent pool: 31% of candidates will immediately filter you out based on your ethics and CSR positioning.
๐Even worse, if you show you were just virtue washing, nobody will stand up for you any longer; the longitudinal data clearly demonstrates that inconsistency destroys employee loyalty and advocacy.
The political climate may have shifted, but talent expectations haven't. The methodologically sound research demonstrates that candidates apply non-compensatory decision rules when evaluating employers' moral stances. Companies hastily dropping DEI initiatives are sending a clear signal about their values PLUS and the research shows candidates are making consequential decisions accordingly.
Going "orange" isn't just ethically questionable; it's a demonstrable disaster for your talent pipeline and will cost you real Dollars or Euros.
10-05-2025



No Performance, No Merit, No Justice!
It's a familiar pattern: a company publicly proclaims a return to meritocracy and so-called meritocracy, but fails to recognize the necessary foundations. All that usually remains are facades, a staging of performance orientation without substance.
SAP provides a particularly clear example.
Some time ago, the company declared that it wanted to distance itself from the zeitgeist surrounding โNew Workโ. No more too much freedom, too much ease, now performance should count again. After some wrangling with the works council, SAP introduced a new evaluation system, a school grading system for adults.
It is obvious that the company's management has established one thing above all with this reform: its own self-image. Those who are already at the top see themselves as a benchmark, a role model, a model of success, a superstar. Everyone else has to adapt or fall behind.
In the process, we lose sight of what large organizations do so reliably: the reproduction of structural inequalities. Systematic distortions, implicit biases, the Golem effect, network effects and career logics that determine who is visible and who is not do not create a meritocracy. Such mechanisms cannot be corrected with evaluation tables, they can only be reinforced.
In this context, a second SAP decision is particularly significant, namely the extensive withdrawal of binding targets in the areas of diversity, equality and inclusion. Under pressure from political developments in the USA, key terms were removed from the official reports. There is hardly any mention of concrete targets for diversity. Inclusion is thus declared a risk instead of a prerequisite for fair performance.
Both developments, the simplified evaluation system and the withdrawal from DEI responsibility, show that SAP not only misses the idea of a genuine meritocracy. It misses the principle of merit even more fundamentally.
Because merit, in the original Aristotelian sense, means that people assume responsibility where they contribute to the common good with attitude, performance and character. Leadership is only deserved by those who not only have specialist knowledge, but also the power of judgment, moral integrity and the ability to act wisely and courageously in difficult situations.
This would have meant not simply bowing to political pressure, but looking for smarter ways, ways that do not come at the expense of credibility and justice.
If SAP took this understanding of merit seriously, it would not have introduced such a form of evaluation, nor would it have lost sight of diversity and inclusion. Because one thing is clear: only those who deserve responsibility should be at the top - not just those who claim power!
08-05-2025



No Merits, No Deservedness!
Here we are again. The usual pattern unfolds. A company proclaims its return to meritocracy, only to cave at the first sign of real-world power dynamics. Whatโs left isnโt principle but itโs performance optics.
Letโs take SAP. Some time ago, SAP proudly declared the end of the โNew Workโ era. Enough with all the fun and flexibility. Time to focus on performance and - finally - merit ๐ . After some haggling with the worker council, they introduced their newly rediscovered tool: grading. Employees are now sorted into neat categories, into overachievers, achievers, underachievers all written straight into their records.
Of course, those sitting at the helm already knew the outcome. They were the apex, the glory, the heroes. Or in today's terms: the superstars. Everyone else? Follow suit, or stay where you belong.
In this all-too-familiar tale of hubris, one thing gets forgotten: Large organizations are exceptionally good at producing inequalities. Not always maliciously - sometimes through bias, sometimes through the Golem effect, often through network closures and design choices that subtly shape who shines and who stagnates. None of this is fixed by slapping grades onto people.
Then enters Trump, and the verdict comes swiftly. Letโs quietly rid ourselves of DEI. No more binding goals. Too risky. Possibly un-American. And letโs pretend that inclusion was a problem for meritocracy all along. Systemic injustice? Not visible from the top floor anyhow.
But here's whatโs most telling: By walking away from DEI and reducing performance to school-style grading, SAP fails not only on merit but even more so on desert.
Desert is that ancient principle from Aristotle: that people should hold positions they are fit for. So that each can develop their potential, for the common good. Itโs not about being clever or efficient. Itโs about being morally formed. A leader, in this view, must not only know, they must judge wisely and act courageously.
That includes the courage to resist pressure from a big orange head across the Atlantic. And the practical wisdom to find better responses than cowardly giving in.
The truth is: if SAP truly honored desert, it would have done neither. No grading. No DEI rollback.
As one thing is clear: No desert, no superstar, no justice!
07-05-2025



Driver's License for Leadership
Driver's license for leadership? Or finally a real professional license?ย But what does that mean in concrete terms?
First of all, it's not about a driver's license in the technical sense, but about a professional license that needs to be renewed regularly - linked to knowledge, ethical obligation and responsibility. More importantly, this license would have to be backed by a genuine professional association.
Because if we take leadership seriously as a profession, it needs the appropriate characteristics:
๐ A common canon of knowledge and expertise,
๐ A normative self-commitment that goes beyond self-interest,
๐ Institutions that secure values, enable exchange - and also sanction if necessary.
In management research, this idea has been on the table for a long time - for example with Khurana, Nohria and Penrice ( ๐ ). They show: Leaders have long had the power of a profession without its accountability structures.
And what are the practical implications of this? We have to face up to the debate about what must be part of the canon of professional leadership today. One thing is clear: business administration alone is not enough. We need social, ethical, political and philosophical perspectives - and the ability for critical self-reflection.
And we finally need institutions that take this requirement seriously. Business schools are not currently doing this. We often reproduce the logic that we should actually be questioning. We promote competitive thinking, ego optimization and shareholder thinking and, unfortunately, rarely professional integrity.
The many small academies, as well as chambers of commerce and even professional associations, could start here - if they join forces, muster the courage to self-regulate and see themselves as public partners in the ethical discourse on leadership vis-ร -vis the state and society.
Leadership needs more than methodological knowledge. It needs attitude - and structures that demand and promote this attitude.
Link to article:ย https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118785317.weom020208
05-05-2025



From Rights to Recognition - and Now Back Again?
Let us reintroduce three women who shaped feminist thought across centuries:
Olympe de Gouges (1748โ1793) responded to the French Revolutionโs Declaration of the Rights of Man with her own Declaration of the Rights of Woman. Her message was clear: liberty and equality cannot be exclusive. Gouges demanded political rights, education, and an end to slavery laying the groundwork for first-wave feminism focused on formal equality.
Simone de Beauvoir (1908โ1986), in The Second Sex, moved beyond legal rights to interrogate the social construction of gender. โOne is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.โ Beauvoirโs existentialist lens shaped second-wave feminism, with its focus on emancipation, bodily autonomy, and breaking free from prescribed roles.
Judith Butler (b. 1956) unsettled the category of โwomanโ itself. For Butler, gender is not something we are, but something we perform. Her work gave third-wave feminism new tools: intersectionality, queer theory, and the refusal to fix identity in binary terms.
Over time, feminism moved from demanding equality, to exposing power, to deconstructing identity.
And yet today, all three of these ways of thinking are under siege. Not only have identity-based analyses been dismissed as โwoke,โ but calls for structural change are ridiculed as ideology, and even formal rights - really hard-won in the 20th century - are under open attack.
In parts of the world, especially the U.S., the political agenda seems bent not just on halting progress, but on reversing it going beyond Butler, beyond Beauvoir, beyond even de Gouges.
This is not a steady tide of progress. It is a rip current!
So the task now is not to pick a wave but to rise with force, to meet the undertow.
04-05-2025



First DEI. Now deeper investments in the U.S.
Novartis and Roche have quietly scaled back their commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) โ just as they deepen investments in the U.S., where political forces are dismantling equity efforts and calling for an end to research that includes people like me.
This isnโt just a shift in tone. Itโs a test of moral courage โ and a test of greed.
Both companies publicly commit to purpose-driven missions:
โ๏ธNovartis vows to โreimagine medicine to improve and extend peopleโs lives.โ
โ๏ธRoche claims to be โdoing now what patients need next.โ
But will those promises still hold when profit and power pull in the opposite direction?
Since Donald Trump began threatening Swiss pharmaceutical companies with tariffs on medicine exports to the U.S. - their largest and most profitable market - the industryโs response has been telling. Instead of challenging political pressure in Washington, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan directed his criticism toward Europe. If governments want innovation to stay, he warned, they must be willing to pay more. โDonโt just expect us to produce here because other conditions are good,โ he said. โYou need to make it attractive.โ
So letโs ask the obvious:
If youโre willing to abandon DEI to preserve access and avoid controversy - will you also abandon the kind of research that women need to survive?
As Invisible Women made clear, women are still misdiagnosed because clinical research is based on male symptoms. They still suffer more side effects because drug dosages are calibrated for male bodies. And they still live in a medical system that fails them because the data never truly saw them.
Without DEI, this will not change.
So: Will Novartis and Roche stand by their missions?
Or will they sell them off - one compromise at a time?
03-05-2025



Liberalism didnโt fail because it lost control of the economy. It failed because it lost the plot of what it means to be human.
For decades, liberalism promised freedom and fairness. But what it deliveredโat its deepest levelโwas a moral vacuum and social fragmentation.
It replaced community with identity.
Meaning with choice.
Belonging with mobility.
Purpose with procedure.
It celebrated the individual as sovereign but left them alone, disoriented, and craving something thicker than rights or options: a home, a story, a shared โwe.โ
As Adrian Pabst puts it, liberalismโs universalism flattens tradition and culture in the name of equality. But the result isnโt unity, itโs tribalism. Without a common good, we fracture into curated selves and competitive groups, each seeking recognition in a system built on abstraction.
Worse still, liberalism refuses to say what is good only that youโre free to choose it. But freedom without purpose is existential drift. No amount of GDP growth can fill that void.
Perhaps the crisis of liberalism isnโt just political. Itโs ontological. Itโs about the loss of a shared imagination of the good.
Maybe the question for our time isnโt left vs. right, or open vs. closed.
Maybe itโs: How do we recover a moral language deep enough to bind us back!
If you want to engage deeper - not with my far to shallow pop insight: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Virtue-Future-Perfect-Philosophy/dp/178348649X
02-05-2025



We talk about fixing market failures. But what if the real failure is our failure toย The perfect partner in crime: desire itself.
As Bernard Stiegler observed, marketing no longer waits for considered choice โ it bypasses reflection, hijacks impulse, and slowly erodes the very capacity for desire itself.
We are invited to choose endlessly, but without anchoring those choices in any hierarchy of goods, any vision of a good life. What emerges is not emancipation, but what William Burroughs called a "society of control" where manipulation operates beneath awareness, saturating attention, dulling imagination, and leaving people trapped in restless cycles of overconsumption, addiction, and despair.
Even techniques marketed as โnudgingโ prove the point: we increasingly assume that steering people subliminally toward โbetterโ behaviors is preferable to cultivating their capacity to reason and choose well. We move not beyond unhappiness, but beyond even the pursuit of happiness - into a space where pleasure is exhausted, choice is hollowed out, and liberty itself becomes the perfect accomplice in our loss of freedom.
The real question is no longer whether we are free to choose. It is whether we are still allowed - and still able - to desire wisely.
Inspired by reading a book by Adrian Pabst on postliberalism..
27-04-2025



We talk about fixing market failures. But what if the real failure is our failure to imagine a different economy?
Reading Mariana Mazzucatoโs new article (see in comment), โGoverning the Economics of the Common Good,โ I kept returning to one thought: neutrality is not enough. Markets do not simply fail at the margins. They drift, often deepening inequality, accelerating environmental collapse, and eroding public trust.
Mazzucato challenges the idea that governance should only intervene when markets go wrong.
She shows that markets are always shaped - by choices, by structures, by power.
If we refuse to set collective goals, we shape by default - often in ways no one would choose consciously.
Her alternative is simple but radical: govern markets around the common good from the outset.
Set direction. Foster participation. Share knowledge. Distribute rewards fairly. Demand accountability.
Governance is not just fixing. It is shaping, co-creating, building toward the outcomes we actually value.
Neutrality is itself a choice. If we want an economy that serves the common good, we must imagine it โ and shape it โ together.
What kind of economy do we want to build?
Link to article:ย https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17487870.2023.2280969
26-04-2025



We talk about fixing market failures. But what if the real failure is our failure to imagine a different economy?
Reading Mariana Mazzucato's new article (see ๐ ), "Governing the Economics of the Common Good," I was struck by how deeply we have internalized the idea that neutrality is enough. For decades, we have treated the economy as a natural phenomenon, with the state stepping in only to fix occasional failures. Governance, in this view, should remain procedural, technical, impartial โ avoiding any ambition to define the collective good. Yet as I read Mazzucatoโs argument, it became clear how inadequate this imagination has become.
Climate breakdown, inequality, and systemic fragility are not isolated malfunctions of an otherwise healthy system. They are the result of allowing markets to drift without collective purpose or direction. Mazzucato shows that markets are never neutral. Instead they are always shaped, whether by deliberate choices or by the inertia of existing power structures.
Fixing failures after the fact is no longer enough. We need to ask, more fundamentally, what kind of economy we are building and for whom.
Mazzucato proposes a bold but pragmatic shift: to govern markets around the common good, not by retreating into top-down control, but by embracing collective goal-setting, co-creation, and shared accountability. She outlines five interconnected pillars: 1) setting purpose and directionality, 2) fostering participation, 3) building collective intelligence through open knowledge-sharing, 4) ensuring broad-based access to rewards, and 5) embedding transparency and democratic accountability at every level. Governance, in her view, is not a repair job. It is a creative, participatory act of shaping the economy toward human flourishing.
The more I reflect on it, the clearer it becomes: neutrality has a lot of unintended consequences (say a Swiss). It is a choice but not always the best one.
The future will not be shaped by those who stand aside. It will be shaped by those willing to ask what we owe each other โ and to build an economy that answers.
Link to article:ย https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17487870.2023.2280969
24-04-2025



What if the Purpose of Education Isnโt to Know More โ But to (Moral) Becoming?
For centuries, education in the West has been tethered to a humanist ideal: we teach in order to realize some fixed human nature whether thatโs the rational thinker, the responsible citizen, or the productive worker. In this view, education is about qualification and socialization. It is about equipping people with knowledge, and integrating them into society. But what if education is not about fulfilling a predefined essence but more about becoming a subject in response to others?
This is where Emmanuel Levinas offers something radical: a different foundation for subjectivity. He challenges the idea that we begin as autonomous individuals. For Levinas, we become subjects because we are interrupted - called into responsibility by the face of the other. Ethics comes before identity. Responsibility precedes freedom.
Two educational responses to Levinas have emerged:
๐ง Gert Biesta: A Pedagogy of Interruption
Biesta argues that education serves three functions:
(1) Qualification, (2) Socialization and (3) Subjectification. The problem, he says, is that subjectification has been reduced to normalization. We donโt foster genuine selves but we produce conforming individuals!
Levinas helps here. For Biesta, education must become an interruption: disrupting the studentโs self-certainty. Subjectification begins when a learner is de-centered and made responsible for more than themselves.
๐ง Guoping Zhao: A Pedagogy of Becoming (deep dive)
Zhao agrees, but offers a crucial correction: Biesta overstates the passivity in Levinas. There is more to subjectivity than being endlessly interrupted.
Levinasโs subject is not erased. It returns, but changed. Zhao highlights the dialectic at the heart of Levinasโs thought: the self moves between being and not-being, presence and exposure, identity and responsibility.
Subjectivity, then, is not fixed, but neither is it void. It is a moral and historical becomingโa continuous effort to respond to the other while still gathering a self that can act justly.
Zhao also cautions against the posthumanist rush to abandon the subject altogether. The task is not to erase subjectivity, but to recover its ethical depth; to attend to what Levinas calls the trace, the absent presence of the other that calls me to be more than I am.
โ Why It Matters
In an age of metrics, standardization, and moral uncertainty, this reframing of education is urgent.
We donโt just need better outcomes. We need deeper becomings!
Levinas invites us to ask:
1) What kind of self is education forming?
2) Is it capable of responsibility?
3) Can it respond to absenceโto injustice, suffering, or the call of the other?
Education, then, is not just about producing knowers. Itโs about forming subjects who are unfinished, responsive, and ethically alive.
20-04-2025



Bullies Arriving - And Why Systems Let Them Win
What if bullying isn't a flaw in the systemโbut the result of how the system is designed?
I just read a comprehensive review of 20 years of workplace bullying research (Samnani & Singh, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2012). It's about toxic organizations but it felt disturbingly close to the state of U.S. politics today. Here's what the research found:
Who bullies?
Bullies are often deeply insecure: neurotic, emotionally volatile, driven by negative affect. They may have high stress jobs or feel entitled because they believe they can get away with it. Some were once victims themselves.
Who gets bullied?
People who are less powerful: those with lower self-esteem, more anxious, less socially connected. Often, women and ethnic minorities are disproportionately targeted. The same traits that make someone hesitant to fight back also make them visible to those looking for someone to dominate.
What enables bullying?
๐ Bystanders stay silent, often out of fear.
๐ Leaders disengage, or worse, model authoritarian behavior.
๐ Group norms shift: bullying becomes normalized.
๐ Toxic cultures reward aggression: especially in competitive, individualistic, high power-distance environments.
๐ Rules are vague or unenforced, signalling tacit approval.
The system doesnโt just tolerate the bullyโit rewards them. Promotions, visibility, influence. Others mimic their behavior. Bullying spreads.
One chilling line from the study: โSome organizations perceive bullying as an efficient way of inducing performance.โ
Itโs not about one person. Itโs about how the system is built to protect and elevate the wrong kind of strength.
๐ฌ Reading this, I didnโt just see workplace dynamics. I saw the U.S. (top floor) government. A neurotic (and what not else) president lashing out. Women and minorities in the crosshairs. A party (or maybe even two?) standing by. A culture that mistakes bullying for leadership. Law and accountability fading into theater. Competitive zero-sum politics masquerading as democracy. Not a companyโbut the same script. The system makes the bully. Unless we change the system.
19-04-2025



An Interview withย Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Pope Francis
What happens when you bring Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Pope Francis into a joint discussion - not as a provocation, but as a serious invitation to analyze?
In an unusual chapter entitled โLast Callโ (Schรคfer/Ludwig, 2025), central passages from Das Kapital, the encyclical Laudato si' and other texts are juxtaposed in such a way as to create a factual, profound dialog. It is not an essay on ideological reconciliation, but an invitation to look at the seriousness of the ecological situation from different traditions of thought.
What becomes visible: The criticism of an economic system that systematically overburdens the environment and people is not an exclusively left-wing or religious position. It is a common observation.
Marx and Engels clearly describe how the capitalist mode of production destroys the natural foundations of life, always out of internal system logic. Profit takes precedence over conservation. The soil is depleted, the workforce exhausted, the environment externalized. Engels speaks of nature's โacts of revengeโ when man believes he can control it.
In Laudato si', Pope Francis also names an ecologically and socially disintegrating dynamic, driven by a โtechnocratic paradigmโ that confuses everything that is feasible with progress. He also speaks of a destruction of the foundations of life, and he also names structural causes - including a global system that enables exploitation in the global South while the North profits from it.
What is interesting here is less the similarity in the choice of words than the parallelism in thinking: both sides call for a profound change in perspective. Humans are not above nature. They do not have a right of ownership over the world, but a responsibility. Francis says: โWe are not the owners of the earth.โ Marx criticizes a mode of production that has no regard for ecological limits or social issues.
The fact that these analyses are so close today is probably due to the seriousness of the situation. And one may wonder why it has taken so long for the Church to formulate such a critique of the system, despite Francis of Assisi and the long tradition of preserving creation.
But one thing remains clear: Francis is not a Marxist. But when a pope and a critic of capitalism draw similar conclusions on key issues of responsibility and ecological limitation, it is worth listening. We certainly need both at the moment: an ethical and a structural critique. A moral stance and an economic rethink.
And it is certainly time to read Marx again - not to be right, but to better understand what has brought us into this situation.
Because one thing is clear from this intellectual dialog: we should behave as stewards, not owners, of the earth.
Link to article:ย https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-658-44410-5_3
18-04-2025



What is the Price of ย Morality?
A friend said to me recently: โWhy make such a fuss? You live in safe, secure Switzerland. The US is far away.โ And yes, materially speaking, heโs right.
We have little to lose when we speak up. Maybe a fraction of GDP. Maybe some trade friction. But we are not the ones dragged from our homes. We are not the ones jailed without trial. We are not the ones whose judges are ignored, whose rule of law is hollowed out in real time.
And precisely because we have so little to lose, our silence becomes indefensible.
What does it cost us to speak the truth? To support those trying to hold the line? To offer solidarityโnot just thoughts and prayers, but real consequences, real political stance?
Hannah Arendt once wrote:
โThe sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.โ
When morality becomes cheap, and we still refuse to pay the priceโwhat does that say about us?
What, if anything, are we still willing to risk for justice?
16-04-2025



๐ฌ Still Trusted, But Under Fire: When Science Meets Ideology
The good news? Science is still broadly trusted.
The bad news? That trust is erodingโunevenly, and tellingly.
A new large-scale study in Nature Human Behaviour confirms a persistent pattern: liberals in the U.S. show consistently higher levels of trust in scientists than conservatives. That in itself may not be surprising. But what should give us pause is where these gaps appear most sharply.
Trust is not equally distributed across disciplines. It falters where science touches societal fault lines: climate change, public health, environmental impact, social inequality. In other words, where science doesnโt just describe the world, but suggests we may need to change it.
This isnโt a blanket rejection of scienceโitโs a selective one, driven by perceived threats to identity, ideology, or economic interests. And itโs not unique to the U.S. Other countries show similar patterns, though the divide is particularly stark here.
Even more troubling: the study tested five carefully designed interventions to bridge this ideological trust gap. They tried framing science in conservative values, showcasing credible conservative scientists, highlighting shared benefits, and more. None of them worked.
Once science is ideologically discredited, itโs hard to shake that off. Distrust appears stickyโrooted less in information than in identity. Thatโs not just a communications problem. Itโs a governance problem. A societal one. An ethical one.
Because when scientific authority is accepted only when it aligns with existing worldviews, collective action becomes nearly impossible. And yet, the challenges we faceโfrom pandemics to planetary boundariesโdemand just that: coordinated, evidence-based, cross-ideological responses.
Maybe the answer isnโt persuasion, but dialogue. It takes us scientists to embrace engaged scholarship while still walking the fine line to show that we remain critical and apply rigor. And it takes the remaining sane governments to speak upโto show they are trusting in science.
Because trust isnโt built through slogansโ Itโs lived, shared, co-created.
Link to article:ย https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02147-z
14-04-2025



โEveryone deserves a slice of the cake.โ Sounds nice. But is it enough?
Mintzberg and Marques take aim at the illusion that corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be both easy and effective. They dissect four familiar metaphors:
1) โLet them eat cakeโ (Friedmanโs profit-only logic),
2) โIcing on the cakeโ (CSR as PR or philanthropy),
3) โEveryone gets a sliceโ (stakeholder balancing),
4) โHaving your cake and eating it tooโ (the win-win CSR fantasy).
Each, they argue, hides structural contradictions and reinforces the status quo.
One metaphor deserves a closer look: โeveryone deserves a slice.โ The stakeholder view acknowledges a broader set of dutiesโbut, as Mintzberg points out, it rarely offers a meaningful way to resolve conflicts between stakeholders. It often becomes moral vagueness, not moral clarity.
๐ This is where his critique hits home. Real responsibility isnโt about treating all interests equallyโitโs about ethical contextuality: the capacity to judge, to deliberate, to weigh what truly matters in a given situation. Not every issue is of equal weight, but each deserves conscious attention. This kind of judgmentโmessy, grounded, situatedโis where ethics lives. The slice doesnโt just need to be shared. It needs to be justified.
So whatโs the alternative to CSR slogans? Mintzberg calls for attention to the bread and butter of responsible business. He names six essentials:
1) Fostering ethical judgment
2) Rethinking executive compensation
3) Acknowledging the role of regulation
4) Holding lobbying to account
5) Empowering the plural sector
6) Building cross-sector collaboration
Two stand out.
Regulation. Without it, pretending to be good will almost always outcompete being good. Greenwashing is cheaper than transformation. If we want responsible companies to succeed, we must design a level playing fieldโwhere integrity isnโt a disadvantage.
๐ I often see how regulation is dismissed as a constraintโyet without it, the market penalizes moral commitment. Decency needs not just courage, but conditions. It's time we acknowledge that voluntary goodness isn't enough.
Cross-sector collaboration. Complex problems demand partnerships. But responsibility cannot dissolve in the process. Just because labor is divided doesnโt mean responsibility can be. We need collective responsibility thatโs aware of interdependenceโbut refuses to blur accountability.
๐ For me, this is the ethical core: even in a fragmented world, we must hold on to the idea that the common good belongs to us all. Complexity should be an invitation to moral cooperation, not an excuse to look away.
We donโt need another slice of cake. We need to bake better bread.
Link to article:ย https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-corporate-social-responsibility-isnt-a-piece-of-cake/
10-04-2025



ESG Isnโt Deadโbut It May Have Lost Its Soul
Deep Dive and Reflections on Alex Edmansโ โThe End of ESGโ
Alex Edmans makes a good argument: ESG is both โextremely importantโand nothing special.โ Thatโs not a contradiction. Itโs a call to more thoughtfulness in a field focused too squarely on metrics, labels, and performance "theatre".
Hereโs where his critique cuts deepest:
1. ESG Is Not a Add-On, rather it should be fully integrated! By isolating ESG from mainstream business practice, we risk turning it into an ornamental badgeโrather than a way of seeing. If a factor matters for long-term value, why carve it out as โextraโ?
Implication: The real question is not whether something is โESG enough,โ but whether it serves the good lifeโfor people, planet, and the enterprise.
2. ESG Metrics Risk Hollowing Out Meaning! What gets measured may get managedโbut only if it still carries meaning. Most ESG metrics reward harm reduction, not value creation. Worse, they invite us to manage by compliance rather than by conscience.
Implication: We need fewer indicators that reassure stakeholdersโand more that challenge us. Ask: Does this metric cultivate practical wisdom? Or just signal virtue?
3. ESG-Linked Pay Can Undermine Moral Motivation! Tying executive pay to ESG goals seems progressiveโbut it reduces complex moral trade-offs to contractual proxies. Edmans reminds us: leaders may โhit the target but miss the point.โ
Implication: Stewardship is not a KPI. It is a character. Letโs build practices that form moral motivation, not just incentivize performance on pre-approved metrics.
And the rest, brieflyโbut no less urgently:
4. ESG Doesnโt Own Externalities! Innovation, care, and courage also generate public value. Letโs resist the temptation to sanctify ESG while ignoring other moral forces within business.
5. ESG Funds Deserve Scrutiny, Not Sanctimony!Engagement is vitalโbut not inherently more noble than strategic or cultural transformation. Every fund owes its investors honesty.
So, what now?
If ESG is to matter, it must stop trying to be specialโand start becoming sincere. This is not about metrics or mandates. Itโs about whether business can serve the common good with integrity, beyond the performance.
Letโs return to the deeper question: What kind of world is our business helping to build? And what are we becoming while serving the world proper?
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12413
10-04-2025



At least thatโs what Anselm Schneider argues โ and he might be right.
In his article โBound to Fail? Exploring the Systemic Pathologies of CSRโ, Schneider challenges the foundational assumption that Corporate Social Responsibility can serve as an effective remedy for capitalismโs social and ecological harms. On the contrary, he shows that CSR often reproduces the very dynamics it claims to oppose.
He identifies three core pathologies:
โ Market Expansion
CSR often acts as a vehicle for commodification. It extends capitalist logic into spheres previously governed by public values โ from education and health to environmental protection. Under the guise of responsibility, it broadens market reach and deepens dependence on corporate solutions.
โ Indoctrination
CSR reshapes how we think. It aligns social concerns with business logic, portraying companies as ethical agents while naturalizing capitalist rationality. It contributes to a business ontology that renders alternative modes of organizing and valuing almost unthinkable.
CSR allows firms to present themselves as moral actors while maintaining harmful practices. Through glossy reports, stakeholder dialogues, and symbolic gestures, companies secure public approval โ not by changing, but by appearing to care.
At its core, Schneiderโs message is this:
CSR doesnโt cure capitalism โ it stabilizes it.
It absorbs critique, disarms resistance, and forestalls structural transformation.
Even more disturbingly, CSR research itself risks becoming complicit โ by focusing on incremental improvements without challenging the macro-systemic forces that constrain corporate behavior.
Schneider invites us to go deeper.
To explore how capitalismโs expansionary dynamics โ both material and symbolic โ shape the possibilities of responsibility in the first place.
To recognize that addressing the symptoms through CSR, without tackling root causes, will not suffice.
So what now?
It may be time to stop perfecting the patchwork.
Not just better CSR.
Not just more metrics.
But a reimagining of the firm-in-system โ one that confronts power, rewrites purpose, and opens space for alternatives to emerge.
Are we ready to do that work?ย
01-04-2025



Is This What Meritocracy Looks Like? A Fraudulent Label.
For some time now, a term has been haunting management handbooks, keynotes and HR strategy papers: meritocracy. Sounds modern, fair, performance-oriented. But the term was originally a warning - in 1958, Michael Young described in a dystopia what a society that idolizes performance and ignores everything else looks like: Origin, opportunity, chance, structural inequality.
Today we can see how right he was.
Because the very question of who is actually โthe bestโ is highly political. Is it about turnover? Visibility? Network cultivation? Or is it about integrity, vision and a sense of responsibility? Good leadership requires more than just performance. It takes aptitude - and maturity.
But potential is difficult to measure. And so we promote what is visible - and overlook what is effective. We measure what is easy to count - and ignore what is elusive but crucial: judgment, attitude, the ability to listen.
Then there are rope teams and status games. The higher the level, the more what counts is how you look - not how you act. Those who get through confuse luck with merit. And forget that no one gets to the top alone.
This is precisely why we need a serious DEI - as a structural corrective. Not as a symbolic policy, but as a response to systemic failure. Those who make it into talent pools must not be selected on the basis of brilliance and stable smell. And those who make it to the top should know this: Success is never just merit - it is also chance and context.
Modesty would then not be a career obstacle, but a selection criterion.
So dear UBS, Novartis - and you SAPs of this world:
Do you really want to stick with these selection patterns? You have abolished DEI programs - but without structural corrective measures, meritocracy is a fairy tale.can we afford to do without understanding, diversity and dignity?
And for those who don't want to recognize the picture: It shows the โperfectly selectedโ, โtop-ratedโ talents who have ruined Credit Suisse with their glittering CVs - and equally glittering arrogance (alternatively, you could now add the new team in the White House).
So much for meritocracy in action.ย
31-03-2025



Trump and his circles are threatening more than just America. The wave of backlash is already spilling overโand some of our institutions here in Europe seem eager to comply before even being asked.
Calls to ditch DEI, to keep the golf-buddy highway to power intact, to return to outdated norms: short hair is suddenly โinappropriateโ for women, emotions โunmanly,โ rainbow colors โtoo loud.โ All this, not in the name of freedom, but in the name of fear.
And sadly, some Swiss corporations seem to align without hesitationโUBS Roche Novartis just to name the known examples. But isnโt this deeply Unswiss? Since when do we bow to foreign pressures? Our constitution commits us to use our strength for the weakest among us. Not to serve the powerful few.
So maybe what we need is not less DEIโbut more moral imagination.
Letโs rename DEI for what it should have always been: JUST FREEDOM.
Not about productivity. Not about virtue signaling.
But about freedom from arbitrary domination.
Freedom from autocrats and power-drunk narcissists.
Freedom to meet eye to eye.
Freedom to build systems that donโt reward privilege and bias, but fairness and shared dignity.
This is the moment to show your true colors.
So the rest of us can adjustโ
With our voices.
And with our wallets.
29-03-2025



A Good Economy Needs More Than Just Good-Willed Companies
The idea of stakeholder capitalism has captured the imagination of many. It promises a world where businesses donโt just maximize shareholder profits but create value for all stakeholdersโemployees, communities, customers, and the environment.
This vision is appealing. It reminds us that business is not just economicโit is inherently moral. That the purpose of the firm is not simply to extract but to contribute. That value creation can and should be mutual.
But letโs be honest: thatโs not enough says Hargrave ( ๐ ).
Why good intentions are not sufficient
The problem is that even well-intentioned firms operate within a broader economic systemโa system governed by laws, incentives, institutions, and, yes, power. And in that system, bad actors can still win. Exploitative business modelsโthose that pollute, underpay, or extract short-term gainsโcan outperform the regenerators if the institutional playing field rewards the wrong metrics. Good firms alone cannot fix a broken system. In fact, they risk being outcompeted, bought out, or pushed aside.
Thatโs why a good economy requires more than goodwill. It requires rules that reward responsibility and regulations that constrain harm. It requires a state that ensures the background conditions of justice: fair markets, rights protection, and real consequences for externalizing costs onto others.
Corporate governance and itโs internal design matter too. If we want firms to serve all stakeholders, we must ask: Who owns them? Who governs them? Whose voices count?
So far, stakeholder capitalism has largely relied on managerial discretionโhoping that enlightened leaders will do the right thing. But leadership is fragile. It changes. Incentives drift. Without formal governance structures, without ownership models that anchor long-term purpose, we risk hollowing out even the best intentions. We need new forms of stakeholder governanceโstructures that give employees, communities, and future generations a seat at the table.
But there is a further missing piece: civic bonds
And even then, even with responsible firms and a responsive stateโsomething is still missing.
We also need civic strength. We need movements, networks, and associations that connect those who care about the common good. Civil society is not a backdropโitโs a force. It pushes for better regulation, supports the firms that want to lead, and resists the rollback of hard-won gains.
If we want to change the system, we need not just companies and lawsโwe need commitments and coalitions. We need to act not just as professionals or consumers, but as citizens.
The takeaway?
A good economy is not just a collection of good companies. It is a well-ordered systemโwith ethical firms, just institutions, and a vibrant civil society working in concert. Itโs time we stopped treating stakeholder capitalism as the full story. Itโs a good storyโbut not the whole one.
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12774
27-03-2025



Back to the 80ies?
Gordon Gekko would be delighted: bonuses and target agreements are back in fashion, as if we hadn't learned anything since shoulder pads. โThere is no alternativeโ seems to be the HR mantra again - at a time when we should actually know better.
After all, the great triumph of performance-based remuneration that began back then has brought whole armies of remuneration consultants into the workforce - but in many organizations it has had exactly the opposite effect of what was promised. Instead of performance: false incentives. Instead of commitment: a mercenary mentality. Instead of enjoyment at work: pressure, demotivation and the risk of burnout. And, as the article by Anastasia Sapegina and myself ( ๐ ) shows, the bottom line may even be less overall performance.
What many overlook: Variable performance-related pay works - but only under very specific conditions. It may increase productivity in boring, easily measurable tasks. But wherever thinking, creativity, teamwork or even meaning are required, it does more harm than good. It suppresses intrinsic motivation, reduces emotional attachment to the company and weakens the willingness to take on responsibility or go the extra mile.
The paradoxical result: the carrot that is supposed to motivate becomes a blinder. Employees focus on what is rewarded - and leave everything else behind. Collaboration? Learning? Ethical reflection? If they are not paid: irrelevant. Welcome to the multi-task dilemma and the monetization trap.
But there is an alternative - even from the 80s (if you must). Not everything was greed and glitz. Think of the HP Way: a corporate culture that focused on trust, purpose, personal responsibility and development. Or the Montreal Protocol - when countries around the world joined forces to save the ozone layer. The 80s could also be different: profound, progressive, even collective.
So why not revive the 80s? Instead of more bonuses, more relationship quality. Instead of pay-for-performance, room for purpose. Instead of extrinsic control, genuine trust.
๐ Our article summarizes the most important findings - and shows alternatives for how companies can focus on sustainable motivation and good performance without sacrificing the human element. And if you want to go even further - entrepreneurial power for good - please take a look at our manifesto.
Time to finally put out the Bonfire of Vanities.
Link to article: https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/handle/20.500.14171/98950
26-03-2025



๐งญ How to Organize Protest โ A Crash Course for Those Who Still Care
If we want to defend democracy โ and I mean actually defend it, not just write think pieces about it โ we need to start studying what works when it comes to protest and solidarity.
Not someday. Now.
Because hereโs the thing: democracies are not being overthrown in dramatic coups. Theyโre being quietly strangled by kleptocrats, hollowed out by oligarchs, and disfigured by bullies in suits. Bit by bit, checks and balances are weakened, dissent is criminalized, and the public is either distracted, divided, or demoralized.
๐ Enter a timely meta-analysis by Agostini & van Zomeren (2021), drawing on over 400 empirical studies and more than 120,000 participants. Itโs the kind of research we should be printing on flyers and taping to cafรฉ windows. Their model? Robust and grounded. They call it the โdual chamber heartโ of protest.
At its core, collective action is powered by four intertwined forces: Identity. Morality. Injustice. Efficacy. (Or, in simpler terms: who I am, what I believe, what I feel is wrong, and whether I think I can do something about it.)
Letโs break it down.
๐ก Identity gives people a sense of belonging โ those who are directly affected, who are the movement. Think: parents of dark-haired girls being singled out at school. Neurodiverse kids systematically sidelined.
๐ก Moral conviction is the real gateway to solidarity. It pulls in those who may not share the experience, but who recognize the violation of a fundamental principle: Every child deserves dignity. Equal opportunities are not negotiable. No one should be punished for who they are.
Thatโs the magic formula: concrete identity + universal moral cause. This is how you build bridges: From my child to all children.
From my experience to our values.
From my pain to a collective refusal to stay silent.
So yes โ mobilize as a parent of a dark-haired girl. But do it in the name of womenโs rights. Yes โ speak up as a father of a boy with learning challenges. But let it be a call for equal opportunity for every learner.
Let specific pain feed universal outrage. This is how we resist โ not just by standing against something, but by standing for something that touches many.
And one more thing: the research is clear โ people will not act unless they believe it matters. Efficacy isnโt a nice bonus; itโs the engine of sustained resistance. If youโre organizing something, make it visible. Make it winnable. Make people believe that their voice is part of a force.
This is not the time for quiet despair. Itโs the time to read, reflect, organize โ and speak like it counts!
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256
23-03-2025



๐ง Where are the thinkers when democracy is under threat?
When human rights become โpolitical.โ
When climate science gets labeled โideology.โ
When companies are punished for standing by liberal values.
Thinkers50 calls itself the home of the leading management thinkers of our age. But in an age like this โ why is the Radar so silent?
Where are the voices that unsettle, provoke, resist?
Instead of revelation, we get repackaging.
Instead of depth, "what sells"
Instead of truth, "what power wants to hear".
And letโs be honest: A ranking system for thought leadership might just perpetuate performativity.
Rewarding clarity over complexity, visibility over substance, and clever frameworks over moral courage.
Otto Laske reminds us: thinking isnโt a product.
Itโs a process โ dialectical, disruptive, developmental. Itโs about seeing reality in motion, not fixing it into a deck.
So hereโs the real question:
๐ฅ What if Thinkers50 reclaimed thinking as an act of resistance?
Not market-friendly innovation, but truth-telling.
Not spotlighting stars, but amplifying dissent.
Not riding the wave, but revealing what lies beneath.
Because right now, if youโre a scientist โ if you care about democracy, truth, or the conditions for human dignity โ these are not normal times.
So Thinkers50: Will you keep celebrating what fits the system? Or will you start lifting up those who question the system itself?
The world doesnโt need more frameworks.
It needs more courage. And that by the way is asked from all thinkers out there (also those who never made it on the list).
20-03-2025



Practical Wisdom: Why We Need It โ and Why We Rarely See It
Social critics and political pundits have sounded the alarm on the rise of incivility, the spread of misinformation, the growing distrust in institutions, and the lack of ethical considerations in our governance systems. A staggering 62% of the worldโs population believes the world is getting worse. Meanwhile, social and behavioral scientists call for more intellectual humility and open-mindedness to navigate the complexities of our time.
At the heart of these concerns is a fundamental question: What is wisdom, and how do we investigate it scientifically?
An international group of leading psychological wisdom researchers has developed a shared conceptualization of wisdom, distinguishing it from related constructs such as empathy, humility, openness, and rationality. A key aspect of this conceptualization is practical wisdom (phronesis)โthe ability to apply deep insight, moral sensibility, and adaptability in real-world decision-making.
What is Practical Wisdom (in Psychology)?
๐ A meta-cognitive process that enables people to navigate uncertainty, resolve ethical conflicts, and balance competing interests by considering multiple perspectives and long-term consequences.
It consists of two core capabilities:
โ
Moral Orientation โ not rigid rule-following, but the skillful navigation between self-interest, compassion, and the well-being of the community.
โ
Perspectival Meta-Cognition โ the ability to reflect on oneโs own thinking to improve decision-making. This includes:
๐น Epistemic humility โ recognizing oneโs own limitations and learning from different perspectives
๐น Context adaptability โ responding flexibly to various challenges
๐น Perspective-taking โ considering multiple viewpoints to see through illusions and self-deception
๐จ Why Do We See So Little Practical Wisdom in Leadership? Because we systematically select for the wrong traits. Research shows:
โ We promote overconfidence, but we need humility. Bold certainty is mistaken for competence, while the ability to acknowledge limits and learn from others is overlooked.
โ We reward egotism, but we need more interindependence. Self-centered ambition is seen as leadership material, while those who truly take responsibility for the greater good are often ignored.
๐ก We must fundamentally rethink how we choose our leaders. Our selection systemsโwhether in business, politics, or societyโneed to prioritize wisdom over performative confidence and long-term responsibility over short-term self-promotion.
And in times when wisdom is lacking, we must actively spread and elevate positive role modelsโthose who embody humility, moral courage, and deep insight. Because without wisdom, leadership becomes reckless.
Link to article:ย
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Igor-Grossmann/publication/344940568_The_Science_of_Wisdom_in_a_Polarized_World_Knowns_and_Unknowns/links/6347165aff870c55ce1db3a2/The-Science-of-Wisdom-in-a-Polarized-World-Knowns-and-Unknowns.pdf
19-03-2025



From Equal Opportunity to Executive Enrichment: The Quiet Corporate Retreat
CEO pay continues to climb while companies quietly scale back their commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Across industries, weโre seeing layoffs of DEI teams, the rollback of work-family policies, and shrinking benefitsโsuggesting that many corporate commitments to fairness and inclusion were more symbolic than structural. At the same time, executive compensation and shareholder payouts remain at record highs.
A deep dive ( ๐ ) by Bidwell, Briscoe, Fernandez-Mateo, and Sterling (2013) reveals a long-term transformation of employment relationshipsโnot just in the U.S., but across many economiesโwhere stability, fairness, and internal career development have been replaced by market-driven employment models that concentrate rewards at the top while increasing precarity for workers.
๐น Job stability has eroded. Long-term employment, once a cornerstone of corporate life, has been replaced by higher turnover, more layoffs, and a preference for external hiringโoften disadvantaging those without elite networks.
๐น The rise of contingent work. Gig work, temp contracts, and outsourcing mean fewer protections and more job insecurityโparticularly for women and marginalized workers.
๐น From fairness to hyper-individualism. Internal career ladders and seniority-based pay have been replaced by performance-based compensation, which the authors show often reinforces inequality rather than rewarding effort fairly.
๐น The shift of risk to workers. Pensions have largely been replaced by defined contribution plans, employer-sponsored healthcare is shrinking, and benefits that once provided stability are now seen as business costs to be minimized.
๐น Commitments to inclusion and fairness? Quietly scaled back. Many companies are cutting DEI initiatives, treating them as optional rather than core to business strategy.
The authors emphasize that these shifts didnโt just happenโthey were deliberate corporate choices, shaped by the decline of unions, the rise of shareholder-first governance, and the increasing role of financial markets in shaping employment strategies.
So where does this leave us? If companies continue optimizing for short-term financial gains while scaling back their commitments to worker stability and inclusion, we risk further entrenching an economy where opportunity is increasingly reserved for the few. And as we see in the U.S., when economic power is concentrated at the top, it quickly translates into political influenceโthreatening the foundations of democracy itself.
๐ข How should companies be held accountable for the employment systems they create? What needs to change?ย
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.761403
16-03-2025



Moral Imagination: Why Companies Need Ethical Innovation
Why do some organizations navigate ethical challenges with aplomb, while others stumble time and again? The difference lies not in better compliance systems, but in a deeper skill: moral imagination.
Moral imagination (see article ๐) goes beyond compliance. It enables companies to ask not only: How do we avoid harm? But rather: How can we help shape a fairer, more sustainable world through our actions?
Three central dimensions:
1๏ธโฃ Reproductive imagination: recognizing that one's own perspective is limited. โMy view is incomplete.โ
2๏ธโฃ Productive imagination: Breaking down existing thought patterns, seeing the world through different eyes - especially those that are systematically excluded.
3๏ธโฃ Free reflection: Discovering new ethical solutions beyond dilemma thinking.
How organizations can cultivate moral imagination?
โ
Institutionalize epistemic humility:
- Implement red teams that question existing assumptions
- Promote a culture in which uncertainty and not knowing are considered productive
- Rewarding intellectual humility
Orchestrate perspectival plurality:
- Building deliberative spaces in which diverse perspectives are not only heard, but actively integrated
- Inclusion of marginalized stakeholders - not as a PR measure, but as a necessary strategy to avoid blind spots
โ
Develop narrative competence:
- Training for leaders to recognize the implicit narratives that shape their moral judgment
- Using storytelling as a tool for ethical reflection and decision-making
โ
Enable ethical improvisation
- Create ethical sandboxes where teams can test alternative moral scenarios
- Promote a dynamic dialog between principles and lived reality instead of rigid rules
โ
Strengthen temporal-ethical thinking
- Promote future-oriented reflection: โHow will this decision be judged in 10 years' time?โ
- Align ethical standards not only with current expectations, but also with long-term social responsibility
Ethical innovation is not only created by individuals, but also by structures that expand rather than narrow the moral space of possibility. Organizational โaffordancesโ are:
โ Intellectual curiosity instead of defensive justification
โ A culture of reflection that legitimizes deep thought
โ Generative rather than extractive relationships with all stakeholders
The challenge for companies is therefore not just to respond to moral crises, but to create spaces in which ethical imagination can grow!
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12206
13-03-2025



๐ฟ While the US Shouts "Drill Baby Drill," Here's a Practical Framework for Actually Giving a Damn
Just stumbled upon this really nice regeneration canvas that's perfectly timed as we watch politicians compete over who can dig up fossil fuels faster.
Let's get practical about what regeneration actually means: "the process of rebuilding or renewal of the COMMON GOOD" - taking an asset, ecosystem, community or place from crisis to recovery.
This "double loop" business model canvas flips the script on traditional business thinking:
๐ฟ It connects BUSINESS VALUE and COMMUNITY VALUE in a virtuous cycle
๐ฟ It asks what products/services you should TERMINATE (yes, sometimes less is more!)
๐ฟ It focuses on PROTECTING, REPAIRING, INVESTING & TRANSFORMING the commons
๐ฟ It measures MISSION COST alongside IMPACT
What makes this approach refreshing is how it forces organizations to face hard truths. The canvas asks: "What products and services do we terminate?" - a question most sustainability initiatives conveniently avoid.
While politicians debate whether climate change is real (spoiler: it is), frameworks like this give businesses practical tools to stop pretending that slapping "eco-friendly" on the label is enough. But let's be clear - this is just a starting point. Real regeneration will require deeper systemic change, challenging ownership models, and fundamentally rethinking whom we are serving, with what good purpose.
To round it up a comment from the originator Christian Sarkar ๐ฑ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ: "Our institutions are not fit for purpose โ either because they are corrupt, or because they lack the imagination and will required for the tasks at hand. The same can be said for our leaders. They have betrayed the public trust.
For forty years the institutions of the world have worked to โmitigateโ climate change with no results โ or worse โ failure to stop the rapid destruction of the ecosystems which keep us all alive. Leaders and businesses have largely ignored the cries of our dying planet." Or to say it with Mintzberg: lets stop corporate irresponsibility!
12-03-2025



Transforming Anger into Durable Moral Courage
Many of us feel it: the setbacks in society are generating anger. But anger alone wonโt take us forward. What matters is transforming it into moral courageโnot as a fleeting burst of bravery, but as durable moral courage that withstands resistance.
Comer & Sekerka ( ๐ ) describe in their model how durable moral courage enables sustained ethical action. Their framework identifies three key insulating factors that prevent morally committed individuals from becoming discouraged or even demoralized in the face of opposition.
๐น Moral Efficacy: Moral courage begins with the belief that one can remain effective even in difficult situations. Those who see themselves as capable of tackling ethical challenges are less likely to lose faith in their ability to actโno matter how strong the resistance.
๐น Resilience (Hardiness): Research shows that resilient individuals share three key traits:
๐ซ They stay engaged despite obstacles rather than withdrawing.
๐ซ They believe they can exert influence instead of feeling powerless.
๐ซ They view crises as opportunities for learning, not just as threats.
๐น Planning for Endurance: Moral integrity is not a one-time act, but a long-term strategy. Successful moral actors actively plan for resistance. This includes:
๐ซ Anticipating possible reactions
๐ซ Understanding political dynamics
๐ซ Building strategic networks
๐ซ Forming alliances with like-minded individuals
๐ซ Accepting that change is often slow
And when resistance has already materialized? Emotional self-regulation helps prevent demoralization. This includes self-affirmation (reflecting on past successes), self-compassion (without falling into self-pity), and seeking social support.
What does this mean in practice? Rightous anger may be the first stepโthe key is what we do with it. Moral courage - if understood as steadfastness requires strategy, resilience, and long-term planning. So it is also good to understand how to deal with power.ย
Links:ย https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/books/power-why-some-people-have-it-others-dont
10-03-2025



Market for Lemons? Why the CEO Labor Market is an Illusion
CEO compensation is - rightly - being discussed again today. The common line of defense? The โmarket for talentโ. Supposedly, companies have to pay ever higher salaries because otherwise they are not competitive internationally - especially in comparison to the USA.
But does this market even exist? Does CEO search really function like a classic labor market, where supply and demand objectively produce the best talent and the fairest prices?
A new study by Keil, Lavie & Paviฤeviฤ (2022) shows: No. The CEO market is less like an open competition for the best than a market for lemons - full of uncertainties, misjudgements and systematically wrong decisions.
Why the CEO job market is an illusion:
โ๏ธExterne CEOs are not a better solution - often quite the opposite
1) Companies pay top salaries for โexperiencedโ external executives. But the study shows: The length and breadth of experience says little about subsequent performance.
2) More important than experience is fit: CEOs who come from companies with completely different structures, industries or cultures struggle with negative transfer effects. They overestimate the transferability of old recipes for success and often fail due to internal resistance.
โ๏ธStakeholder Resistance eats up supposed advantages:
3) External CEOs have to earn the trust of leadership teams, the workforce, investors and customers.
4) The study shows that negative reactions to the appointment of a CEO are a major reason for poor company performance - and that this effect is particularly pronounced in the case of external CEOs.
5) Meaning: If you spend a lot of money on a CEO who is rejected internally, you not only pay the salary, but also the costs of inefficiency.
The real alternative: no auction, but systematic succession planning
If the CEO market is not a fair marketplace, but a distorted playing field, then the solution is not โpay moreโ. Instead, a different strategy is needed:
โ
Targeted succession development instead of a frantic search for external โsaviorsโ - with a focus on fit and internal acceptance.
โ
Clear, long-term remuneration models that promote sustainable leadership instead of buying in the most expensive talent in the short term.
โ
A CEO system instead of a superstar cult - where responsibility is broadly distributed instead of giving one person excessive power and pay.
A functioning company is not a soccer club that has to buy the best player. Those who systematically develop leadership don't need salary competitions - and don't end up with a lemon.
Links:ย
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8702968818123764853&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1742197532644&u=%23p%3DA0-QD_iWWu0J
https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/UBS-GROUP-ANNUAL-REPORT-ERMOTTI-5ea2fef2-ce82-4df4-8c39-b344c6898ad6
08-03-2025



SMART Goals are not always smart!
I have been teaching this now for a long time and newer evidence just validates some of the issues mentioned here. In particular specific and challenging have been found lead to ignorance and to undermine conterfactual reasoning - hence if you are searching for critical thinking, mindfulness and creativity you might want to steer clear of these. And challenging, stretch goals have been linked to counterproductive work behaviors - gaming, tweaking and unethical behaviors.
Thus reading the article (comments ๐) which was brave enough to bring this into the light is still a must: "Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting" by Ordรณรฑez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman.
Their "Ten Questions to Ask Before Setting Goals" table is revelatory. It warns that overly specific goals create tunnel vision, challenging goals can demotivate when skills are lacking, and short-term targets damage long-term performance. The table explains how goals distort risk preferences, making employees more likely to take dangerous risks. Perhaps most concerning, goals narrow focus in ways that make people less likely to recognize ethical issues and more likely to rationalize unethical behavior.
The authors recommend multiple safeguards: ensure goals comprehensively cover all critical components, provide adequate training, create transparent processes involving multiple stakeholders, articulate acceptable risk levels, implement strong oversight, consider team-based goals when collaboration matters, and recognize when learning goals are more appropriate than performance goals. They suggest avoiding goals entirely when intrinsic motivation is already high.
It also bears healthy lessons both for research and practice. In research we should not let paradigm holder (here goal setting theory) prevent adversal results to see the light of the day. And in practice we should finally kiss best practices good-bye - horses for courses is the better view. And stay reflective (if your goals do not prevent it).
Link to article:ย https://www.academia.edu/download/54138593/hbr_research.pdf
07-03-2025



07-03-2025
Transforming Anger into Prudent Courage
Many people feel it: social setbacks generate anger. But anger alone will not get us anywhere. It is crucial to transform it into moral courage - not as a spontaneous act of strength, but as lasting moral courage that stands up to resistance.
In their model, Comer & Sekerka (in the commentary) describe how lasting moral courage enables long-term ethical action. Their model identifies three key insulating factors that prevent moral agents from being discouraged or even demoralized by resistance.
๐น Moral efficacy: Moral courage begins with the conviction that one can remain effective even in difficult situations. Those who see themselves as capable of overcoming ethical challenges are less likely to lose faith in their ability to act - even when the headwinds are strong.
๐น Resilience (hardiness): Research shows that resilient people have three things in common:
- They engage despite resistance instead of resigning.
- They believe they can exert influence instead of feeling powerless.
- They see crises as learning opportunities, not just threats.
๐น Planning for endurance: Moral integrity is not a one-off act, but a long-term strategy. Successful moral actors consciously plan for resistance. This includes:
- Anticipating possible reactions
- Understanding political dynamics
- Building strategic networks
- Alliances with like-minded people
- Accepting that change is often slow
What if the resistance is already there? Emotional self-regulation helps to avoid being overwhelmed by demoralization. This includes self-affirmation (remembering past successes), self-compassion (without sinking into self-pity) and social support.
What does this mean in concrete terms? Anger is only the first step - what we do with it is crucial. Moral resilience requires strategy, resilience and long-term planning. It will be an endurance run - but that's exactly what we need now!
Link to article:ย https://www.academia.edu/download/112797618/116035.pdf
07-03-2025



Why Slashing Public Administration Undermines Democracy
Recent aggressive cuts to federal administration in the US aren't just about "trimming the fat" - they strike at the heart of democratic governance. Johan Olsen's seminal work "Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy" helps us understand why.
Public administration serves critical democratic functions:
โ๏ธ Safeguarding constitutional principles and the rule of law
โ๏ธ Ensuring equal treatment of all citizens regardless of wealth or status
โ๏ธ Providing institutional memory and stability across political transitions
โ๏ธ Implementing democratically determined policies with integrity
โ๏ธ Speaking truth to power through professional expertise
Why bureaucracy remains essential for public administration:
Bureaucratic organization, despite its negative stereotypes, is uniquely designed to protect these democratic values. Merit-based hiring, standardized procedures, and professional norms create an environment where decisions are made impartially, based on rules rather than personal preferences. Research shows that well-crafted (green not red) bureaucracies are associated with reduced corruption, greater social trust, and more effective poverty reduction.
The role of markets and networks:
While market mechanisms can improve efficiency and networks can enhance collaboration, neither can replace bureaucracy's core democratic functions. Markets respond to wealth, not citizenship rights. Networks privilege those with existing connections. The tensions between these forms are not bugs but features of democratic governance - they represent the ongoing balance between efficiency, responsiveness, and constitutional values.
When the business hammer sees everything as a nail:
Too many management scholars and business executives approach government with a dangerous assumption: that skills and principles from the corporate world can be directly applied to public administration. This "hammer looking for nails" approach fundamentally misunderstands the distinct nature of states versus companies. Businesses exist to maximize profit for shareholders; governments exist to serve citizens equally and protect constitutional rights. Before prescribing corporate solutions, management experts would do well to study the unique requirements and responsibilities of democratic governance.
What's at stake:
When we slash public administration in the name of "efficiency," we're not just cutting costs - we're undermining the institutional infrastructure of democracy itself. The current gutting of federal agencies is very likely not about making government work better - it's about weakening government's capacity to serve all citizens equally and implement democratically established policies.
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui027
06-03-2025



๐ฅ We got it wrong.
By ripping HR away from Organizational Development, we lost our most powerful lever for shaping well-being, engagement, and performance: work design. Instead of tackling the fundamental questionโhow work is structuredโwe buried ourselves in performance appraisals, high-powered incentives, and engagement surveys. A reactive mess that ignores the real drivers of motivation and productivity.
But work design is organizational development. And a new model is cutting through the noise to bring structure back to this fragmented field.
๐ฅ The SMART Work Design Model
Parker & Knight (2024) propose an integrated framework that links work characteristics directly to organizational design decisionsโwhere power, responsibility, and meaning in work are shaped:
1๏ธโฃ Stimulating โ Shaped by horizontal division of labor (how tasks are allocated). Includes task variety, skill variety, information processing, and problem-solving requirements.
2๏ธโฃ Mastery โ Reflects integration through information (how organizations coordinate). Includes job feedback, feedback from others, and role clarity.
3๏ธโฃ Autonomous โ Derives from vertical division of labor (who controls decisions). Includes decision-making autonomy, timing autonomy, and method autonomy.
4๏ธโฃ Relational โ Captures integration through social processes (how employees connect). Includes social support, task significance, and beneficiary contact.
5๏ธโฃ Tolerable โ Relates to effort allocation (how workload is managed). Includes role overload, work-home conflict, and role conflict.
๐ฉป The Data: Why It Matters
Across three studies, Parker & Knight found that the SMART model doesnโt just make intuitive senseโit predicts performance outcomes. And while I focus on performance here, the research covers more (read the article!).
๐ฉบ Autonomy correlated with core task performance (r = 0.23, p < 0.05) and proactive performance (taking charge: r = 0.25, strategic scanning: r = 0.25).
๐ฉบ Mastery had the strongest link to core task performance (r = 0.27, p < 0.01).
๐ฉบ Relational work was associated with core task performance (r = 0.24, p < 0.05) and showed the highest correlation with adaptive performance (r = 0.30, p < 0.01).
๐ฉบ Tolerable work was also positively linked to adaptive performance (r = 0.22, p < 0.05).
๐ The Future of HR: Time to Step Up
The takeaway: Performance management isnโt just an HR initiativeโitโs an organizational design problem. If companies want to actually improve performance, engagement, and well-being, they need to design better jobs.
But letโs not stop there. The impact of work design doesnโt happen in isolation. Daily relational practices, everyday performance conversations, and learning mechanisms must be brought together to make work design effective. And that? Thatโs HRโs job. HR should reclaim its role as the architect of better, smarter, more human work!
Link to article:ย https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hrm.22200
04-03-2025



Full power ahead!
It's true - we need concentrated performance. But above all, we need a huge joint effort to create viable solutions in (and with) companies. Now more than ever!
But our current performance management is holding us back. The current models - the bureaucratic machine model with control and extrinsic incentives and the agile organism model with individualism and competition - create more problems than they solve. While one stifles creativity, the other often destabilizes organizations and encourages unethical behavior. Studies show: Employees are frustrated, performance evaluations are often useless and variable remuneration systems are full of misguided incentives. Instead of tweaking old parameters, we need a radical change of perspective: performance is created in an environment that promotes personal growth, responsibility and collective excellence.
Life-enhancing performance management focuses on collaboration instead of internal competition, recognizes people as actors with rights and combines individual and collective goals. Companies such as VAUDE and Allsafe show how: There is another way. They shape performance as a shared responsibility, promote learning-oriented feedback cultures and replace manipulative incentive systems with fair, sustainable remuneration. A new performance culture is possible - one that not only increases short-term profits, but also makes companies resilient and fit for the future. Because true performance is not about adapting to an outdated system, but about shaping a better future together.
The article is based on https://lnkd.in/dJARdKek
04-03-2025



Bullying in the Workplaceโand Beyond: A Systemic Challenge
With some of the most visible figures on the world stage thriving on intimidation, it is more than timely to reflect on bullyingโnot just as an interpersonal issue but as a systemic one. Despite extensive research documenting its detrimental effects on individuals and organizations, bullying often remains unaddressed, tolerated, or even mistaken for โstrong leadership.โ
What is Bullying? Bullying is a pattern of persistent, harmful behavior aimed at undermining, humiliating, or excluding others. It manifests in multiple forms:
- Hostile bullying (overt aggression, public humiliation)
- Instrumental bullying (manipulation, gaslighting, social exclusion)
- Cyberbullying (online harassment, reputational attacks)
- Structural bullying (abuse of power within hierarchical systems)
Myths That Perpetuate Bullying:
โ โTough leadership is necessary for performance.โ Evidence suggests the oppositeโbullies stifle innovation, erode trust, and drive high performers away.
โ โItโs just competition.โ Healthy competition is based on merit, not intimidation or sabotage.
โ โOnly weak individuals become targets.โ Research indicates that bullies often target high-performing, conscientious individuals to consolidate power.
Addressing Bullying: Prevention is the best way!
- Organizational safeguards: Clear policies, transparent decision-making, and just grievance mechanisms are essential.
- Selection and promotion: Screening for toxic traits helps prevent the normalization of aggressive behavior.
- Leadership accountability: Training in ethical leadership and non-violent communication should be a core organizational practice.
๐ก Aristotle argued that anger is only justified when dignity is at stake, yet he also warned that most people have an excess of anger. Hence, when in doubt, mildness is better. And of course, this does never excuse unregulated, narcissistic, or impulsive rageโwhich is far more prevalent. Organizations must ensure they do not select, promote, or tolerate individuals prone to destructive anger, as they contribute to a culture of fear rather than excellence. Nor should voters ๐
Link to article:ย https://hbr.org/2022/11/how-bullying-manifests-at-work-and-how-to-stop-it
03-03-2025



Should We Turn to City Diplomacy? ๐๐๏ธ
Cities have only recently become an object of intense research. Yet, in many ways, they are the true centers of powerโholding their own jurisdictions, cultivating cultural-political identities, and shaping distinct 'urban' ways of life through commerce, transport, and leisure.
As state leaders oscillate between incompetence and chaos, could cities become our last strongholds for well-beingโand perhaps even for enabling the good life? Are cities, rather than nations, the real agents of progress in an era of democratic backsliding?
๐ Marchโs Book Tip: City of Equals by Jonathan Wolff and Avner de-Shalit. From a philosopherโs corner, this book applies an engaged scholarship lens to uncover what makes some cities more attractive to egalitarians than others. Take Berkeleyโfar from economically equal, yet still managing to cultivate an โegalitarian spirit.โ
The authors identify four core values that underpin a "city of equals":
1๏ธโฃ Non-market access to goods and services โ ensuring essential services and amenities are accessible to all residents, regardless of their economic status.
2๏ธโฃ Sense of meaning โ fostering opportunities for individuals to engage in meaningful activities and community participation.
3๏ธโฃ Diversity and social mixing โ promoting diverse communities and encouraging interactions among different social groups.
4๏ธโฃ Non-deferential inclusion โ ensuring that all residents can access their rights and services without discrimination or bureaucratic obstacles.
At its core, the book offers policy recommendations on how cities can strengthen their egalitarian spiritโor at the very least, prevent the creation of starkly disadvantaged classes. A critical read for all the mega-cities out there striving to remain โthe place to go for allโ while grappling with rising inequalities and exclusion.
But of course, this bookโlike many othersโcould also serve as a springboard to a bigger question: If cities can act as incubators of fairness and inclusion, should they also become global players in diplomacy? ๐โจ
What do you thinkโhow can cities take the lead when nations fail?
01-03-2025



Organizational Change: From Punctuated Equilibrium to Theory U - And What is Still Missing
The idea of organizational transformation has changed significantly over the last 30 years. While in the 1980s it was understood as a radical, strategic realignment of power, structure and control, later organizational theories focused on continuous adaptation. At the same time, the practice of organizational development (OD) continued to develop - with methods such as Large Group Interventions, Appreciative Inquiry or Dialogic OD, which enable transformation through collaborative sense-making. And yet a crucial gap remains.
๐ The different approaches to transformation
1๏ธโฃ Punctuated Equilibrium (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985)
Transformation is understood as a discontinuous, strategic upheaval in which power relations, structures and control change radically within a short period of time - often controlled by the company's top management.
2๏ธโฃ Large Group Interventions (Bunker & Alban, 1997)
A systemic approach in which all relevant stakeholders are actively involved in the change process. Transformation comes about through collective discussions and decisions.
3๏ธโฃ Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987)
The focus here is on positive experiences and visions. The approach assumes that increased organizational awareness generates a moral commitment to positive change.
4๏ธโฃ Dialogic OD (Bushe & Marshak, 2009)
Transformation here means a change in the organizational narrative. Discourses generate new self-understandings and patterns, whereby organizations reorganize themselves.
5๏ธโฃ Theory U (Otto Scharmer, 2016)
This approach sees transformation as a profound change in awareness. By going through the โU-curveโ - from letting go of old ways of thinking to perceiving new possibilities and implementing them - a new reality can unfold.
๐ The gap: Where is the material reality?
Changing consciousness, narratives and dialog are central components of transformation - but they fall short if they are not considered together with material structures, practices and power relations. This reveals a fundamental weakness of many modern OD approaches: They rely heavily on self-organization and emergent meaning-making without taking sufficient account of how existing hierarchies, resource distributions and institutional frameworks facilitate or block transformation.
Scharmer speaks of a โblind spotโ in change: the lack of consideration of the individual. I would add: The real blind spot is the lack of engagement with the hard realities of power and structure.
Which approaches succeed in linking these levels?
26-02-2025



Time to Shape Up Our Transformation Skills
Look aroundโthe world isnโt getting any simpler. From AI revolutions to ecological crises to democracies-in-need, contradictions are everywhere. Organizations face a fundamental challenge: How do we navigate tensions between efficiency and innovation, stability and change, profit and purpose? Ignoring them isnโt an option. Managing them poorly means stagnation. This paper of Hargrave and Van de Ven (2016) provide a framework integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives to show how contradictions can be managed in ways that either sustain, adapt, or transform the system. Their model identifies four distinct approaches based on (1) how contradictions are perceived (accepted vs. resisted) and (2) how power is distributed (stable vs. asymmetrical).
1๏ธโฃ Synergy (Paradoxical Management) โ When contradictions are embraced and power is balanced, leaders integrate opposing forces for innovation. Instead of choosing either/or, they create โboth/andโ solutionsโthink platform cooperatives that merge economic success with worker ownership.
2๏ธโฃ Assimilation โ When power is asymmetrical but contradictions are accepted, dominant actors absorb change without disrupting existing structures. This is when multinational corporations adopt sustainability measures while keeping profit maximization at the core, or how gig platforms introduce worker benefits without shifting away from precarious contracts.
3๏ธโฃ Mutual Adjustmentโ When contradictions are resisted but power is balanced, transformation happens through negotiation. Instead of integration, opposing forces adjust boundariesโlike in industry-wide agreements on ethical AI, where firms compete fiercely but agree on baseline safeguards to prevent reputational damage.
4๏ธโฃ Conflict & Mobilization (Dialectics)โ When contradictions are resisted and power is asymmetrical, transformation happens through disruption. Whether through activist-driven market shifts, open-source movements challenging proprietary tech, or regulatory interventions forcing entire industries to restructureโchange here is radical and contested.
The takeaway? Transformation is not about eliminating contradictionsโitโs about knowing when to integrate, when to negotiate, when to absorb, and when to challenge.ย
Link to article:ย https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0170840616640843
22-02-2025



Mindfulness at Work: A Critical Re-view
Richard Badham and Elizabeth King provide a critical and reflective re-view of mindfulness at work, challenging dominant narratives while recognizing the fieldโs complexity. Their analysis is structured along two dimensions: individual vs. collective and instrumental vs. substantive approaches to mindfulness. This leads to four orientations:
๐ง Individual Mindfulness is widely promoted as a psychological and therapeutic tool for improving personal performance, well-being, and stress regulation. Rooted in mindfulness-based interventions such as MBSR (Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction) and ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), this approach emphasizes awareness, attention control, and emotional regulation. Empirical studies highlight its benefits for resilience, job performance, and interpersonal relationships. However, critics argue that this form of mindfulness is often commercialized and risks reinforcing workplace adaptation rather than transformation.
๐ฅ Collective Mindfulness shifts the focus to organizational and group-level practices, emphasizing heedful interrelating, sensemaking, and high-reliability organizing (HRO). Originating from Weick and Robertsโ (1993) work on flight decks, this perspective sees mindfulness as a structural and relational process that fosters resilience, adaptability, and safety. Yet, this view too remains primarily instrumental, focused on efficiency, stability, and market adaptation, often neglecting deeper ethical and political considerations.
๐ชท Individual Wisdom is moving beyond instrumental concerns and sees mindfulness as a critical, ethical, and transformative practice. This approach draws from Buddhist traditions, existential philosophy, and critical management studies, positioning mindfulness as a means for deep reflection on work, identity, and capitalism. It challenges "McMindfulness" and advocates for a radical mindfulness that fosters ethical leadership and social justice. Scholars in this space argue that true mindfulness should cultivate compassion, moral discernment, and self-transformation, not merely stress relief for productivity.
๐ Collective Wisdom is the most radical of the four orientations and examines mindfulness within broader societal, ecological, and economic contexts. Advocates argue that mindfulness should not only enhance corporate well-being but also challenge dominant power structures, capitalist imperatives, and systemic inequalities. This approach aligns with Engaged Buddhism, critical management studies, and political economy critiques of neoliberalism.
Hence: the authors reject both uncritical enthusiasm and wholesale rejection of mindfulness. Instead, they encourage self-critical engagement that acknowledges its benefits while challenging its instrumentalization. They argue that mindfulness must integrate reflection, critique, and ethical responsibility to serve as a truly transformative force in organizational studies.
Link to article:ย https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350508419888897
15-02-2025



COLLECTIVE PRACTICAL WISDOM
...even if many organizations are currently far from it - a worthwhile goal:
Today I discuss with my HR Executives how to enable this wisdom. Collective Phronesis according to Ikujiro Nonaka describes the ability of organizations not only to create knowledge, but also to translate it into wise and ethically sound actions. It is based on Aristotle's concept of phronesis, the practical wisdom that makes it possible to make good decisions for the common good in complex, dynamic situations. Nonaka emphasizes that strategies are not only created through rational analysis, but through the combination of subjective experience, ethical values and collective reflection. Collective phronesis therefore requires an awareness of the social context, the ability to create meaning and a deep commitment to long-term values that go beyond short-term efficiency.
In the diagram, the knowledge creation process is depicted as a dynamic interplay of six central abilities: (1) the ability to recognize the โgoodโ, (2) to share contexts (Ba), (3) to grasp what is essential in complex situations, (4) to mediate between concrete experiences and universal principles, (5) to use political means to implement the common good, and (6) to foster phronesis in others. These skills are not linear, but interact in a continuous learning process supported by dialog, reflection, and practical experience. The central idea is that knowledge is not only processed cognitively, but emerges in a social space (Ba) that promotes the exchange of perspectives and shared experience.
The model shows that collective phronesis requires enabling shared learning (also triple-loop) and placing value orientation at the heart of the organization. The constant dialogue between individual experiences and organizational goals creates a self-organizing knowledge ecosystem that offers both flexibility and stability. This process is not static, but thrives on the tension between tradition and innovation, between individual convictions and collective norms. The organization thus becomes a place where not only knowledge but also wisdom is cultivated.
12-02-2025



Future Human Qualities: Part 2 - Thriving in the Net Zero World
This is the second post in our series where we explore the skills and qualities essential to thrive in the face of future challenges. Drawing from the GDI Gottlieb Duttweiler Instituteโs scenario study, weโll dive into possible futures and reflect on the human capacities needed to meet them. So what would it be like if we happen to understand that we are 1 minute to 12?
Scenario 2: Net Zero
The Net Zero scenario envisions a world where humanity has taken decisive action to combat climate change, resulting in significant reductions in COโ emissions. However, this comes at the cost of personal freedoms and consumption habits. The complexity of society is intentionally reduced to address environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and biodiversity loss. By 2050, global trade has shrunk, lifestyles have become hyper-local, and daily life revolves around sustainability and efficiency.
Energy comes from renewable sources, with neighborhoods sharing solar panels and local energy grids. Cars are rare, often shared, and fully electric; most people rely on bicycles and public transport. International travel is a luxury, and goods are expensive due to reduced global supply chains. While the world hasnโt collapsed, it has fundamentally transformed, with societies accepting strict regulations to ensure survival within planetary boundaries.
The social fabric is held together by a shared commitment to sustainability, but tensions persist. Some communities embrace participatory democracy and localized governance, while others enforce authoritarian measures to meet climate targets. Emotional resilience, adaptability, and trust in collective action are essential to navigating the challenges of this world.
What Qualities Matter in a Net Zero World?
๐ Knowing: Environmental literacy, media literacy, understanding complex systems (like climate and economic interdependencies), and the ability to process large volumes of information critically.
๐ Wanting: A strong sense of responsibility toward future generations, the ability to reflect on personal and societal values, and an appreciation for non-material resources like time, community, and well-being.
๐ Doing: Self-efficacy, adaptability, democratic participation, cooperative decision-making, mechanical repair skills, and resilience in the face of constant change.
This scenario challenges us to redefine what prosperity meansโshifting from material wealth to well-being, sustainability, and meaningful connections with others and the environment.
Link to article:ย https://jacobsfoundation.org/publication/future-skills/
10-02-2025



Future Human Qualities: Part 1 - Navigating the Collapse
This is the first post in a series where we explore the skills and qualities essential to thrive in the face of future challenges. Drawing from the Jacobs Foundationโs scenario study, weโll dive into possible futures and reflect on the human capacities needed to meet them.
The study organizes these future-relevant capacities into three categories:
Knowing: Specific knowledge and the ability to handle information effectively.
Wanting: The ability to define meaningful goals and the values that shape them.
Doing: The practical skills required to implement those goals.
The Method Behind the Scenarios (more in the comment): Rather than predicting one definitive future, the study uses scenario-based foresight to map out four distinct possibilities for Switzerland in 2050.
Scenario 1: Collapse
The Collapse scenario envisions a world where intertwined climate crises, economic breakdowns, and geopolitical conflicts lead to the unraveling of global systems. Supply chains disintegrate, governments lose their grip, and local communities are left to fend for themselves.
By 2050, life is marked by scarcity, insecurity, and the erosion of familiar social structures. Cities are hollowed out as people migrate to rural areas in search of arable land and clean water. Basic infrastructureโenergy grids, healthcare systems, transportation networksโhas deteriorated or collapsed entirely. Access to essentials like food, medicine, and clean drinking water is no longer a given but a daily struggle. The absence of central governance breeds lawlessness in some regions, while others rely on fragile, community-based forms of self-organization.
Social cohesion is under constant threat. Trust, once the glue of society, becomes a scarce resource itself. Conflicts over dwindling resources flare up, both within and between communities. The mental toll is immense: chronic stress, fear of the unknown, and the loss of long-held certainties challenge not just physical survival but psychological resilience. Education, where it exists, is hyper-local and practical, focused on survival skills rather than abstract knowledge.
What Qualities Matter in a Collapsed World?
- Knowing: Practical survival knowledgeโagriculture, mechanical repair, basic medicine, and rapid learning to adapt as conditions shift.
- Wanting: A strong sense of purpose rooted in community values, resilience, emotional stability, and the ability to find meaning even amid collapse.
- Doing: Self-efficacy, adaptability, cooperative problem-solving, conflict resolution, and the courage to experiment and learn from failure.
Now, letโs reflect:
๐ How would we need to transform our schooling and vocational systems to cultivate these qualities?
๐ค How likelyโor unlikelyโdo you think this scenario is?
๐ก What personal qualities can each of us start sharpening today, regardless of what the future holds?
Link to article:ย https://jacobsfoundation.org/publication/future-skills/
07-02-2025



S๐ก Can you pay living wages, care for domain-life balance, encourage joy at work, freedom, and trustโAND still be wildly successful for decades?ย
๐ Yes, you can. (to borrow words from a place that once radiated hope into the world... ๐)
Thatโs why today, Iโm sharing "The Happiness Manifesto" from none other than Happy Ltd, the UK company proving that a thriving workplace isnโt just a pipe dreamโitโs a winning formula.
๐ Happy Ltd has been around for more than 35 years and is stacking up awards like theyโre going out of fashion. Just last year, they:
๐ Ranked #1 Best Workplace for Women in the UK
๐ Won the Leadership Excellence Award
๐ Landed in the Top 15 Best Workplaces in Europe
Not bad for a company that believes joy is not an HR gimmick but a business strategy.
We should pay attention to these pioneersโbecause theyโre proving that a brighter, more human future is not just possible, but already happening.
So, whoโs ready to build happier workplaces? Drop a ๐ if you're in!ย
02-02-2025



Sustainability still matters (also for HR)
Despite recent reversions, the earth is still heating up, and many humans are still left behind. In a very thoughtful literature review, Federica De Stefano and colleagues "turn" Dave Ulrichs well-known people/process and internal/external distinction into an enlightening perspective on what the future of HR in sustainable companies could look like.
๐น External/Process: HR plays a crucial role in designing and monitoring fair labor standards, human rights protections, and sustainability initiatives across supply chains. Beyond compliance, HR can help companies proactively shape ethical business ecosystems.
๐น External/People: HR can foster corporate citizenship by facilitating community engagement, volunteering, and long-term partnerships. However, many companies still treat these activities as side projects rather than integrating them into business strategy.
๐น Internal/Process: Internally, HR ensures that sustainability is embedded in recruitment, training, compensation, and employee well-being programs. However, some high-performance work systems (HPWS) risk eroding sustainability efforts by over-prioritizing efficiency and control.
The review also highlights critical gaps in knowledge. First, HR sustainability practices are not yet integrated into a coherent systemโsome high-commitment HR practices align well, but others, rooted in a machine-like, managerialist logic (e.g., forced rankings, high-powered incentives), may undermine sustainability goals. Second, the external role of HR remains underdeveloped. To truly enable flourishing across entire ecosystems, HR must go beyond the firmโs boundaries, calling for bold practitioners but also for more transdisciplinary research.
Link to article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrm.21870?casa_token=ZieM9thfHpoAAAAA%3AGCB2w7EE_-OA0YejTWGxrdPnyEEzpef4mXGWAh9dODDfvAVxos03QLtl-k2cGN5mnSqFF9yqtGJ_x_poย
30-01-2025



Why We Need to Understand Moral Blindness...and What to Do About It
The old and often critiqued Milgram experiment still holds some important lessons for us today. Despite its flaws, its core findings remain relevant: humans have a strong tendency to obey authority, even when doing so conflicts with their moral values. In Milgramโs experiment, participants were instructed to administer what they believed were painful electric shocks to a learner. Shockingly, 65% followed orders to the highest voltage, despite their visible distress. Milgram concluded that structured authority systems create a "bounded awareness"โa mental blind spot that prevents individuals from recognizing or acting on ethical concerns.
So what can we learn from this? How can we prevent blind obedienceโparticularly in an age where many leaders prioritize self-interest over the common good and lack practical wisdom? And how can we sharpen our ethical thinking tools?
In this deep dive ๐๐ป Patricia Werhane is summarizing the literature and comes up with a number of explanatory insights which also offer new tools:
๐ฏ Bazermanโs Six Strategies to Prevent Blind Obedience. Max Bazerman suggests six actionable strategies to combat ethical blind spots:
1. Do Not Trust Your Gut โ Intuition can be flawed; structured decision-making leads to better outcomes.
2. Acquire Expertise โ Gain knowledge beyond passive experience to improve ethical judgment.
3. Debias Your Judgment โ Challenge assumptions by exposing yourself to diverse perspectives.
4. Consider Analogous Cases โ Learn from past ethical dilemmas to navigate new challenges.
5. Take an Outsiderโs Perspective โ Step outside personal biases for clearer ethical reasoning.
6. Understand Othersโ Mental Models โ Recognizing different viewpoints helps recalibrate decision-making.
๐ Werhaneโs Solution: Moral Imagination. Patricia Werhane argues that overcoming moral blindness requires moral imagination, the ability to think beyond ingrained mental models and authority structures. This involves:
1. Disengaging from the Context โ Identifying the mental models shaping oneโs perception and their limitations.
2. Exploring Alternatives โ Considering creative, ethical solutions rather than blindly accepting the status quo.
3. Focusing on Consequences โ Evaluating decisions through the lens of their broader ethical and social impact.
By actively developing moral imagination and applying structured decision-making strategies, we can resist unethical authority and lead with integrity. In a world that often rewards compliance over courage, these tools are more critical than ever.
To all of you who observed some of the world leaders in the last few days (German or American for instance) you will sadly have heard only smug, overconfident, vain, insights-lacking phrases... what we can do now is to understand how democracy, party structures, political organisations need to be made more fool-proof.
Link to article:ย https://www.jstor.org/stable/41475830ย
27-01-2025



Trust, Collaboration, and Freedom
...or why freedom can only be enabled through trust and generous collaboration.
As we wrap up this week, during which I have shared studies highlighting how businesses can โ and should โ contribute to a better society, Iโd like to bring up another important topic. Freedom is once again being demanded loudly, often in terms of freedom from bureaucracy, from regulation and in favor of businesses (negative liberty). It is brought up in harsh and loud talks, it is whispered in the hallways and it is all over on LinkedIn. Personally, I believe this perspective is too narrow. While it is crucial to rethink (smarter) regulation and freedom within society, we need to take a broader view.
This is why I want to share a deep dive by Ha-Joon Chang, an industrial economistโessential reading for policymakers. He builds on a different freedom approach and links it to industrial policy. Itโs a bit of a โmake Europe betterโ approach, but one that includes everyone, including developing countries (and to some degree future generations).
Hereโs a summary:
a) The Capabilities Approach and Its Connection to Freedom
The Capabilities Approach, developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, shows us that true development is about more than just economic growth. It is about enabling people to live lives they have reason to valueโlives with real choices and opportunities. Freedom, in this sense, is not just the absence of obstacles, but the active creation of conditions that empower peopleโthrough education, healthcare, and social security.
b) The Collective Capabilities Approach
Individual freedom rarely emerges in isolation. The Collective Capabilities Approach emphasizes that many of our opportunities only become possible through collaboration, mutual trust, and social structures. Whether in companies, unions, cooperatives, or engaged communitiesโcollective capabilities are essential for achieving shared goals and driving sustainable change. This approach reminds us that true freedom is not just an individual pursuit but a collective achievement.
c) What This Means for Industrial Policy
This perspective has profound implications for industrial policy. Instead of focusing solely on individuals or businesses, we need strategies that support collective learning, cooperation, and joint investments. Successful industrial policy creates an environment where knowledge is shared, innovation is driven collaboratively, and sustainable economic development is made possible. In this way, we can achieve not just economic growth, but also social inclusion and real opportunities for all!
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00356-y
23-01-2025



BEWARE โ LOOK AT THE SIDE EFFECTS
I have to admit, I jumped on this report too. Itโs beautifully illustrated, aligns perfectly with my teaching needs, and makes it easier to communicate ideas I care about (yes, self-confirmation bias at play ๐). But hereโs the catchโhow many of us actually scrutinize the methodology before diving into content discussions? Some even treat these reports as gospel, basing consulting advice and business strategies on what might be thin air.
So, whatโs the issue?
It depends on what you're looking for. Some data (sourced externally) is solid. Some survey insights seem reasonable. But some? Pure crystal ball gazingโwithout the right experts.
Letโs get to the core:
The report claims representativeness, but its sampling lacks transparency. They align their sample with industry structures and sizes, yet itโs not a randomly drawn sample. More critically, who exactly is and who should be answering these complex skill-related questions? HR? The CHRO? The CEO? Iโd argue none of themโat least not alone.
Just look at the rankings: mathematics and reading skills are placed almost last, while AI and critical thinking take top spots. Really? Can you master AI or critical thinking without logic, communication skills, or understanding the broader context? Any educator or pedagogy expert would raise an eyebrow. A mathematician or physicist could outpace a programmer any day, and an anthropologist would challenge a business studentโs critical thinking with ease.
The problem with ranking skills:
Predefined lists don't capture the complexity of future needs. What about scenario planning? What if the ecological crisis acceleratesโguess which skills will matter then (hint: not just AI). Methods like Delphi studies or forecasting models would offer deeper insights. A simple survey ofโletโs face itโnon-expert respondents doesnโt cut it.
Sure, if you ask HR what roles they need to fill in the next two years, their insights are credible. But projecting five years into the future? Thatโs a stretch in todayโs uncertain world.
The takeaway?
Take these reports with a grain of salt. And to the WEFโplease be responsible. People trust you. Be transparent about your sampling methods, clarify which findings are robust and which are speculative.
22-01-2025



Why Inequality Matters โ And How Businesses Perpetuate It
Inequality is more than just an economic divideโit is a structural imbalance that limits access to opportunities, resources, and human potential. When individuals and communities face barriers to education, healthcare, and decent work, their ability to thrive is compromised. This not only erodes individual well-being but also weakens societal flourishing. A society that allows systemic inequality to persist ultimately wastes talent and potential, stalling progress for everyone! ๐ก
Research by Bapuji, Ertug, and Shaw (2019) ๐ highlights the significant role organizations play in fueling economic inequality. Wage disparities, precarious employment, and limited access to career growth disproportionately benefit a select few while leaving many behind. For instance, executive compensation has risen exponentially, while the wages of lower-level employees have stagnated. Corporate decisions that prioritize shareholder wealth over fair value distribution contribute to rising inequality, as seen in widespread outsourcing, gig work proliferation, and diminished job security. Additionally, corporations influence policies that often serve their interests over social equity, reinforcing structural disadvantages.
But inequality doesnโt just harm individualsโit weakens cooperation and even long-term business success. ๐ Studies show that in countries with high inequality, employee disengagement and turnover rates are significantly higher, driving up operational costs. Research indicates that firms operating in unequal societies face a 20% higher likelihood of internal conflict and productivity losses due to lower morale and trust. Moreover, income inequality is associated with higher absenteeism and poorer health outcomes among employees, further straining business resources. Conversely, companies that prioritize fair wages and inclusive policies tend to experience greater innovation, resilience, and stakeholder trustโcritical factors for long-term sustainability.
Despite these realities, many businesses continue to prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability, deepening the divide and undermining their own future. The race to cut costs, suppress wages, and maximize shareholder returns is not just unethicalโitโs self-destructive. If businesses donโt take responsibility now, they may soon find themselves operating in a world where trust, talent, and social cohesion are in critically short supply.
The time to act isnโt tomorrowโitโs now.
Link to study:ย https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7249&context=lkcsb_research
20-01-2025



We Donโt Need More Hubris!
Aristotle described hubris as overconfidence and the abuse of power, driven by the desire to humiliate others for personal gratification. This ancient concept remains painfully relevant today. In times when many fall for overconfident "strong men," we should ask ourselves: How can we protect our institutions from the havoc they tend to wreak?
For wreak havoc they do. From claiming an unjustifiably large share of resources to engaging in reckless risks and outright fraud, hubristic leaders often harm the very organizations or communities they lead. Research shows this trait isn't what we should want in our corporate boardrooms or political offices.
But how can we protect our institutions? Margit Osterloh and Katja Rost, in their experimental study, revisit a governance practice championed in Aristotle's polis: the lottery. They propose a hybrid model where leaders are first selected competitively and then chosen by lottery. This approach, they argue, breaks the chain of excessive confidence fostered by "meritocratic" systems and reduces hubris.
Their research ๐ highlights how introducing an element of randomness dampens the self-serving bias and overconfidence common among leaders selected solely through competitive processes. Leaders chosen through this hybrid method are less likely to misuse power and more likely to act in the group's interest.
Perhaps itโs time to rethink how we select leadersโnot just for corporations but for governments too. If we want stronger institutions, maybe what we need isnโt more hubris, but more humility and fairness in the system.
Curious to hear your thoughts: what else can we do to prevent hubris?ย
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101388
16-01-2025



Return of the "Mortality Curve"
The infamous instrument pioneered by Jack Welch at GEโinternally dubbed the Mortality Curveโis making its way back under the guise of "forced ranking."
It seems the narrative is shifting: weโve apparently "cuddled enough," and now we need "real performance" again, which translates to clamping down hard on so-called underperformers.
Latest revival? Meta. Ironically, the company now named after a product that never quite connected with real customers. (Hint: Maybe, just maybe, this is more of a strategy failure than one of "low performers.")
Hereโs what the boss of this company, recently dubbed a sentient being without a spine, has to say:
"Meta is working on building some of the most important technologies in the world โ AI, glasses as the next computing platform, and the future of social media. This is going to be an intense year, and I want to make sure we have the best people on our teams. I've decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster. We typically manage out people who aren't meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we're going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle โ with the intention of backfilling these roles in 2025."
Letโs pause here and remember what the evidence (and the inevitable backlash) will tell us when the pendulum swings back again:
๐ฅ
Performance in companies doesnโt follow a normal distribution curve. Not in teams, not in departments, not anywhere.
๐ฅ
Performance evaluation is inherently biased. Especially in knowledge work and team settings where success depends on collaboration and creativity. Some even argue itโs broken beyond repairโfor now.
๐ฅ
Forced ranking creates short-term fear, not sustained results. It may work temporarily in non-competitive cultures, but it quickly spirals into cutthroat dynamics.
๐ฅ
It attracts the wrong people. Hawks thrive in forced ranking systems, creating a vicious cycle that destroys trust and cohesion.
๐ฅ
Itโs a long-term talent drain. Dismissing the "less smart" or "underperformers" in a time of talent scarcityโparticularly as immigration pipelines dry upโis downright shortsighted.
Performance is important. But itโs not about fear, or punishment, or simplistic cuts. True performance comes from looking deeper: understanding slumps, addressing root causes, and unlocking the collective potential of your teams.
Because in the end, what matters most is not individual brillianceโitโs the strength of the whole.
13-01-2025



Yesterday, the spirits were stirred once again in an exciting discussion in personalmagazin: the discussion on the topic of โperformanceโ initiated by politicians is (not surprisingly) also spilling over into HR. It is noticeable that we often work with straw men - here โhard workโ, there โnew workโ; here โefficiencyโ, there โcultureโ; here โperformanceโ, there โwork-life balanceโ. Such false dichotomies may make the debate more exciting, but in the end they are mainly grist to the mill of an increasingly noticeable populism.
Of course, it is more complex than that - as Prof. Dr. Carsten C. Schermuly rightly argued yesterday. Empirical studies clearly show that individual productivity is significantly influenced by so-called soft factors - such as an appreciative corporate culture, time for care work or new work approaches.
But in my opinion, there needs to be another, and equally important, discussion: what service do we need - and what service do we want? Today I would like to focus on the first question and clarify one thing in advance: We are looking for organizational performance. How this depends on individual productivity must first be defined. Simply โadding upโ individual performance does not do justice to the reality of collaboration in organizations that operate in a competitive environment. It could even be that the often ridiculed โlefties and nice guysโ play a central role in companies - namely to promote cohesion, which in turn is a prerequisite for top performance.
Secondly, we need to take a closer look at the environment: No one will deny that the world has currently become at least more complicated, more likely even more complex. We don't know what to expect with Mr. Trump - all we can be sure of is a lot of U-turns. We can also assume that we will once again cooperate more closely with other trading partners, such as China. None of this makes the global value chain any easier.
What does this mean? We need organizations that are resilient - with employees who think and rethink together. The appropriate response to this complexity is not the reflex for โstrong menโ, but more development, coordination and participation for everyone - in short: everyone needs to be on deck (Randolf Jessl your credo).
Unfortunately, strategic HR management research has so far provided few helpful answers. Although โbest fitโ applies in theory, meta-analysis has so far only been able to prove inconsistent โbest practicesโ, which vary depending on the study. My grandmother used to say: โIf you charge a lot, you bring little home.โ She was probably right. We not only need to improve in research, but also start thinking in practice - and perhaps learn from the outsiders in the process. Because ultimately it's also about imagination.
12-01-2025



The Just Organization: Removing Injustice I โ๏ธ
Most of us would agree that striving for equality of opportunity is essential in a fair society. The idea that someone canโt get a job or progress in their career due to discriminationโdespite having similar talents and motivationโfeels intuitively wrong. And if we were to place ourselves in Rawlsโ famous โveil of ignoranceโ scenario, we famously would reach the same conclusion. Even from a performance or utility perspective, ignoring or underutilizing real talent in organizations is not only wasteful but downright foolish (in the long run...if there is a long run perspective).
Yet, hereโs the striking part: organizations struggle not only with ensuring fair entry conditions but also with maintaining a flawless meritocracy. Biases, closed doors, and structural injustices compound initial differences. Instead of reducing inequality, many organizations risk amplifying it. โ
Before diving deeper into how we might remove these injustices in future posts, Iโd like to share an article that sheds light on these self-fabricated inequalitiesโa must-read for hashtag#HR leaders and CEOs serious about creating fairer workplaces.
๐ Hereโs a key excerpt:
โOur first aim therefore is to inventorize theoretical support for whether and, if so, how social inequality in workplaces is likely to exacerbate (i.e., the cumulative advantage perspective). Our inventory indicates that nine mechanisms play a role in how initial differences in opportunities and rewards in workplaces between members of different social groups (e.g., women vs. men, natives vs. migrants, higher vs. lower educated) shape subsequent differences in opportunities and rewards.
Two of these mechanisms take place at the individual level (the knowledge, skills, and abilities [KSAs] and the motivation mechanisms), one takes place at the dyadic level (the stereotypes and status beliefs mechanism), three at the network level (the homophily, the reciprocity, and the capital correlations mechanisms), and three at the organizational level (the segmentation, the winner-take-all structures, and the meritocratic ideology mechanisms). Each of these mechanisms suggests that social inequality in workplace settings can increase over time, thus lending credence to the cumulative advantage perspective.โ
๐ Which of these mechanisms have you seen or experienced in action?ย
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620930063
07-01-2025



My employees do not want to take over responsibility! ๐ซฅ
...or how we love to believe stories that confirm our prejudices. While looking into future-of-work scenarios the other day, I stumbled upon a Bain reportโnicely done, as is typical for consultancies. And if you take a closer look at the personas (or as they boldly label them, "archetypes") they identified: different enough to spark interest, but conveniently confirming existing stereotypes to make me "buy in."
Now, let's apply some critical thinking to this:
๐ง What are the underlying theories? Of course, they donโt explicitly reference any theories, but the report seems to imply that personality differences significantly explain workplace behavior. But do they? While no one would deny that personality matters, but we also know that "strong situations beat personality every time." Strong situations are characterized by shared cultural norms, incentives, and selection mechanismsโall of which most businesses have. In such contexts, people tend to conform above all, regardless of their individual personality traits.
๐ Motivation as a state โ the key variable of interest here โ could be thought of as energy x goal. This implies that motivation is situational and dynamic. The system plays a crucial role in either undermining or fueling that energy. Additionally, where did they derive these so-called "orientations" from? In motivational psychology, we might work with implicit motives (achievement, affiliation, power) or orientations related to an internal or external locus of control/causality. What they present here seems to be an amalgamation of... well, who knows what.
๐ฌ And as always, letโs scrutinize the data.** Measuring personality accurately requires well-established (and often lengthy) inventories. One-question measures are nonsenseโbut naturally, they donโt tell us how they measured anything. Sampling: 2,000 respondents across 10 countriesโyet thereโs no indication of how they sampled, so itโs clearly not representative. Analysis: cluster analysisโbut whether these clusters genuinely link to behavior remains unclear. Hence overall verdict: no real validity.
๐งช In a nutshell: a rather poorly executed study, quite removed from established theory, confirming stereotypes. More importantly, itโs a study that will once again fuel our self-fulfilling prophecies. Specifically: psychology is paramount (so no need to address systemic issues), and only a few people take work seriously or would thrive if given the right conditions.
Letโs not fall into that trapโฆ again.My employees do not want to take over responsibility! ๐ซฅ
Link to article:ย https://www.bain.com/contentassets/d620202718c146359acb05c02d9060db/bain-report_the-working-future.pdf
05-01-2025



๐จ Why does age discrimination persist in the workplace? ๐จ
This year, Iโm exploring what it means to create a truly just organization. One recurring issue that continues to plague organizationsโdespite countless D&I initiativesโis age discrimination.
Find here a critical literature review raising some important points we all too often ignore ๐:
"A common theme through the more rigorous literature is that there is little justification for age discrimination in terms of physical capabilities and higher wage costs. Jobs can be redesigned to match the specific demands of the incumbents, while higher wage costs can be offset through greater organization, specific wisdom, and higher organization commitment. Why, then, does age discrimination occur? While some can be ascribed to historically embedded cultural norms and values, the causes often appear to be economic... Many liberal market national economies are highly dependent on low-cost, low-wage, and insecure work... the immediate cost advantages and opportunities for quick return may deter managers from adopting a long-term perspective, even if the latter may be more mutually beneficial."
So: If age discrimination isnโt rational from a long-term organizational perspective, why do so many businesses still practice it? The answer often lies in short-term economic thinking. In such a model, immediate cost savings and quick returns take precedence over the wisdom, organizational commitment, and long-term value that older employees bring.
๐ก Addressing age discrimination, thus, requires more than internal D&I effortsโit demands systemic change.
๐ฅ
We need job redesign that leverages the specific strengths of older employees and which creates working communities based on collective understanding of the shared good to strive for.
๐ฅ
We need new accounting standards that compel businesses to factor in all externalities they createโincluding the social costs of exclusion and discrimination..
๐ฅ
And importantly, we also need macro-level policy interventions to counteract the economic pressures driving short-termism and exclusionary hiring practices.
Letโs stop framing age discrimination as a matter of outdated cultural attitudes alone. Itโs an economic issue, and tackling it means addressing the economic structures that sustain it.
๐ What policy regulations have been found to be effective in addressing age discrimination?
๐ Does anyone know of industry standards where businesses are collectively addressing their responsibility?
Link to article:ย https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00236.x
02-01-2025



The economy is eating its children - literally?
We are in the midst of a reproductive crisis. In Germany and Switzerland, the birth rate is less than 1.39. At the same time, there are already an alarming number of vacancies in nursing care for the elderly and sick - and there is a risk of complete collapse by 2030. What's more, at least 20% of households in both countries have no savings to speak of. The dream of a one-earner household (if it is still a dream) in order to find time for children and parents? Simply unrealistic for most people.
There are many reasons for this. But it is often structural problems that drive us into this crisis:
๐ Work intensification that drains people and leaves no time for family care.
๐ฐ Financial fears, exacerbated by the rising cost of living. In Switzerland in particular, childcare costs are among the highest in the world. In the case of care for the elderly, there are hardly any affordable options if you don't want to exploit people from Eastern Europe.
๐คฑ A lack of appreciation for health and care work, which is dismissed as โreproductiveโ because it is not directly โproductiveโ.
โ๏ธ A weakening state that can no longer provide sufficient financial support for daycare centers and care facilities.
The political responses to this are often ideological: Neoliberals preach that work must pay again, without considering reproductive work or living wages. Conservatives call for women to return to the stove - and ignore the fact that this is unaffordable for most households. Left-wingers want to expand daycare centers and care, think about work-life balance, but cannot admit that the state often cannot afford this.
So we're stuck: the economy demands productivity and productivity - but in our current system, these needs are in conflict.
What is to be done? We must not stop breaking new ground:
๐ฏ Four-day weeks could increase productivity while creating more time for family.
๐ฏ Parental leave allows both parents to develop essential skills - skills that we urgently need in a changing world.
๐ฏ Companies could finally see care work as a leadership skill and promote new approaches to meet all needs.
What do we need to combine productivity and productivity? What approaches do you know of that are already encouraging today? How can the economy - progressive companies - contribute to โregenerative innovationโ here?
For me, this is a topic that will also occupy me in 2025 - both personally and in the search for โgood organizationsโ. Perhaps some food for thought for you all there
28-12-2024



๐ข When Power Controls the Narrative: Lessons from Animal Farm
"Four legs good, two legs better!" ๐
In George Orwell's Animal Farm, Napoleon the pig seizes controlโnot just of the farm, but of the truth. Through his spokesperson Squealer, Napoleon rewrites history, demonizes his rivals, and simplifies complex issues into slogans that discourage critical thought.
Sounds familiar? Today, we're seeing a similar story play out. Wealthy individuals and corporations acquire media outlets, promising to "save journalism" but subtly (or rather not so subtly as of recently) steering narratives to align with their interests.
๐ฐ Step 1: Take over the communication channels.
Napoleon convinced the animals he was a selfless leader taking on a "deep and heavy responsibility." Similarly, modern media moguls often present themselves as protectors of free speech while shaping editorial lines behind the scenes.
๐ฅ Step 2: Smear opponents and rewrite history.
Napoleon fabricated evidence to paint Snowball, his rival, as a traitor. In today's world, selective leaks or biased reporting often target political or business rivals, manipulating public perception.
๐๏ธ Step 3: Push simple, catchy slogans.
The sheep in Animal Farm were taught to chant, "Four legs good, two legs better!" to suppress dissent. Modern parallels? You bet - the 5 am club for instance but ofc more.
โ ๏ธ Step 4: Silence dissent.
Napoleon used fear and punishment to quash opposition. Today, we see lawsuits, platform bans, and economic pressures used to intimidate critics and silence independent voices.
๐ก Orwellโs message is clear: when the powerful control the narrative, truth becomes a casualty. Independent, diverse media is not just a safeguard for democracyโitโs a necessity for a just society.
I think it is time for all of us to reread animal farm!
25-12-2024



Human Resources or Resourceful Humans? ๐ค
The words we use matterโa lot. And letโs face it, business is littered with technical, machine-like, dehumanizing terms, sprinkled with a heavy dose of war jargon. Just think about it: How often do you hear words like trust, cooperation, integrity, joy, or warmth in a boardroom? Rarely. Itโs as if business operates in some parallel, amoral universeโwhere we march around in either bureaucratic or warrior mode, pretending none of it leaves scars. Spoiler: It does. ๐ฉน
Decades ago, the great moral philosopher Robert C. Solomon warned us that language is never neutralโitโs always packed with values. So, why not consciously choose the values we want to see in business, instead of turning a blind eye? ๐ก If we keep using cold, transactional language, weโre shaping a reality where relationships are reduced to contracts and people become inputs.
Fast forward, and Ferraro and Pfeffer showed us that words donโt just describeโthey create reality. ๐ Talk about โhuman resourcesโ acting in โself-interested ways,โ and guess what? Youโll design systems to monitor, control, and incentivize those imaginary homo oeconomicus jerks. But hereโs the kicker: real humansโmade of flesh and bloodโreact to distrust by becoming more self-interested, even if theyโre usually team players.
Words donโt just shape behavior; they cage our imagination. ๐ง Fill your business vocabulary with warrior movie tropes, and itโs no wonder collaboration, ecosystems, or โall hands on deckโ thinking wonโt growโitโs beyond the horizon we fenced in with our language.
So, letโs stop talking like wannabe generals or engineers tinkering with machines. Letโs choose language that reflects the human, relational, and ethical realities we want to live in. Because words arenโt just wordsโtheyโre blueprints for the world we build. ๐โจ
20-12-2024



๐ผ Resilient workforce or regenerative organization? ๐ผ
The numbers in this PwC survey might not be shockingโmany of us, myself included, are running on fumes as we count down to the holidays. Itโs no surprise, given that our workloads keep increasing, our roles evolve constantly, and the world of work seems to spin faster than ever.
But hereโs the thing: I donโt think this is about "building more resilience in the workforce" as PWC titles it. Letโs be honest, weโve optimized ourselves to the limitโno amount of yoga classes or mindfulness apps will fix this.
The root cause? Corporate growth at all costs.
๐น Itโs unsustainable for nature, as we already know.
๐น Itโs unsustainable for us as peopleโexhausted, overworked, and disconnected.
๐น And often, itโs not even for reinvestment in the business. Instead, itโs for shareholder payoffs, like stock buybacks or dividends.
Letโs not forget: our fatigue often leads to more mindless consumption, fueling the very cycle thatโs burning us out.
We donโt need "resilience" to keep up with a broken systemโwe need a new system altogether. Imagine:
๐ฑ Businesses designed around sustainability, using resources intelligently instead of lavishly (hello, circular economy!).
๐ Organizations contributing to well-being and the good life, not just the bottom line.
This will require resilient organizationsโnot just resilient people. Companies capable of weathering the storm of transformation into something better: regenerative organizations. These are workplaces that replenish their most valuable resourceโusโand enable different, sustainable business models, goods, and services.
โจ What do you think? What will be needed for us to shift and what could be the task of HR to enable this move?ย
19-12-2024



๐ค Why do we keep believing the myth?
The myth of the lazy, insecure blue-collar worker has been pervasive for decades. Youโve heard the sayings:
โTheyโll only work harder if you stand over them.โ
โTheyโre here for a paycheck, not responsibility.โ
โYou canโt trust them to care about the bigger picture.โ
But hereโs the thing: itโs not true.
Again and again, the evidence shows that when workers are empoweredโwhen theyโre trusted to take ownership, collaborate, and use their creativityโremarkable things happen.
Humanizing work doesnโt mean abandoning excellence. On the contrary:
๐ฏ It means empowering humans to learn, adapt, and collaborate on their own terms.
๐ฏ It means trusting teams to take ownership of their work and find pride in doing it well.
๐ฏ And yes, it works on the shop floor, too.
Take NUMMI, where Toyotaโs principles turned a struggling GM factory into a world-class operation. Or Scania Group, where modular truck production gave shop-floor teams autonomy and pride in their craft. Or Michelin, where workers on the line solved problems and drove innovation. And then LAYS, where frontline workers handled scheduling, quality, and improvements themselves.
The results?
๐ซ Teams delivering excellenceโbecause they own it.
๐ซ Higher engagement and pride in work.
๐ซ Innovation driven from those closest to the process.
And yet, we keep falling back into rigid hierarchies, claiming โit wonโt work here.โ But hereโs the kicker: when some of these experiments struggled, it wasnโt the workersโit was managers unwilling to let go of power.
We always have a choice. Work doesnโt have to be robotic or soulless. It can be a place where people learn, grow, and excelโtogether. Isnโt it time we stopped believing the myth?
For those who want to read more - I really liked these two articles: https://lnkd.in/dzcWYcdn and https://lnkd.in/dY_ScnNY
16-12-2024



Comment on "A Radical Rethink of HR" by Ashley Goodall (2024)
I agree in many aspects - but disagree with one: this is not going to be an easy ride precisely because employee and management interests can be conflicting. Here HR really needs to shape up and be able to bridge, to mediate conflicts, to search better solutions dialectically. But otherwise it is quite bang on the matter:
- "Now, the first important point to make is that our two circles do not perfectly line up with each other. There are things that are in the interests of the business that are very much not in the interests of employees (layoffs, restructurings, late-night emails, open-plan offices, long-haul travel in coach); and there is plenty of stuff that is in the interests of employees but not very much in the interests of the business (raises, vacations, sleep). In the olden days, the fact that the circles donโt exactly align was made up for by pay and benefits, the function of which was to compensate people for some stuff that wasnโt great (hence, in one sense, compensation). Again, a non-crazy proposition: Because we (the business) recognize that thereโs some stuff thatโs a little bit sucky for you (the employees), we should do something to make up for this and induce you to hang around, whether that something is money, or benefits, or wellness gurus, or foosball tables, or Instagrammable offices.
- Even if that approach were ever really sufficient, it certainly isnโt now, as the widening gap between companies and their workers illustrates. The unwillingness of employees to mutely accept what their employers have to offer is a reflection of the importance of the second circle โ employeesโ interests โ and a reflection as well of the perception that between them, business leaders and HR have inadequately addressed those concerns.
- HR and the Second Circle: Right now, HR sees itself as the implementation arm of the people-related things in the first circle โ and this certainly appears to be the role that most businesses want it to play. In many organizations today, HR functions either as an agent of management or as a slightly awkward mediator between employees and management, trying to explain whatโs going on to employees while nudging management in a better direction."
Source:ย https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-radical-rethink-of-hr/
12-12-2024



Navigating the Tensions: The Quest for Integration in Business
Businesses today operate in a web of competing demands: balancing people, planet, and profit; innovating while delivering to market; and investing in growth while cutting costs. These tensions, exemplified in challenges like Germanyโs current economic dilemma, demand more than just balancing or switching between priorities over time. Similarly, relying on parallel structures within organizations, while offering some benefits, is not sufficient to handle these persistent and complex dynamics.
Instead, companies need to pursue integrationโfinding imaginative ways to reconcile these tensions into cohesive strategies. Christian Garaus and colleagues explored this challenge through three Austrian "hidden champions": Firetrucker, a global leader in firefighting vehicles; Lookmaker, a premier producer of high-quality rimless eyewear; and Snowrider, a pioneer in ski service and other niche engineering solutions. Each company, despite operating in different sectors and facing distinct market pressures, demonstrates the power of integration in addressing the dual demands of innovation and efficiency. For example, Snowrider combines independent divisions with centralized R&D and production to streamline operations while fostering creativity (see source below ๐ ).
What role does HR play in this integration? The research highlights that HR functions as the connective tissue, enabling the flow of knowledge, fostering collaboration across units, and supporting a culture where employees can navigate these tensions. By designing systems that bridge structural divides and empowering individuals to engage in exploration and exploitation simultaneously, HR becomes a key driver of organizational ambidexterity. As these hidden champions illustrate, the future lies not in managing trade-offs but in integrating them.
But I would to up this claim. Thoughtful integration is also needed for the even bigger challenges ahead and for the transformation of business into a force for good for the planet and the people on it. Itโs a call for HR to reimagine its role - and a very inspiring too.
Source:ย https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/09585192.2015.1045007?scroll=top&needAccess=true
07-12-2024



The Economy is Stuck
The challenges of our timeโclimate crisis, social inequality, and a loss of trustโdemand that businesses reinvent themselves. Yet too often, we respond to new problems with old solutions: more efficiency, more control, more of the same.
But this is no longer enough.
What we need now is true inspiration. A bold vision of reimagining the economyโnot just as a machine for profits, but as a force that nurtures the well-being of people, society, and the planet. The real question is: How can we make this transformation happen?
This is exactly what our talk is about: "Freedom to Flourish โ How Transformation Succeeds."
Why you should join us: The question is no longer if we need change, but how. For three years, weโve studied what makes organizations successful when they align with the needs of people, society, and the planet. The conclusion is clear: Traditional management logic is obsolete.
Whatโs needed instead are approaches that put responsibility, imagination, and rootedness at the core of how organizations operate.
Highlights of the talk:
๐ Understanding Transformation: Why outdated practices like rigid goal-setting, performance appraisals, and variable pay often do more harm than good.
๐ From Profit to Purpose: How companies can achieve financial success while leaving a positive legacy.
๐ Reinspiring Organizations: Thinking beyond the TEAL paradigm and recognizing how ideologies shape organizational behavior.
๐ HR as the Key Function: How HR can go beyond administration to transform organizations into a force for good through ethical leadership and deliberate development.
๐ Watch the video now: https://lnkd.in/ep9BGG84
The Flourishing Manifesto
Weโre introducing a people-centered approach that puts flourishing, creativity and shared prosperity at the heart of business, transforming organizations into positive forces for change.
Letโs work together to:
๐ Rethink the economy.
๐ Build organizations that help people, society, and the planet thrive.
๐ Embed responsibility and imagination into the DNA of businesses.
๐ Learn more: https://lnkd.in/etKyxqPP
๐ฑ Join the movement for responsible leadership. The economy can become a force for goodโbut only if we act now.
29-11-2024



The German economy is faltering, at least according to official reports. Political players and CEOs promptly come up with well-known recipes: the CDU calls for more โdecency and diligenceโ, the FDP smells a battle in the field and calls for โperformance that must be rewarded againโ can be heard from the business world. But this chorus seems like an echo from a bygone world - one in which โperformanceโ meant above all getting to grips with, following and carrying out tasks, and motivation could be decreed from above.
We call this red/machine: an organizational logic that focuses on commands, control and efficiency. But today we live in a networked world that demands something completely different: Adaptability, proactive thinking and cooperation based on trust and a diversity of perspectives.
At the same time, we live in a pluralistic society in which different world views clash. Instead of rehashing old slogans, what is needed is genuine listening and a critical but open dialog - in order to learn from this diversity and develop sustainable solutions together.
Companies are caught between the pressures of profit, social responsibility and ecological transformation. In this complex reality, what is needed is not a blunt โspitting handsโ and rigid systems, but a sense of responsibility, imagination and anchoring. It is about organizations that do not manage people as โassetsโ but take them seriously as co-creators, that question their ideologies and seek a balance between economic success and social responsibility.
The Flourishing Manifesto, which we present in our talk, shows ways in which organizations can create this transformation - with a people-centric approach that promotes flourishing, imagination and smart action for shared prosperity.
๐ Find out more in our video: https://lnkd.in/ep9BGG84
Our highlights:
๐ From profit to legacy: How companies can combine financial success with positive social impact.
๐ Questioning ideologies: What comes after the TEAL paradigm and how do beliefs influence our actions?
๐ Rethinking HR management: Why traditional methods such as targets and performance appraisals often do more harm than good.
๐ HR as a force for change: Why HR can play the key role in transforming organizations into forces for good.
๐ Further information: https://lnkd.in/etKyxqPP
Our interviews with progressive organizations show: It works. Agility and social responsibility do not have to be opposites. Let's create organizations together that make people, companies and the planet thrive. ๐ฑ
23-11-2024



Building Businesses for Good: A Framework Rooted in Ethical Principles
In a world that increasingly calls for businesses to act as forces for good, we need a framework that connects deep ethical principles with practical action. Imagine a tree: its roots firmly planted in the ground, its trunk providing structure, and its leaves branching out into meaningful impact.
The roots of this framework could be four foundational principles: Human Dignity, Shared Flourishing (Common Good), Empowerment (Subsidiarity), and Mutual Responsibility (Solidarity).
๐ Human Dignity reminds us that every person has inherent worth. Businesses must reflect this by respecting and empowering all stakeholdersโemployees, customers, communitiesโthrough fair treatment, opportunities for growth, and safe environments.
๐ Shared Flourishing shifts the focus to creating conditions where individuals and communities thrive together, emphasizing shared goals and collective well-being.
๐ Empowerment ensures that businesses enable autonomy and creativity by supporting individuals in reaching their potential and making meaningful contributions to organizational and societal success.
๐ Mutual Responsibility highlights the importance of contributing to the greater good with a shared sense of accountability, ensuring no one is left behind in the pursuit of success.
From these roots grow the trunk and leavesโthree practical principles that businesses must embrace: Good Goods, Good Work, and Good Wealth.
๐ฏ Good Goods calls on businesses to produce products and services that genuinely serve society by meeting real needs and providing value. This also means actively addressing the barriers faced by underserved populations, ensuring equitable access to economic opportunities.
๐ฏ Good Work focuses on organizing workplaces where individuals find purpose, fulfillment, and opportunities to grow. Roles should be designed to foster collaboration, develop skills, and align with intrinsic values. Organizations that embrace empowerment enable employees to contribute meaningfully while building a culture of shared ownership and trust.
๐ฏ Good Wealth challenges businesses to be responsible stewards of resourcesโfinancial, human, and environmental. Sustainable practices should not only protect but regenerate ecosystems, while wealth and benefits are distributed fairly among all stakeholders. This approach balances profitability with accountability, ensuring prosperity is just and inclusive.
A business rooted in these principles doesnโt just growโit thrives, supporting individuals, communities, and the planet. It connects ethics with action, ensuring that every branch of its operations contributes to a more equitable, sustainable, and human-centered world.
Are we ready to grow together in this way? (warning: still a good chunk of catholic social teaching within here)
18-11-2024



The Economistโs Apprentice
O, bold he stood, the student keen,
With theories sharp and bright,
He dreamt of endless wealth unseen,
Of power infinite.
โMaster, hear, my plans expand!
Growth unbound will shape the land.
Give me but your rules of old,
To turn all things to endless gold.โ
So spoke the eager mind in haste,
His masterโs wisdom cast away.
No heed to limits, none to waste,
His formulas held sway.
โResources plenty, man divine,
All the world will yield in time!
More weโll grow, and more weโll claim,
Until the world repeats my name!โ
With numbers rising, greed took root,
The markets fed his spell,
Unbridled wealth their sole pursuit,
The rich were served too well.
The forests fell, the oceans cried,
The people bowed to powers wide.
The cost of growth, unseen, ignored,
Bore famine, fire, and silent wars.
โStop now, stop!โ the scholar wailed,
The graphs had turned askew,
But powerโs might, unleashed, prevailed,
No end could he construe.
His master gone, no word to hear,
The economy surged in wrath severe.
Man and nature, chained, subdued,
By greed, by growth, by systems crude.
Back the master came at last,
To find his world laid bare,
โThe tools you use, though tied to past,
Have not been handled with care.
Economy is no endless well,
Nor wealth a god, nor markets spells.
Learn, apprentice, or let it die,
For natureโs patience wonโt comply.โ
Humbled stood the scholar then,
His theories turned to sand.
A lesson learned, too late for men,
The planetโs scorn at hand.
The spell undone, the power ceased,
But the price of greed, it had increased.
O, would the masterโs voice resound,
Before the cost had so profound.
Thx to chat gpt - but well made, not?ย
15-11-2024



๐ The Gift of Good Work: A Reflection on Contribution and Subsidiarity ๐
Work is more than a paycheck or a set of tasks. At its heart, work is a giftโa chance to contribute, to grow, and to serve something greater than ourselves. This is what I read in preparation of an interview on catholic social teaching and we could all learn from this๐ก
The principle of subsidiarity reminds us of a profound truth: every individual has unique talents, abilities, and perspectives that are essential to the whole. Recognizing and celebrating these gifts is not just an act of leadershipโitโs an act of humanity. ๐คโจ
Hereโs a thought-provoking framework to integrate subsidiarity into our workplaces:
๐ See: Take a step back and truly see the people around youโnot as โresourcesโ or โunits,โ but as individuals with intrinsic value. As Tolstoy once said, โEveryone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.โ Begin by reflecting on how your own work changes you. ๐ฑ
โ๏ธ Judge: Reflect on the roles and gifts entrusted to each person. How are you fostering an environment where everyone can share their skills and live out their vocation? Work should be a space where the imago Deiโthe divine spark withinโis nurtured and expressed. ๐
๐ Act: Recognition must lead to action. Businesses thrive when we:
1. Design work thoughtfully. ๐ ๏ธ
2. Educate and equip employees to succeed. ๐
3. Trust people to rise to the occasion and own their contributions. ๐
Work is transformativeโboth for the world and for ourselves. Letโs create workplaces where every gift finds its place, every voice is heard, and every contribution matters. ๐
๐ฌ How do you ensure that your workplace celebrates the gifts of everyone?ย
08-11-2024



๐จ ALL HANDS ON DECK ๐จ
The last few weeks have been a drumbeat: images from Valencia, billionaires buying seats in governments and a return of authoritarian leadership - loud and clear. It's scary and sometimes makes me feel helpless too.
But what all this shows: We have to learn to deal with disorder and crises. And we in Switzerland can do this from a position of strength - a strength that may be fragile, but can give us a small head start.
What we need now: All hands on deck ๐ข! I have been convinced for years that HR has the task of building ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE. This is work on and in the system. Only empowered people can not only get to work, but also think. Only a culture of appreciation, mutual challenge and support will bring about the necessary rethinking, creativity and care that is now required.
To achieve this, we need to redesign work - not with a foosball table, but as meaningful, solidary adult work. And yes, we need to overhaul our core systems. Performance management, for example, must no longer mean counting and competition, but rather promoting reason, co-creation and co-elevation. And when it comes to selection, the following applies: resist the beginnings - narcissists are not the solution (even if they are very popular at the moment).
And a bit of advertising on my own behalf ๐: I have been able to promote this time and again for over 10 years together with many inspiring HR managers. Further training remains the key.Now is the time for fit and courageous HR!๐ช
06-11-2024



Yesterday, a ray of hope ๐ illuminated our space as we gathered to discuss the Flourishing at Work Manifesto. We felt inspired and reaffirmed in our belief that work can indeed be the heart of a flourishing revolution. Yet, in times like these, when the world feels uncertain and heavy, we needโmore than everโcourageous companies and compassionate leaders who refuse to let humanity, and our planet, falter.
We need excellence brokers, those skilled in forging alliances with the willing ๐ณ. To you, we say: step into your professional circles, engage with leadership societies, and unite as a force for good. Through small but strategic actions, you can guide your organizations in the right direction, paving the way for a more hopeful future. And be that so whispering in the CEOs ear ๐.
And for those positioned to lead at the forefront, we need leaders for goodโambassadors and guardians of flourishing ๐. With every product you create, every service you deliver, and every interaction you shape, let your actions radiate purpose and care. Shine your light for others to see. Be the beacon others can look to in challenging times, lifting everyone up by nurturing the wisdom within your organization and extending it into your ecosystem.
Letโs find the courage to persevere ๐ช , and let us not concede before the battle is truly over. Together, letโs create the change we wish to see ๐
01-11-2024



๐ Why Are We All So Stressed? ๐
Yesterday, a colleague and I had a conversation that stuck with me. For years, Iโve noticed a trend among my students: when I ask them to rate their stress levels in our check-ins, they consistently report high numbersโoften around a 7 out of 10. While part of this stems from the intensity of the Bologna system, with constant exams and part-time jobs to โproveโ their employability, thereโs something more profound at play. This isnโt a new situation, but the stress levels are reaching new heights.
As I prepared for a talk on degrowth, I revisited Hartmut Rosaโs thesis on the โhashtag#acceleration hashtag#trap.โ Rosa argues that weโre living in an era of relentless acceleration thatโs leaving us, quite literally, breathless. This phenomenon has three layers:
1) Technical Acceleration: Weโre moving, producing, and communicating faster than ever. The world has shrunk to our fingertips, and yet, it often feels more overwhelming than accessible.
2) Acceleration of Social Change: We have more choices than everโcareer paths, relationships, lifestyles. Gone are the days when oneโs future was predefined. Now, weโre told to โcraftโ our ideal life, but with so many options comes an additional pressure to choose wisely and continuously reinvent ourselves.
3) Acceleration of Life: Weโre constantly optimizing. Each year, technology โfrees upโ more time, yet we feel as though we have less. We cram more experiences, more achievements, more refinement into every spare minute, all while battling FOMO. The more we do, the less it feels like itโs ever enough.
These layers interlink, creating a logic of intensification that traps us in an endless cycle. The wheels are spinning faster, and stepping out feels like falling behind. Weโre told to self-optimize, but self-optimization alone canโt release us from this treadmill.
So maybe this is the true root of todayโs high stress levels: itโs not just about doing more; itโs about escaping a system that demands more without ever truly satisfying.
๐งฉ How do we get off the treadmill?
20-10-2024



What if we looked at HR through an (early) systems management perspective ๐ letโs see how Deming would tell us off:
โIf I were to look at todayโs HR performance management practices, Iโd say weโve learned nothing. Performance reviews, merit ratings, forced rankingsโthese are poison to any organization. You cannot hope to improve an organization by rewarding individuals based on how well they can manipulate the system, or how much they can outperform their peers. Competition within your company destroys teamwork and focuses people on survival, not improvement.
Management by objectives? Quotas? These are the diseases I warned about long ago. They drive short-term thinking and blind decision-making, forcing managers to chase numbers rather than build meaningful processes. What good are your quarterly targets when your organization is falling apart from within?
You cannot blame employees for poor performance when the system itself is flawed. The vast majority of problems in an organization are caused by the system, not the people. Yet, HR today still clings to the notion that individuals are to blame, as if rating and ranking employees will magically solve the deeper issues.
Drive out fearโthis was one of my key principles, and yet todayโs HR practices create an environment of constant fear, where workers are pitted against one another, where their worth is reduced to a score on a review form. You cannot innovate in a culture of fear.
Want better performance? Stop treating your people like isolated numbers. Fix the system. Build trust. Focus on collaboration. Performance doesnโt come from measuring peopleโit comes from improving the way you work together. Until HR understands that, theyโll continue to kill the very potential theyโre trying to manage.โ
And he was successful with these principles amazing how quickly we forget.
12-10-2024



Monsterstorms, monsterfloods, fascists gaining elections (by a margin, but still), exploding wars, recession and more. I certainly did not like this year so far. But the more I am surprised by our government: austerity is the name of the game! We do not want to live at the expense of next generations and I get that (and trimming inefficiencies is fine to some degree) but ofc by not investing in the green transformation and in leaving a big part of the population behind we destroy their future to start with - between scylla and charobydis. Or not as Ann Pettifor explains so clearly.
Ann Pettifor explains why governments must end austerity measures to tackle the climate crisis and fund a green transformation. She argues that austerity restricts economic growth and leads to social inequality, which makes it harder to address environmental challenges. Governments can generate the necessary funds for green investments by managing capital flows and implementing financial reforms. This includes reclaiming control over money creation, regulating credit to prevent overconsumption, and shifting financial priorities toward renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure.
Pettifor highlights that by implementing capital controls and breaking the dominance of global financial markets, governments can stop prioritizing the interests of financial elites and instead focus on public investment in long-term green projects. She emphasizes that money is not a limited resource but can be created and allocated responsibly for the common good. Her vision calls for an end to the austerity-driven mindset and a move toward economic policies that prioritize environmental sustainability and social well-being.
Through these measures, she advocates for systemic financial reforms that align economic policies with the urgency of the climate crisis while addressing inequality. The control over money and credit, she argues, should be in the hands of public institutions, allowing governments to steer economic decisions towards investments that benefit people and the planet.
For more details, you can listen to the interview here:ย https://www.greenpeace.org/international/podcasts/64940/systemshift-ann-pettifor-the-story-of-money/.ย And yes I know that neoliberal economists will disagree but they are really just one voice of many.
11-10-2024



Respect and respect
A typical corporate saga unfolds: the heroic performer, Alex, who hits every target and exceeds expectations. Promotions and bonuses come his way, and his work is a benchmark for excellence. Yet, beneath this polished surface, human exchanges are a different story. In meetings, Alexโs ideas are brushed aside, his voice often drowned out by louder colleagues. Despite his achievements, he feels invisible, appreciated for what he does but not valued for who he is.
This distinction illuminates two types of respect as Steven Gover stresses: appraisal and recognition. Appraisal respect is conditional, granted based on achievements and competencies, aligning with the principles of justice. Itโs an evaluation rooted in merit, acknowledging the value of a personโs contributions within a system of rules and standards. In contrast, recognition respect is unconditional, an ethical stance that recognizes the inherent dignity of every individual. Tied to the domain of care, it transcends performance, valuing people as moral beings deserving of attention and empathy, regardless of their output. Itโs about seeing others as ends in themselves, as Kant suggested, rather than as mere means to an objective.
Hereโs the catch: without recognition, appraisal falls short. When people are valued only for their output and not as human beings, they become commoditiesโdisposable and replaceable. To build a thriving and just workplace, both forms of respect must be present. Recognition without appraisal feels hollow, but appraisal without recognition breeds resentment and disengagement. Without considering justice and care, organizations risk breeding disengagement and resentment. True respect requires both: seeing people not just for what they produce but for who they are. We need a balance where justice meets care to create spaces where people feel valued for who they are and what they do.
Btw I have been there too and I find lack of respect, the deserved and the humane one, very hard to bear. It poses the question: how much to take and when to quit even if sunk costs would arise ๐ง
10-10-2024



Performance Evaluation Should Die
Performance evaluationsโthose beloved rituals of corporate theaterโare alive and well, even though they serve no one. Theyโre the zombie of organizational life: everyone knows theyโre dead, yet they stumble on, consuming hours, resources, and the souls of employees. We pour millions into these systems, tweaking and refining them, adding layers of bureaucracy and complexity, and what do we get? The same feedback loops of dissatisfaction.
Organizations keep insisting, โFeedback improves performance.โ Reality check: employees dread it, managers resent it, and the entire charade barely moves the needle on actual productivity. But hey, letโs keep pretending this time will be different.
The truth is harsh: most employees donโt need or want these evaluations.
Why It Fails?
Performance evaluations fail because theyโre built on flawed assumptions and outdated practices. First, they rely on subjective judgments, making them inherently biased and inconsistent. Supervisors and managers, who are often tasked with these evaluations, bring their own biases, leading to discrepancies and unfair outcomes. Research has shown that the reliability of these ratings is abysmal; factors like timing, rater biases, and even irrelevant attributes such as an employeeโs gender or appearance overshadow actual performance. Second, feedbackโthe supposed backbone of these evaluationsโis often ignored, misinterpreted, or rejected by employees who see it as biased or irrelevant. This disconnect not only leads to cynicism but actively undermines motivation. Moreover, the fundamental belief that measuring performance improves productivity is flawed; most systems create an illusion of control while offering no real value. Companies pour time and resources into a practice that breeds resentment, all while failing to produce tangible improvements. Ultimately, the time and energy wasted on these evaluations would be better spent focusing on coaching and genuine leadership, rather than clinging to a broken and demotivating system.
If performance evaluation is such a flawed conceptโriddled with bias, favoritism, and misguided motivationsโwhy do we persist? Simple. It's easier for organizations to cling to outdated rituals than to face the void of uncertainty. It's easier to check boxes than to lead.
Maybe itโs time we abandoned the idea that performance evaluation is anything other than a mechanism of control and punishment. Maybe itโs time we focused on genuine leadership and support, rather than playing judge, jury, and executioner.
06-10-2024



๐ก Unpaid and care work: An often overlooked economic pillar ๐ก
When we think about the economy, we often focus on markets, employment, and financial systems. But there's another layerโunpaid care workโthat quietly supports these structures, especially during times of conflict or economic stress.
Feminist economists, like Julie A. Nelson and Marilyn Power, have expanded our understanding of economics to include unpaid work as part of the broader process of โsocial provisioning.โ This includes caring for children, the elderly, and communitiesโa vital contribution to economic systems, yet rarely recognized.
Research shows that unpaid work is critical not only for daily life but also for sustaining labor forces over time. Whether itโs raising future workers or caring for those who keep economies running, this unpaid labor contributes to human capital and well-being.
๐ During periods of austerity or economic downturns, households often absorb the shock of reduced services by increasing unpaid work. This allows families to maintain standards of living, even when public or market services are limited. However, this also highlights the opportunity costsโparticularly for womenโwhose time and financial independence may be constrained.
Unpaid work isnโt just an act of personal sacrificeโitโs an economic activity with far-reaching implications. How might we better integrate this work into our understanding of economic resilience?ย
01-10-2024



THE FALSE DIVIDE
The persistently low wages of nurses, even in times of crisis when they are leaving their jobs en masse, reveal much about how we frame certain professions through a mechanistic and reductionist worldview. As Julie Nelson points out, nursing is still seen as a "calling," a holdover from Victorian times when economic theory was shaped by the idea of women as "moral angels" driven by care, not money. This outdated belief persists, suggesting that if wages were too high, the wrong type of peopleโthose motivated by money rather than loveโwould flood into the profession. Yet, when it comes to the "hard-working homo economicus" of (then) male-dominated industries, higher wages are seen as a natural solution to labor shortages, as these workers supposedly have no love for their workโonly a love for money.
Ironically, this rigid dichotomy between love and money is completely undermined by research. Studies by Bรฅrd Kuvaas show that a generous salary enhances intrinsic motivation, as it signals recognition and respect for the worker's efforts. Bruno S. Frey also demonstrated that only controlling forms of monetary rewards, like bonuses or piece-rate pay, erode intrinsic motivation. Whether in the form of pride, loyalty, or joy, motivation exists in all corners of the workforce, and wages that provide security and dignity support, rather than weaken, this drive. But instead of embracing these findings, we cling to the false belief that financial reward and intrinsic fulfillment cannot coexist.
This refusal to rethink the relationship between money and motivation cuts across ideologies. Right-wing thinkers champion the idea that money and competition are the best motivatorsโunless weโre talking about care work, which they assume must come from love alone. Meanwhile, the left often fears that market exchanges will devour the lifeworld, leading them to separate work and love as mutually exclusive. Both sides miss the point: humans are complex, and the simplistic divide between love-driven work and money-driven work ignores the real, messy interplay between recognition, dignity, and the financial security all workers deserve.
15-09-2024



CEO TALENT - IT IS INTERNAL, STUPID โ๏ธ
In todays #deepdive I like to share a rigorously conducted study which shows - once more - that we should NOT talk about a "market for (CEO) talents" as essentially it is mostly better to promote internally or occasionally to hire a real outsider ๐ค .
๐ฏ Empirical Evidence: As shown in the paper, hiring external CEOs with prior experience often results in lower firm performance. External hires tend to rely on past successes and struggle with #negative #learning transferโwhere past strategies donโt fit the new context. In contrast, internally promoted CEOs bring firm-specific knowledge, a key driver of organizational success.
๐ฏ Cost of External Hires: The premium paid for experienced external CEOs can often be a poor investment. External CEOs often command higher #compensation packages, but the returns on this investment are inconsistent. The assumption that CEO talent can be easily "bought" on the open market is flawed, as prior experience doesnโt guarantee future success in a new setting.
๐ฏ Internal Development is Key: Companies that focus on grooming internal leaders can benefit from smoother leadership transitions, less risk, and leaders who already understand the company's culture and challenges. These CEOs are likely to make more context-appropriate decisions and align better with long-term strategy.
What Does This Mean for the CEO Market?
The traditional CEO marketโwhere companies seek experienced executives from outsideโmay need a rethinking. If external hires often underperform, the market's pricing mechanism does not reflect true value. As a result, firms may start to de-emphasize the external CEO market in favor of internal succession planning, talent development, and context-specific leadership.
In summary, relying heavily on the external CEO market could be a costly strategy that often doesn't pay off. Companies should reconsider whether they're truly gaining value from high-priced external hires, or whether the real gains come from within.
Find the paper here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antoinette-weibel_the-not-existing-talent-market-activity-7239517111436402688-QFMj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktopย
11-09-2024



IS ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION?
Feeling stressed or lonely at work? Youโre not aloneโfar from it. Gallup's latest findings reveal that 41% of people felt stressed just yesterday, and 20% are struggling with #loneliness. ๐
Gallup might still rely on their 12-question scale to assess "engaged" vs. "actively disengaged" employees, but the bigger picture is clear: things aren't looking great. The stress and loneliness numbers are just the tip of the iceberg.
But wait, there's more! Enter the Eurofund Study of 2021. This one dives deep into job strains like lack of autonomy and work #intensification, comparing them with resources like trust. Spoiler: the outlook is equally bleak. Just look at Switzerland and the UK, two countries where companies are "trusted" to protect employees voluntarily. The reality? Many workers are on the brinkโeither completely overwhelmed or barely hanging in there. And the UK? Not exactly a poster child for workplace happiness.
As if that wasnโt enough, letโs toss in AI creeping into our workflows, resources getting scarcer as we deplete the planet, and a future thatโs BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear, and incomprehensible). Weโre staring down a world where fear and helplessness could become the norm.
So, whatโs the solution? We need a lot more efforts to transpire hope again โ and way more companies that actually care about enabling their employees to meet these challenges and realize their potential.
So hush, hush - and ally with us on the #HR #manifestoย
Find our manifesto here:ย https://leadershipsociety.world/academy/FreedomtoFlourish/
04-09-2024



INCOME INEQUALITY: A WAKE-UP CALL FOR HR โฑ๏ธ
The latest data is alarming: income inequality is widening, and the numbers are there.
The World Inequality Report makes it clearโpre-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 isnโt just a statisticโitโs a ticking time bomb for workplace morale and productivity.
Poverty data from Eurostat adds another layer of concern. Redistribution efforts arenโt cutting it, and the reasons are complexโโjobless growthโ and outsourcing are likely culprits. But letโs 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 thereโs the shrinking welfare state. Whether itโs due to corporations dodging taxes by moving abroad or governments slashing rates in a race to the bottom, the outcome is the same: redistribution isnโt working.
This isnโt just about numbers; itโs 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:ย https://leadershipsociety.world/academy/FreedomtoFlourish/
27-08-2024



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 needsโespecially 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 sufficeโespecially 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 practiceโacross 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.ย
Find the article here:ย https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antoinette-weibel_ai-in-leadership-activity-7234082868098936832-jAp2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
25-08-2024



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 profitโthey 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) ๐๐ป, 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:
1๏ธ. 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.
2๏ธ. 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.
3๏ธ. 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 lifeโbeing "whole"โis 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.ย
Find the article here:ย 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" was a term I heard several times this week. Itโs the message the Democratic Party in the U.S. is striving to convey, itโs the sentiment ecological and regenerative economists are encouraging for the challenging road ahead, and itโs 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:
โ๏ธ "Hope involves not just a desire for something good, but an evaluation of it as importantly good, worth pursuing."
โ๏ธ "Hope is not and cannot be inert. It requires action, commitment."
โ๏ธ"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. Itโs actionable, energizing, expanding outward (while fear retreats), and ultimately, it is a commitmentโa practical habit for embracing the world.
As a trust researcher, Iโm compelled to explore how trust can guide us from fear to hope. Trust, like hope, involves a leap of faithโfaith in another person or organization. However, I argue that trust alone isnโt enough. We also need trustworthiness, or โtruth-worthiness.โ 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...ย
20-08-2024



If you work in HR, youโve 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 havenโt done our job well in universities.
Why do I say this?
๐ฏ First, itโs not evidence-based. A colleague reviewing the literature said it politely: โAll studies asked, โHow did you learn to do your job?โ but methods varied, causing validity issues.โ 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 โinformal learning.โ In short, itโs based on crappy science.
๐ฏ Second, itโs a prime example of functional stupidity. Itโs 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 donโt 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%โฆ 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.ย
13-08-2024



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?
๐ฏ 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 Franciscoโs cultural bohemianism with Silicon Valleyโs 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."
๐ฏ 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
๐ฏ The governmentโs 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.
๐ฏThe Californian Ideology was critiqued for its technological determinism and neglect of social inequalities by drewing on the Frankfurt Schoolโs 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 Turnerโs historical analysis and Alice Marwickโs media ethnography, supported many of Barbrook and Cameronโs claims.
Hence, while Barbrook and Cameronโs 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.pdfย
11-08-2024



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.ย
28-07-2024



There was a time after the war, stretching well into the 70s, when CEOs were still just company menโaverage 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? ๐ค
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:
๐ฏ 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.
๐ฏ 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. ๐๐ฅ๏ธ
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 workโstorytellers 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 ๐๐ย ย
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) ๐๐ป.
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? ๐ค
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 โfreedom to beโ 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. ๐
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 โcommon senseโ but I would call out for more practical wisdom - in work and experience grounded understanding about what good I want to serve.๐ 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/dCMdzsUuย
15-07-2024



AMERICAN CEOS ARE OVERPAID
โฆsays Ha-Joon Changโฆand 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:
โAll 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 โstep up its regulatory activitiesโ regarding the environment, whereas only 8% stated that they should be โcut backโ; moreover, 85% of the CEOs believed that the protection of the environment should be taken into consideration even if it [meant] reducing profitsโ (Fortune 1970, p. 119).
Even more remarkable were the findings in Bartonโs 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 โKeynesian liberalsโ or โKeynesian moderates,โ whereas only 10.5% could be classified as โanti-Keynesian conservatives.โ
P.S. they are also overpriced in relation to their workforceโฆorganisational performance is a teamsport - including the work of the legacy founders ๐ย
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 Iโm 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 โ 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" โ 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 itโs 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
Today we often almost equate justice with merit ๐๐ป 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.ย
*****************************************************************************
๐ 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. ๐ย



*****************************************************************************
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 heโs come to some unexpected conclusions. ๐๐ผ
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.
Castillaโs 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 cult๐๐ค
ย
20-06-2024



RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP - A WEEK OF THOUGHTS ON THE MORAL CIRCLE OF CONCERN
How is it linked to moral development? On a personal level, our moral circle starts with those closest to usโfamily and friendsโand 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.ย
*****************************************************************************
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:ย
a) what belongs into the moral circle in an abstract fashion - would we also bring in a temporal dimension and include future beings?ย
b) how do different ethical theories argue what "moral development" means in regards to the circle?ย
c) how do different ethical theories enable us to make choices within our own moral circle of concern.ย
So if we just look at a) we can see with this example ๐๐ป 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.ย
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.ย



*****************************************************************************
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 ๐
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 includedโฆ
(2) Each being counts equal - so utalitarianism might ask you to make great sacrifices or to overrun an interest of a person dear to youโฆ
(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)โฆ
(4) Future generations are not to be discounted but we already started to discuss longtermism and its possible questionsโฆย
*****************************************************************************
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 โvalueโ 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, thereโs 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, โwe think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killedโ. 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 โat least something good came out of the Germany victoryโ, 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 โa cautionary tale on the risks of taking utilitarianism too seriouslyโ.
Longtermism combines this kind of moral reasoning with a fantastical sci-fi vision of techno-utopia among the heavens. Thatโs 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 โthe foreign policy community in general and the United Nations in particular are beginning to embrace longtermismโ.
Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/08/longtermism-threat-humanityย
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:
๐ค Start with changing ourselves - becoming wiser, more caring, more dedicated.
๐ค Address our organizations - change structures, processes, and ways of working together.
๐ค Transform our โwhoโ and โwhyโ - 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:ย 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:ย 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 Brandstรคtter 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 ๐ย
*****************************************************************************
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.ย
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_desktopย
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:
๐ฏ...because you can catch their nastiness (emotional contagion works)
๐ฏ...because having the strict rule and do the screening makes work immensely better
๐ฏ...because they really cause suffering
๐ฏ...because those companies which screen these out have a higher attraction rate
๐ฏ...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 youโre stuck under a certified a**hole, that means youโre suffering. And if thatโs the case, you should get out โ itโs that simple. The second question is, if you must endure, are you going to fight or are you just going to take it? If youโre 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 someoneโs 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 theyโre 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:
๐ฏCan't stand someone else being in the spotlight.
๐ฏTalking to someone else while being talked to.
๐ฏIt's either your way or the highway.
๐ฏUnable to accept your wrong.
๐ฏCannot compliment another person.
Find the article here:ย 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 offโฆbut 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:ย 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 worldโa 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.
๐ค We have moral responsibility for what we do. This might be hampered by the context, but we can nonetheless not shed our responsibility.
๐ฅ 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.
๐ฅ๐ฅ 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:
๐ฏ Forced Rankings and Mortality Curves: A moment of reflection for SAP ๐. How do these practices shape our moral responsibilities?
๐ฏ Excessive head count and work intensification. What are its implications for our moral fabric?
๐ฏBonus Systems and Short-term Metrics: Often hard to get rid off, but what are the moral consequences? Those who followed my posts know itโฆ๐
๐ฏ 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 moreโฆbut please listen yourself ๐.
ย https://trusttalk.co/episode/creating-a-trusting-workplace/ย
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:
๐ง๐ฝโโ๏ธ Cultivating inner growth becomes paramount, shifting our focus from mere pleasure-seeking (hedonism) to a deeper sense of purpose and fulfillment (eudaimonia).
๐ชข Strengthening our social and civic muscles becomes imperative, fostering collaboration and deliberation to find ingenious ways to deal with scarce resources.
๐ค 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.
๐จ๐ผโ๐พ 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



๐ฅ Reinventing Capitalism: Where Revolutionary Minds Collide! ๐ฅ
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.๐ฅ
๐ Join us as we dive deep into provocative discussions, exploring alternative economic models, dissecting policy implications, and igniting sparks of innovation.
๐ฝ 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 ๐๐ป 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).
๐ฃ Identifying the following main discourses:
a) The Fortress Circular Economy. โThese 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.โ
b) The Technocentric Circular Economy. โExpect that circular innovations can lead to an absolute eco-economic decoupling to prevent ecological collapseโ.
c) The Transformational Circular Society. โA 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.โ
d) The Reformist Circular Society. โpropose 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.โ
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 webcastโ join the revolution! Tune in, turn up the volume, and let's rewrite the rules of capitalism together! ๐ก๐
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?
๐ฃ ATTRACTION: Narciss are attracted by high pay differentials and "winner takes it all culture" - another reason not to go back to forced ranking ๐ .
๐ฃ 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.
๐ฃ 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.
๐ฃ 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 ๐ #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?
07-02-2024



COLLECTIVE โPAY-FOR-PERFORMANCEโ
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:
๐ฃ Go with gain or profit sharing - it signals โwe are in the same boatโ 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.
๐ฃ 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 โsocial loafingโ 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 โproper teamsโ 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.
๐ฃ 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 ;-)๐ .
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



๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฆจ
It is โofficialโ again as Herman Aguinis and colleagues showed: the link between CEO pay and performance remains shaky. Or to put it into their words: โIn 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 earnersโ.
What then is driving companies and boards to still go on with this - at least from a societal point of view - unhealthy overpay practice?
๐ฆจ 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
๐ฆจ managerialism or fat cat theory - CEO (ab)use their power and information asymetry to procure rents
๐ฆจ CEO hubris, greed, narcissism - making the CEO to ask for โtooโ much
๐ฆจCEO political behaviors - such as impression management, ties to dominant owners, non-optimal trust (too high)
๐ฆจ political ideology - conservative CEOs and conservative boards opting for high pay differentials
๐ฆจinstitutionalization of agency logic in business schools, among consultants and by business press shaping the training, socialization and attitudes of senior management.
And probably moreโฆ
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 onesโ own good?
Source: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MRJIAM-02-2017-0731/full/pdf?casa_token=F7yt-bmB3WMAAAAA:pE0ke4QFHLCh2rvjVib9bjZ01O1WVk6crUJWyh9HYgqKJ6hTjXaWPxJgUIcWpZrmTeCiqhgVweDdnt4tz7tp3mHPwLq9d82oy5P4EHw93O_UH5pj2qOuAQย
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 dรผrfte damit die prรคgende Erfahrung in unserem Erwachsenenleben sein. Arbeit kann uns Selbstwirksamkeit, Anerkennung, geistiges und soziales Wachstum vermitteln - oder sie kann uns auch dequalifizieren, entmรผndigen, und voneinander isolieren.
Wenn wir in der heutigen Zeit รผber die wachsende Anzahl entfremdeter Bรผrger nachdenken, dann mรผssen wir nicht weiter suchen. Es ist unsere Verantwortung - die von Unternehmen und die von Business Schools - endlich wieder gute Arbeit, und damit auch aktiven Bรผrgersinn, in den Mittelpunkt zu rรผcken.
Honneth hat hierzu ein wunderbares Buch geschrieben. Gute Arbeit:
๐ฃErmรถglicht ein faires Auskommen (sonst fehlt mir die Zeit zu politischer Teilhabe und ich muss auch schlechte Arbeit annehmen).
๐ฃLaugt nicht aus (darf aber beflรผgeln).
๐ฃVermittelt mir Wertschรคtzung - auf Augenhรถhe.
๐ฃSorgt dafรผr, dass ich mich auf die Zumutung der Anderen einlasse.
๐ฃFordert mich mental.
๐ฃUnd lรคsst 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



๐๐๐๐ซ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ฆ๐๐ง: ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ซ๐ญ๐ฎ๐
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 - ๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ - 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:
๐ฃ 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 โethical scoreโ - still with problems but better.
๐ฃ 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 โoverdrawnโ. This is at best correlational data - hence what remains suspiciously unexamined is causality.
๐ฃ 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 โpartnerโ up with government. But ofc this โcausalityโ 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, โ๐ข๐ฌโ ๐๐๐ง๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ โ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก๐ญโ. 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 โpartner up with governmentโ - then this needs to be done together with NGOs, science and the public - open and transparent.
01-01-2024



๐๐ก๐ฒ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฌ๐ค: ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ง๐ญ?
In a recent discussion, my counterpart enlightened me: What do you mean by defining performance? Itโs 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 ๐๐ป) 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:
๐ฏ Task-related performance โ everything it takes to do the defined tasks well.
๐ฏ Contextual stabilizing performance โ everything it takes to contribute to the goals of the organization in the daily changing environment and collaboration with others.
๐ฏ Contextual renewing performance โ 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 โ 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 โ context-sensitive, with the wisdom of the role holder. A โWinner Cultureโ that relies on star performers falls short here (see the deep dive article ๐ ).
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 โgood.โ If we understand โgoodโ as #excellent in the sense of โsupporting each other in getting betterโ and โgood workโ as creating value for society, then itโs clear: we absolutely need contextual performance as well. And then we can probably already state: a system that prevents โhelping, supporting, speaking unpleasant truthsโ cannot lead to excellence.
And I know many will agree โ 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 โ 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 โ 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 โkicksโ (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 peoplesโ social (and cultural) capital. The meritocratic ideology on the system level then often leads to a false legitimation of (still very unfair) inequalitiesโฆ
But please read it ๐๐ป 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 โsomething out thereโ seek better ways to capture the complexity of the construct (see a very recent attempt for this in the link ๐๐ป). Those who embrace an hashtag#interpretive paradigm emphasize the socially constructed nature of performance and point out that even if there is something โof high performanceโ 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 โinvention of performanceโ (see it cited in the comment ๐๐ป) where she explains the social construction aspects inherent in the term performance. โBut 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?โ And she is questioning the underlying ontology, asking whether we can ever talk about individual performance as โthe conventional understanding of performance consistently overlooks the supportive efforts of others. Ultimately, behind everything that people achieve, there are the efforts of many.โ
Yet, maybe surprisingly, the question Verheyen raises also unites these two โsilosโ. We are aware of the measurement โdifficultiesโ (or the โdependent on human attributions and contextsโ), and we also know that the question โwhat is performanceโ 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 โ 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 โmanagingโ 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 Iโve encountered primarily revolve around measurement theories โ 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): โProcess 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.โ
While Iโve 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 โinvention of performance,โ the author, Nina Verheyen, provides a more critical lens by elucidating the social construction aspects inherent in the term โperformance.โ โBut 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?โ
She questions the underlying ontology, pondering whether we can ever discuss individual performance since โthe conventional understanding of performance consistently overlooks the supportive efforts of others. Ultimately, behind everything that people achieve, there are the efforts of many.โ
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 โwhat is performanceโ? 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?โ
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 ๐๐ป 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 โmasculinity contest culture.โ 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 โ 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 โ not โinnate capabilitiesโ when it comes to access to high-quality education.
Second, the qualifications are rewarded by the market and hence are โtaste-drivenโ โ 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) โ 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 โrightly so.โ
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 โespecially worthy of meritโ 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 โmeritocraticโ: e.g., improving the conditions of workers who do not have elite qualifications through a different tax system.
3. Detach the normative content (โmerits are deservedโ) from the descriptive content (merit is whatever our institutions define as merit): e.g., stop talking about โthey deserve their rewards,โ 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
โdevelop 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.โ
If I bring both of his insights together, I cannot help but wonder why we are not also talking about economic system alternatives โ both within capitalism but maybe also beyond.
References
Sachs-Cobbe, B. (2023). Recent work on meritocracy. Analysis, 83(1), 171โ185.
Sandel, Michael J. The tyranny of merit: Whatโs 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.
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!ย
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!ย
Popular articles in the KnowledgeHub: Good Society