My Digital FootPrint

I explore ethics, morals and integrity in the context of decision-making. This piece explores the void between ethics and morals and why we need this place to exist because it allows us to explore the reason why unethical morals force us to new thinking. The difference in definition between Ethics and Morals Definition : Ethics are guiding principles of conduct of an individual or group. Definition : Morals are principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based. Therefore an important difference between ethics and morals is that ethics are relatively uniform within a group, whereas morals are individual and heavily influenced by local culture and beliefs. How to change someone's mind is a super article from Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries at Insead.  It is important because if we want more people in the moral group, we need those with different ethics to change. And if we want to update our morals, we need to be able to change our ethics. In Manfred’s article, I believ

As a human I know we all have biases, and we all have different biases. We expose certain biases based on context, time, and people. We know that bias forms because of experience, and we are sure that social context reinforces perceived inconstancy.  Bias is like a mirror and can show our good and bad sides. As a director, you have to have experience before taking on the role, even as a founder director. This thought-piece asks if we know where our business biases start from and what direction of travel they create. Business bias is the bias you have right now that affects your choice, judgment and decision making. Business bais is something that our data cannot tell us. Data can tell me if your incentive removes choice or aligns with an outcome.  At the most superficial level, we know that the expectations of board members drive decisions.  The decisions we take link to incentives, rewards and motivations and our shared values .  If we unpack this simple model, we can follow (the b

Whilst our universe is full of hostile places, and they are engaging in their own right, I want to unpack the thinking and use naturally occurring hostile environments as an analogy to help unpack complex decision making in hostile to non-hostile work environments. ---- I enjoyed reading Anti-Fragile in 2013; it is the book about things that gain from disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb . " Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness , disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk , and uncertainty . Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, there is no word for the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile. Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better. " When writing this, I have the same problem looking for a direct opposite of a Hostile Environment, as in an extreme ecosystem (ecology),   and whilst I have opted for a

It is suggested that all which glitters is gold when it comes to data: the more data, the better. I have challenged this thinking that more data is better on numerous occasions, and essentially they all come to the same point. Data volume does not lead to better decisions.    A “simplistic” graph is doing the rounds (again) and is copied below. The two-axis links the quality of a decision and the person's capability with data.  It infers that boards, executives and senior leadership need to be “data-savvy” if they are to make better decisions. Data Savvy is a position between being “data-naive or data-devoid” and “drunk on data.”  The former has no data or skills; the latter is too much data or cannot use the tools. Data Savvy means you are skilled with the correct data and the right tools. This thinking is driven by those trying to sell data training by simplifying a concept to such a point its becomes meaningless but is easy to sell/ buy and looks great as a visual.  When you do

Are the consequence of a ½ baked decision that we created ( the mess we are in ) squared This article joins how the # climate outcomes we get may be related to the evidence requirements we set.  The audience for this viewpoint is those who are thinking about the long term consequences of our current decisions and the evidence we use to support those decisions. We are hoping to bring a sense of clarity to our community on why we feel frustrated and lost. You should read this because it will make you think and it will raise questions we need to debate over coffee as we search to become better versions of ourselves.  @yaelrozencwajg @yangbo @tonyfish The running order is: Which camp are you in for positioning of the crisis: know and accepted, still questioning or denial.   What are the early approaches to solutions?  What are policymakers doing and what is their perspective.  The action is to accept the invitation to debate at the end. Part 1. Sustainability set up The world appears more

What are we asking the questions for? This link gives you access to all the articles and archives for </Hello CDO> This article unpacks questions and framing as I tend to focus on the conflicts, tensions, and compromises that face any CDO in the first 100 days — ranging from the effects of a poor job description to how a company’s culture means that data-led decisions are not decisions. I love this TED talk from Dana Kanze at LSE.  Dana’s talk builds on the research of Tory Higgins who is credited with creating the social theory “ Regulatory Focus ”  This is a good summary if you have not run into it before. Essentially the idea behind “Regulatory Focus” is to explore motivations and routes to getting the outcome you want. The context in this article is to explore how a framed approach to questions creates biased outcomes. One framing in Regulatory Focus centres on a “Promotion Focus” which looks for “ gain ” which can be translated as finding or seeking hope, advancement a