The prevention part comes before the part when things go terribly wrong within an organization. It's connected to the speak-up regulations, including the Whistleblower Protection Act, and everything that will follow regarding mandatory confidential advisers. It's about optimal humanization of organizations.
Now, there are enough consultants who focus on abstract business constructs, such as culture and mentality changes, sometimes under the name of business ethics. There are concepts, such as codes of conduct within organizations, which to some extent serve as examples, but remain extremely limited, or make no impact at all. Everything related to risk, governance, and compliance is necessary, but it often involves hard controls. Above all, it's about what goes wrong. We tend to forget that morality, ethics, and integrity generate inspiration, joy, interpersonal bonding, curiosity, and progression.
Then there are leaders who have an exemplary function, which a lot of consultants pick up on with their offer. Yet, I believe that a top-down mentality is a matter of the past or at least limited. Leaders are regularly part of the problem. Thus, I'm aiming for individuals in working teams, who can be found somewhere between the dark triad and those with a strong moral compass. People who maintain the relationship with themselves and their working relationships, and who face gray areas daily. Gray areas, in the sense of situations in which not one action is possible, but in which individuals have to choose between several options.
With my consultancy, I build up the willpower to choose the 'right' option, beyond mere reflection. To make individuals aware of what an ethical working life means to them personally, and what that means within the organization they're part of.
How do you work with people?
The short answer is: I use my giftedness and sensitivity for that. The long answer is: there are many (quasi-scientific) management models or methodologies for personal growth. These provide some guidance for predicting and controlling intentions, attitudes, and behavior. Since 2012, I've gathered, compared, and applied knowledge from psychology, philosophy, and spirituality. I've omitted knowledge from physiology and other biomedical sciences, that's what others are for. There's no holy grail. What works for one individual definitely won’t work for another. I respond to that and adjust accordingly.
It's two-fold. First: practically, dealing with everything we encounter in working life in terms of gray areas, which we must act on. Gray areas that differ per sector, and also don’t because they almost always come down to the same processes of decision-making.
Second: theoretically, going in-depth with someone's personal blueprint. It's about opening up and hard work, though.
Can't artificial intelligence predict and influence intentions, attitudes, and behavior?
Ai (pun intended), that's already happening, but we as humans should remain in the lead. Artificial intelligence is like a narcissist. It can drain data exceptionally well, use that data as desired, and mimic human characteristics, while showing only functional involvement. It's well thought-out in terms of bonding. There's not a grain of purity in it. That can be fatal, so much so that we're on the eve of major global changes.
What does that mean for (working) humanity if all (micro- and macro-economic) mechanisms are at force on such a large scale, on a complete scale, even? What are we going to do with that? What's our responsibility? How are we going to regulate everything to protect humanity?
I'm always in favor of progress, also on a technological level. I'm easily found in the early adopters phase. Likewise, I've got the guts to pioneer, even when people underestimate me, laugh at me, and don't follow. But artificial intelligence is a different story, because of the dangers.
For me, the question is: What makes us human in a world of artificial intelligence? I've always found humanity in expression, deep thinking, and spirit, which leads to progress in areas like creativity and innovation. Are we being reduced by artificial intelligence to some kind of biomedical or carnal remnant of a creature? I want to guard against that, and focus on our bonding with each other.
I want to do so, not for the umpteenth business gain. Of course, the benefits of prevention and integrity management are significant. Everyone can see that. In conversations with the C-suite, I use those arguments when necessary. But that's not what I care about. I care about human gain. My ideas about organizations and doing business with integrity are sometimes controversial.
Give an example of such a controversial idea.
Well, how people are being hired, for example. Currently, organizations look not only at the substantive match, but also the cultural one, based on codes of conduct, or more often on things like likability dressed up as culture. Testing for standard traits like those in the HEXACO model is fine. But we're working towards real inclusivity. So how can all those personal blueprints in teams bond optimally? That is integrity, not the intermediate stage of diversity and inclusivity experts, though I fully understand that stage.
Speaking of integrity: there are many definitions, and much has been written on the topic. What's your definition?
First: a lot has been written about it because we're endlessly fascinated by how people function based on intentions, attitudes, and behavior. That'll always be the case. Integrity is the direction of life force, and partly about things that will never become tangible or certain. We continuously shape integrity together.
That’s why I can never do the work for someone. With my approach, I can offer the building blocks to stimulate the willpower for good. I may give my uncensored opinion. An example is the session during BPC Europe 2023. I was the only speaker who didn’t give a motivational talk with a presentation and positive psychology takeaways. I immediately put over a hundred people to work and let them leave broiled, yet activated. Brains on.
As for what integrity means:
The best-known definition is doing the right thing when no one is watching.
Also: doing what we say, and saying what we do.
Another: conscious living according to moral values—virtues.
Then there's: doing the right thing under difficult circumstances. Because doing the right thing when things are easy doesn't take much effort. What do we do when we're under real pressure?
Yet another says integrity means integrated living. That ties in with doing what we say, and saying what we do. So: consistency in thoughts, speech, and actions. Some add feeling to that. That’s when I bring in my mountain of gathered knowledge, and argue we should raise a red flag. Because by that logic, someone like Hitler would have lived with integrity.
True integrity and humanity are deeply intertwined, almost synonymous. If someone truly lives with integrity, it's always a win for the collective. It can never be a win for the self and a loss for the collective. When that loss creates danger, it’s up to the collective to correct it.
My definition of integrity has always been: I stick to my inner compass, my own blueprint. Likewise, how I behave toward someone when I’m not with that person. What are my intentions toward them? How do I feel about them? Most importantly: how do I express myself about them? In short: training integrity muscles.
Comments