Category: blog

Within the MoralDNA™ Profile we question participants about their moral values and our data reveals how different occupations assess their Courage, both at work and within the home.

“It is curious that physical courage should be common in the world and moral courage so rare”. Mark Twain

Courage refers to doing consistently what we feel is right despite personal risk. It can often mean facing the fear of the unknown, conflicts of interests and the counter-intuitiveness that tough decision making often brings. A lack of courage in our lives may result in us holding back from standing up for our beliefs: we may give up too easily or we may become fearful. Our psychological safety and risk-avoiding culture sometimes may prevent us from acting in a way which we feel is right. On the other hand, too much courage may push us stubbornly towards a distorted perception of the facts and lead us to make a wrong decision.

Ethical leaders like Ghandi and Mandela are regularly cited as showing moral courage, as are whistelblowers who, at professional and sometimes personal risk, uncover what they see as unethical practices. These individual acts have most recently been led by whistleblower Edward Snowden who felt the need to speak out about what he sees as the NSA’s ungovernable global appetite for eavesdropping because, as he states: “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things” 1

So, how do our occupational groupings compare as displaying the most courage?

Law Enforcement tops the list. Other high scoring occupations include Banks, Telecoms, Politics and Oil & Gas. At the lower end, Arts and Crafts don’t appear to want to ‘rock the boat’, closely followed by Advertising and PR, then the Unemployed, News/Media, Retail, Education and Legal.

So what does it all mean? There are occupations where truth is fundamental, such as information about a toxic loan, a technical fault or a gas leak. If truth isn’t shared then usually a bigger disaster will be the result. In occupations where expectations for moral behaviour are high it is also worth noting how problematic it can be for people to be morally courageous, as it largely depends on the influence exerted over them in their daily professional activities. For the many creative professions at the bottom of our Courage list, it appears they find it highly challenging to face conflict on the one hand and come up with creative ideas and new solutions on the other.

Our moral courage is strongly linked to our integrity – the way in which we wish to live our lives, which shapes the kind of society we want to live in. When faced with a situation that we feel is wrong, our moral courage drives the action we are prepared to take to address it.

How courageous are you? What is stopping you from “doing the right thing”? Join over 80,000 people from over 200 countries around the world and find out more about your values and how you make decisions.

Take the Test

1 ‘Edward Snowden: more conscientious objector than common thief’ The Guardian Editorial, Monday 10 June, 2013

Also by Professor Roger Steare

‘ethicability® How to decide what’s right and find the courage to do it’

The ethicability® framework integrates high-level principles, detailed rules and empathic stakeholder outcomes to help you decide what’s right – and then do it. And you’ll find the courage to act by showing clients, shareholders and regulators alike that you’ve made the right decisions fairly, with integrity and in good faith.

www.ethicability.org

Courage: Is It Time to Stand Up and Be Counted? was last modified: June 20th, 2017 by MoralDNA

[fusion_builder_container type=”flex” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”true” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=”” border_sizes_top=”” border_sizes_bottom=”” border_sizes_left=”” border_sizes_right=”” first=”true”][fusion_text]

“Politics have no relation to morals” – Niccolo Machiavelli

As the lobbying scandal delivers the latest body blow to the public’s trust and confidence in the political system, it seems hard to disagree with Machiavelli’s suggestion that politics have no relation to morals. Examples of such wrongdoing are so prevalent amongst the political elite that they almost appear to be part of the normal “rules of play”. Indeed, Nick Clegg has described the recent events as “unsettling but not surprising” and back in 2010 David Cameron predicted that lobbying was “the next big scandal waiting to happen”.

But, taking a step back from the media headlines, what can a scientific approach to the issue tell us? Is politics as morally bankrupt as it seems? And can an analysis of the MoralDNA™ of politicians shed any light on why and how such misconduct comes about?

Our findings

We analyzed the MoralDNA™ of those working in politics. Our sample is equivalent to about 13% of the UK parliament and is drawn from our database of 80,000 people in over 200 countries. The results strongly suggest that Machiavelli was right (that politics has little to do with morals) and that we ought to question politicians’ morality.

Graph 1 presents politicians’ scores on the 10 moral values that make up the MoralDNA™ profile. In all but two of these politicians score below average, particularly in terms of Honesty, Humility and Trust, attributes that the voting public might reasonably demand of their elected representatives.

Graph 2 shows how people in politics make judgments using the Ethics of Obedience, Care and Reason. What is remarkable is the sharp distinction between their approach to decision-making within their professional lives (in which the Ethic of Obedience is dominant) and their personal lives (in which the Ethic of Obedience plays hardly any role).

“The Police State Effect”

Broadly speaking, most peoples’ approach to decision-making will shift within the workplace. The Ethic of Obedience increases as the Ethic of Care declines: doing the “right thing” at work becomes more about following orders than exercising empathy or expressing concern for the wider impact of our decisions. I call this “police state effect”.

However, in the case of politicians this contrast between professional and private decision-making is greater than in any other occupation I have studied, showing a 95 percentile swing in the significance of the Ethic of Obedience. One conclusion from this might be that politicians are essentially mavericks who don’t like taking orders. But while their basic disposition is to be disobedient they will comply with the whip and toe the party line in order to get the job done.

This apparent “Jekyll and Hyde” character is perhaps consistent with the low scores that politicians achieve in terms of Honesty, Trust and Self -control.
The second notable finding is that the Ethic of Care plays a small role within politicians’ decision-making process. This strongly suggests that, in both their personal and professional lives, politicians are not particularly caring of others, either friends, families, or constituents. On the one hand this result is, in part, due to the fact that the sample was mostly made up of men (who generally score 5 to 10% lower than women on the Ethic of Care; however, it is also apparent that women in politics tend to replicate the male MoralDNA™ profile, exhibiting a reduced Ethic of Care.
Just desserts?

Our research raises several questions, the most immediate being whether these maverick individuals, who apparently care less than most, are the right people for the job. Their very low Honesty scores might at least give us cause to question why we are electing such people to represent and govern us.

With the emergence of the NSA spying scandal such questions seem particularly relevant as political debate has rapidly become polarised around the issues of civil liberties and national security; between those who might regard whistleblower Edward Snowden as a hero and those who view him as an enemy of the state. Given our findings, can we trust our politicians to genuinely engage with such issues of moral complexity?

Underlying our findings is a yet deeper question. What does it tell us about our political system that such personalities are attracted to (and able to succeed within) it? It may be that we simply get the politicians we deserve… What do you think?

Join over 80,000 people from over 200 countries around the world and find out more about your values and how you make decisions. Take the Test

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Is politics as morally bankrupt as it seems? was last modified: November 5th, 2023 by MoralDNA

What happens when good people go to work? From the shop floor to the boardroom, the factory, office block, studio, café and classroom, through the MoralDNA™ Profile we’re discovering more about who bring brings the milk of human kindness to work in their packed lunch and who leaves their humanity, along with their coat, at the door.

Our Ethic of Care helps us distinguish “good” from “bad” actions. If other people are going to be inconvenienced or hurt by a decision we make, usually this decision is characterised as “the wrong thing to do”. Care calls into question our empathy – how good we are at putting ourselves in another’s shoes and acting accordingly.

History is littered with atrocities performed by people on others. In all these cases there was a mental process of dehumanizing those suffering by the perpetrators. From the mundane to the tragic; from not being bothered to get someone’s name right to mis-selling products, corporate negligence and acts of terrorism – all these factor within the Ethic of Care.

Since 2012, participants in the worldwide MoralDNA™ Profile have been telling us how they think they behave in their personal lives, as opposed to how they behave at work. In almost all cases people report a reduced Ethic of Care at work, either because they are told to behave in a certain way or because they have to put the interests of their employer over the needs of the customer. The only professions that reported a slight increase in the Ethic of Care at work were those that deal directly with caring for people: Homemaker, Religion and Healthcare.

So, what of the workers who display the greatest difference between the levels of care shown in their personal lives and those at work? From our research these include:

Advertising and PR
Banking
Investment
Law
Telecommunications

An advertising professional’s job is to make you believe you don’t simply want something you need it and, on balance, can’t concern him or herself too much as to whether you are making the right choice given your particular circumstances.

Banking and investment has certainly figured highly in the ‘I’m alright Jack pull up the ladder’ school of behaviour in recent years, memorably illustrated in Goldman Sach’s executive Greg Smith’s open letter of resignation where he noted: “Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as ‘muppets’ …” He also added that in sales meetings his colleagues were more concerned about how to make money out of people, than how to help them [1].

Lawyers certainly would appear to need to disassociate themselves from people in order to apply the rule of law, especially when required to defend a client who is guilty but has the right to representation.

Finally, why telecommunications workers seem to care so little about people is something that has us puzzled and we welcome your thoughts on what it is in their industry that is literally disconnecting them from the people around them.

The bottom of the list of those professions with the lowest Ethic of Care in their working lives is dominated by professions in which people are not the main ‘commodity’ and include: chemicals, oil and gas, technology, construction, automobiles, engineering, telecommunications, and industry. Two glaring exceptions to this rule are politics and the armed services.

As more and more people take the MoralDNA® Profile we continue to drill down in greater detail into how people live out their values at home and at work, how they make decisions and how this influences others.

Do you care more at home than at work? What stops you from “doing the right thing”? Join over 80,000 people from over 200 countries around the world and find out more about your values and how you make decisions.

Take the Test

[1] ‘Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs’ by GREG SMITH Published: New York Times , March 14, 2012

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

When it Comes to Work, Who Cares? was last modified: April 17th, 2013 by MoralDNA

Currently, 19% of people completing the MoralDNA™ profile are Teachers. First of all, if you’ve taken the test and received the Teacher profile this certainly does not mean you should start teaching language and maths to other people’s children! What it does mean is that your primary concern is the Ethic of Care. This suggests your decision-making is based predominantly on emotional intelligence or empathy.

For you, moral dilemmas and tough decisions arise when there are no nice alternatives or clever solutions. Something will have to be sacrificed. Your primary concern is to not harm other people, which is, of course, generally a good thing.

Your next concern will be the Ethic of Obedience to “rules”. That means you will try to not break the law or rules and regulations that may tell us what we must or must not do.

Your final concern is the Ethic of Reason – how your decision will resonate with the “rational” moral values and principles such as fairness, wisdom and self-control. In other words the spirit of the law.

Given the order of these preferences, we would suggest you stop and think twice about the Ethic of Reason and how a more objective and rational approach to decision-making might help you take a more balanced approach.

I hope you’ve also read the small print in your report which mentions how accurate this characterization is. This accuracy is calculated on how different your preferences are for the three ethics of Care, Obedience and Reason. The bigger the differences, the more accurate this characterization is. If in your case there aren’t big differences, then read this with caution!

What does it mean to be a “Teacher” in the MoralDNA™ Test? was last modified: March 25th, 2012 by MoralDNA

Very recently Hogan Assessments published results of an internet survey of about 1000 employed persons. People were asked to describe the bad and good bosses they had worked for. compare hotels . The results are very interesting and are consistent with our own findings with MoralDNA™ which we will be sharing over the coming weeks.

What makes a bad boss bad? Most people find the following personal, moral qualities to be lacking:

52% are described as Arrogant (i.e. lacking in Humility and Love),
50% as Manipulative (lacking in Fairness and Love),
49% Emotionally Volatile (lacking in Self Control),
48% Micromanaging (lacking in Trust),
44% Passive Aggressive (lacking in Honesty), and
42% Distrustful of Others (again lacking in Trust).

What makes a good boss great? Surprise, surprise! Personal moral qualities rule again:

81% Trustworthy (Trust)
64% Calm under Pressure (Self Control)
63% Responsible (Trust)
59% Inspirational (a mixture of Hope and Wisdom is needed for that)
48% Good at Business Strategy (Excellence)
47% Tactful (a specific type of Care for others)

So make no mistake, leadership qualities are human, moral qualities. If you want to develop leaders, you need to develop morally mature and responsible people. Intellect is good, but moral character makes all the difference.

Bad bosses and good bosses was last modified: March 9th, 2012 by MoralDNA