HR professionals are caring and thoughtful, but new MoralDNA data shows many swap their humanity for robotic compliance at work.
Please click on the thumbnail to see the full article
Part of a debate at the annual CIPD conference and exhibition 2017 in Manchester by panelist Professor Roger Steare
Find out more about the MoralDNA profile project here
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.
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.
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
At first it may appear a little surprising that ‘hope’ is included on the list of moral values tested within the MoralDNA™ Profile. After all, can someone’s judgment on how full or how empty their metaphorical glass is, impact upon their wider moral outlook and occupation?
The answer is, yes it can and does.
Hope is the moral value that enables us to believe in the good of humanity, even when we ourselves have been hurt. Hope enables us to be generous, kind and giving to others; through hope we believe that things will get better because of our or someone else’s efforts.
In our MoralDNA™ Profile, one of the factors we measure is Hope and the pattern that emerges by occupation is fascinating.
Topping the list of occupations with the most optimism is Religion, as it is arguable that part of their work is to support people during difficult times – offering them hope and consolation. The occupations that followed, also scoring highly on Hope include: Investment, Sales, Human Resources, Travel and Leisure, Marketing, Business Consultants, and Real Estate. All these occupations look to the future. Also high on hope were more down to earth occupations, including Automobiles & Parts, Telecoms and Oil & Gas.
Who then is languishing at the less optimistic end of the scale? Chemicals is at the bottom of the list followed by those in Politics and Central Government. Following on from our revealing test data in Trust, Care, and Honesty, these low scores on Hope are concerning for those whose aim it is to lead us. Hard on the heels of Politics we find Creative, Legal, Non-Government Organisations and New Media. Also at the lower end are Armed Services personnel and the Retired
Having a more positive outlook on life can help us better cope with difficulties and help us reach our goals. People without hope give up. Positive Psychology, a recent branch of psychology, highlights just how much hope matters; how “being drawn by the future rather than driven by the past” helps create fulfilled, creative and happier human beings – something every individual, community and occupation would surely benefit from.
How hopeful are you in the decisions you make? Join over 80,000 people from over 200 countries around the world and find out more about your values and how you make decisions.
“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
Ernest Hemingway
What makes someone trustworthy? We trust people every day: the teacher, the policeman, the nurse; a host of acquaintances and complete strangers as we go about our lives and work. But who considers themselves most trustworthy?
If we believe that trust is earned before it is given, then a lot of our daily lives would become impossible. We wouldn’t get on a bus before seeing the driver execute a number of manoeuvres to show us his or her skill and therefore trustworthiness. So it’s fair to say that within reason, we trust first and ask questions later.
MoralDNA™ is a psychometric profile that has measured 10 moral values including Trust in a sample of over 80,000 people in 200 countries around the world and we have some surprising results from different occupations concerning their perceived trustworthiness.
Our data analysis reveals that those working in banks, real estate, utilities, insurance, engineering and industrial goods and services describe themselves as people that regard themselves as most trustworthy. High too on the list are the retired, oil and gas workers, accountants and those in consulting and business services. Whilst this list may surprise many, most of these occupations have to be trusted, because without them our society just wouldn’t function.
On the list of those who see themselves as less trustworthy we find those working in news media, arts and crafts, religion, charities and not-for-profits. Creative professionals also doubt themselves, together with politicians. So isn’t it interesting that those responsible for reporting and legislating on others’ behaviour consider themselves less trustworthy?
The gap between the most and least trustworthy is considerable. In our broad sample, news media thought themselves more trustworthy than only 35% of the sample, while bankers considered themselves more trustworthy than 58% of the sample.
To trust is to take a risk and make a judgement call. It also confers a responsibility on those we trust. When trust breaks down, chaos, fear and anger follow this breach in our basic human value system. To betray someone’s trust goes a lot deeper than we often like to admit. Major banks fail through the lack of it, media empires shudder, fortunes are lost and lives ruined.
Truly trusting others and being considered trustworthy in return is a cornerstone of personal integrity, not only in our workplaces but in our personal lives as well.
How trustworthy do you consider yourself to be? 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.