Ethics to be prioritised in professional and business education
In a recent in the Sunday Times , Matthew Syed argues that the plethora of regulations in our society is a root cause of failure, not the scarcity of them.
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
For years, professional services firms have built their success on expertise—deep technical knowledge, years of experience, and a proven track record. But in today’s fast-changing world, this is no longer enough. The challenges we face—technological disruption, complex client needs, and global uncertainty—demand something more: cognitive diversity. Cognitive diversity is about bringing together people who think differently, solve problems in unique ways, and challenge conventional approaches. Yet, many firms still fall into the trap of hiring in their own image—recruiting individuals with similar qualifications and perspectives. This creates an echo chamber where innovation is stifled, and blind spots go unnoticed. Take the rise of AI in professional services. The firms leading the way aren’t just those with technical expertise. They’re the ones combining data scientists with strategists, behavioural psychologists, and ethicists. This mix of perspectives ensures AI is implemented effectively, ethically, and in alignment with client goals. The evidence is clear: diverse teams solve complex problems better. But it’s not just about hiring differently—it’s about fostering a culture where diverse voices are heard, valued, and integrated into decision-making. In a world of increasing complexity, cognitive diversity isn’t just a buzzword. It’s the competitive edge that separates firms that thrive from those that stagnate. Are you ready to embrace it?
It's a curious paradox, isn't it? As a business coach, I've observed a recurring pattern among even the most accomplished entrepreneurs: a reluctance, a hesitation, when it comes to embracing the Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG). They intellectually grasp the power of a compelling, long-term vision to propel them forward, yet something holds them back. What's the underlying mechanism at play here? Is it simply a fear of failure, magnified by the potential scale of the BHAG? Or perhaps a more subtle cognitive bias – a subconscious anchoring to past successes, making the leap to a truly audacious future seem, well, unrealistic ? We know from research in behavioural economics that loss aversion can be a powerful force, even among those who have consistently demonstrated a capacity for risk. Could it be that the potential downside of not achieving a BHAG looms larger in their minds than the potential upside of transformative success? The implications are profound. A well-defined BHAG can act as a forcing function, driving innovation, fostering resilience, and ultimately unlocking levels of performance that would otherwise remain untapped. So, how do we dismantle this psychological barrier? I suspect the answer lies in a multi-faceted approach: Embracing the Growth Mindset: Cultivating a deep-seated belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through dedication and hard work, as Carol Dweck has so eloquently argued. Deconstructing Complexity: Breaking down the BHAG into a series of smaller, testable hypotheses, allowing for iterative learning and adaptation. Reframing "Failure" as Data: Recognizing that setbacks are not indicators of inherent limitations, but rather valuable sources of information that can inform future strategies. The challenge, as always, is to translate these insights into actionable strategies. What are your thoughts? Have you encountered this resistance to BHAGs in your own experience? Let's explore this fascinating intersection of psychology and performance in the comments.