Across our global community, English has increasingly become the lingua franca – a shared global language for those who speak other languages. This has given rise to entirely new varieties of English, in addition to the existing linguistic and cultural differences between native English speakers across the world. A recent, very entertaining, podcast from the BBC World Service, called This is me totally sausage, explores these very themes. German native speaker, comedian and broadcaster now living in England, Henning Wehn, gives a very good overview of the complexity of speaking English as a non-native speaker, speaking English across different English cultures, and the trials and tribulations of using a common language while having completely different cultural expectations.
I’ve been reading a lot about ethics over the last few months, in preparation for the Ethical Literacy courses I’m soon to be facilitating on behalf of the St James Ethics Centre, and it has got me thinking. About everything. Ethical choices and preferences touch every part of our lives – from which eggs to buy at the supermarket, to whether to shop at the supermarket at all. Your ethical preferences influence who you vote for, and what newspapers, blogs and magazines you read. Most of the time we’re completely unaware of what ethics has to do with routine, everyday decisions, until you stop to think about it.
Popular culture is a good place to look to see how people are thinking in the wider community, and once you start looking, ethical preferences are clearly reflected in a wide range of TV shows. There are many shows that reflect a ‘means justified the ends’ approach to ethics, in fact it’s easier to think of programs that subscribe to their view than any other. Sometimes these programs have a rogue hero or anti-hero using irregular means and breaking rules to solve difficult problems – programs like House, Dexter, 24 and Homeland are all good examples.
Darker shows like Breaking Bad and The Sopranos created drama by cleverly playing with the audience’s ethical ideas. In both shows the main characters are sympathetic at first. They both have a consequentialist approach – the means justifies the ends. However, as the drama plays out, the characters’ moral lines are increasingly tested, and so is the audiences’ sympathy for them.
A different approach can be seen in programs like The West Wing, and The Good Wife where the model is a central character who is a ‘virtuous person’ and role model for morality. They face conflicts and struggles which is the basis for the drama, but ultimately take a virtuous path.
Another approach to ethics is to think of an ethical act as one that fulfils certain rules and duties regardless of the outcome – you can see this at play in comedies such as Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm and Seinfeld. In all of these there is at least one central character who repeatedly gets into trouble because they doggedly stick to their ‘rules’ for morality and behaviour, regardless of the consequences – which are inevitably complicated and disastrous. In these programs this ethical approach is often at the heart of the comedy, and is being made fun of. At the same time, it is this very moral core that makes the characters likeable and relatable, even if they usually appear misguided.
I find competitive reality TV programs the most interesting of all in relation to ethics. For many of these shows, the drama comes from putting people with different ethical preferences and perspectives in situations that force them to make ethical choices. The choices usually mean they will be in ethical conflict with each other, and may also be forced to act in a way that appears contrary to their ethical position. A program like Survivor is a great example, forcing people to make alliances and form bonds where loyalty is a prime value, only to force these bonds apart later on. It’s quite common for competitors to take a rational consequentialist approach at the start, claiming they’re going to do whatever it takes to win the final $1 million prize, but very quickly things become complicated as their emotional selves take over, revealing their true ethical preferences. The social side of the game forces them to consider, and sometimes manipulate, other’s ethical preferences in order to make it to the end.
Next time you watch your favourite TV program, think about the ethical perspective at play. Are there clearly defined social rules that indicate the ‘good’ path? Or does the lead character do whatever it takes to get the ‘good’ result. Or perhaps there is a role-model virtuous character, who ultimately chooses the ‘good’ path. Maybe it’s a different ethical perspective again, or maybe a mix of a couple of these. In any case, it can be interesting to think about, and consider how well your favourite shows reflect your ethical world view.
With International Women’s Day on Sunday, it’s a good time to look at how far have we’ve come in achieving social, economic and political equality across the genders.
Edith Cowan, Australia’s first female elected representative.
Economic
According to the latest OECD figures, Australia’s gender wage gap stands at 13.8% (this represents a percentage of the male median wage and refers to full-time employees). It could be worse, but the real question is why does the gap still exist?
Amongst the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, women hold 19.4% of directorships.
Of this same group of companies, there are only 6 female CEOs, with only 2.6% of female CEOs across the ASX 500.
Political
Across all State and Federal houses of Government, 29% of Australia’s elected officials are women. The ACT has the highest percentage of women in parliament at 41.2%, while Queensland has the lowest, with only 21.3%.
Amongst Commonwealth Government ministers, 16.7% are women, with only 5.3% in the Cabinet.
Three percent of parliamentary secretaries are women at a Commonwealth level, with 22.1% being women across governments, including states and territories.
Social
Australia has among the most educated women in the world. The most recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show 63% of tertiary graduates are women.
The areas of study where men still dominate (and by a large margin) are engineering, and related fields, IT, architecture and building. There are significantly more women in fields relating to society and culture, management and commerce.
More women are enrolled in bachelor degrees, while more men are enrolled in certificate courses. Men and women are about equal when it comes to enrolling in postgraduate study.
Domestic violence is a major social issue, and while men also suffer this kind of violence, the majority of victims are women at the hands of men. More than one woman a week dies as at the hands of a current or former partner, and it is the leading cause of death and injury in women under 45.
Clearly we have come a long way since the first International Women’s Day in 1911. Australian women had only won full suffrage and the right to stand for parliament some 9 years before, and in 1907 had won the right to be paid 54% of the male wage – back then, that was considered progress. As a society, we should be proud of the progress we’ve made. That said, how can we consider ourselves a just, civil society, bound by the principles of human rights, if we don’t actively seek to change the significant inequities that still exist?
Research into creative thinking has come up with some interesting new perspectives on creativity, some of which challenge traditional views on how to enhance creative thinking. The traditional, somewhat simplified, view of creativity goes something along the lines of: rules, conformity and constraint inhibit creative thinking in a group environment – common brainstorming techniques begin with getting the group to throw out the rule book as they go through the initial stage of ideas generation. Without getting into debates about the effectiveness of brainstorming – which is for another post – there is growing evidence that different approaches work for different people.
One study by Jack Goncalo and Michelle M. Duguid, of Cornell University and Washington University respectively, suggests that while conformity can inhibit people who are already highly creative, the opposite is true of people who aren’t. What interests me about this, is what it means for teams or groups who are trying to think more creatively, where the individuals are themselves not generally creative thinkers, or may be in an environment that is not traditionally creative. This would apply to many organisations I’ve worked for over the years, where people are highly skilled, with great technical expertise in other areas, but creativity is not their forte. This can also effect industries where traditionally conformity has been highly prized for various reasons – perhaps because the industry is heavily regulated, very risk averse, or simply where the group culture is such that there is a great pressure to conform.
What this research, and others like it, suggests is that, for people who are not already creative thinkers, creative thinking can be enhanced by creating greater structure around non-conformity. It sounds contradictory at first, but actually when we consider that different personality types need different things, it begins to make perfect sense. People who tend away from creativity and towards conformity in their thinking, can benefit from boundaries and rules within which to work. Applying this idea to creative thinking, by creating rules and norms of non-conformity and individual expression within such a group, even if this is applied within specific circumstances where greater creativity is need, can enhance creative thought. Don’t try this with a group of creative thinkers, or it will backfire, but if you have a group who struggle to think creatively, this can be a good approach to try.
The full paper for the study I’ve mentioned is here if you want to read more.
2014 has been a difficult year for many people right around the world, for many different reasons. Just a look at the Google top ten searches will tell you that. So I thought, to end the year, I would seek out ten good news stories from 2014. These are 10 things that I think are really positive – and they’re not exhaustive, and they’re also in no particular order. You may have others to add.
Malala Yousafzai wins the Nobel Peace Prize
At 17 years of age, Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani advocate for women’s rights, became the youngest ever Nobel Prize laureate. Her story is an inspiring one, and you can read more here.
Advances in wind and solar energy
Significant advances in predicting wind and solar energy is leading to more efficient, and more profitable renewable energy production.
Also this year, researchers at the University of New South Wales in Sydney have made great advances in improving efficiency and lowering the cost of solar cells.
Conchita Wurst won Eurovision
To win the Eurovision Song Contest doesn’t seem like a big deal at first glance, especially next to the other events I’ve listed here. And it’s also not the first time a member of the LGBTI community has one the big prize. However this year’s winner, Conchita Wurst, was not only the most noticeable contestant with the best song and biggest talent, but she became an inspiration. In an interview soon after her win, when asked about why she wears a beard, she said, amongst other things “I’m a member of the gay community and being this gay teenager in this small village wasn’t fun…I tried to fit in. I changed myself. I wanted to be part of the game. Then I realized, I create the game”. Conchita is an inspiration, not just for the LGBTI community, but for anyone who feels like an outsider. Take a look at her winning performance here
California Blue Whale back from the brink
A study by the University of Washington reported that the Californian Blue Whale is almost back to historic levels, the first of its species to do so after being hunted to near extinction.
The landing of the Rosetta probe
After 10 long years in transit, the Rosetta probe with its Philae lander reached comet 67P back in August. In November, scientist achieved a world-first by successfully landing the Philae on the comet, which could provide us with significant new information about the universe and how our planet evolved.
China and the US make historic climate change deal
Between them, China and the US account for about 45% of the world’s greenhouse gases. In November Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Obama signed a deal to cap emissions from China by 2030, and reduce US emissions to 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. This is the first time China has agreed to cap emissions, and as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, this is a significant step forward in trying to limit the global effects of climate change.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Obama: US and China’s historic climate deal
Transplanted cells allow a paralyzed man to walk again
After pioneering surgery transplanting some of his nasal cells into his spinal cord, a Polish man who has been paralysed from the chest down since 2010 has been able to walk again. Paralysis could become a treatable condition in the near future.
Eleven countries declared Polio-free
In March The World Health Organization declared India, and 10 other Asian countries, Polio-free after no new cases were reported for three years. This means this terrible and highly infectious disease has now been eradicated from 80% of the world.
#illridewithyou
Last week, people living in Sydney rallied together showed solidarity and support for fellow Muslim Sydney-siders who may fear bigoted attacks following the terrible siege in the city. After one woman saw another remove her head covering. Using the hashtag #illridewithyou people across the city came forward saying they’d ride with anyone fearing religously-motivated attacks.
Breakthroughs in the fight against cancer and HIV
This year has seen a number of breakthroughs in the understanding of cancer and HIV, with signs that HIV is becoming less infectious and less deadly, and hope for breakthrough treatments just around the corner. One such possible treatment is a 3-D injectable vaccine that works with the body’s immune system, and could be used to fight and even prevent cancer and HIV.
Have a happy and healthy Hanukkah, Christmas and New Year, and a happy festive season no matter where you are and what you celebrate.
Demographers have long be warning us about the impact of an aging workforce on the Australian economy, and it is still the issue that will have the biggest impact on our population over coming decades. The global financial crisis diverted attention, for a time, away from the aging workforce, just as we started to see the much talked about ‘war for talent’ come into play in a serious way. Since then, the issue hasn’t gone away. Despite some increases in immigration, our population is still rapidly aging, with a median age of 37.3 years as of June 2013, compared to 30.2 years in 1983. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has projected that the population age will continue to increase with the median age falling somewhere between 41 years and 44.5 years by 2061, with ongoing, although less rapid, increases after that into next century.
So what does this mean for business and why do so few businesses have a plan to address this issue?
Tackling issues of the aging workforce requires long-term strategic planning
Although research shows many business leaders acknowledge the aging workforce is a challenge for their business, there are many reasons why Australian businesses struggle to do anything about it. Despite the fact this could well be their most significant and long-term workforce planning challenge. There have been many reports and articles written about this over recent years, and almost all cite simple solutions such as increased flexibility and transition to retirement. These are perfectly practical suggestions, so why do businesses still struggle?
There isn’t a one-size fits all solution
Just like any workforce diversity issue, the aging workforce is creating different challenges in different industries, different businesses, and sometimes different functional teams within the same business. Some industries have a workforce that is aging more rapidly than the general population: it is estimated that the insurance industry will have 50% of its workers retire within the next 10 years. Other industries have a very young workforce, such as call-centre businesses, and are finding it harder and harder to attract and retain talent. Many fall in between these two examples, and there isn’t one, simple, solution that will work for everyone.
Short-termism and immediate challenges force band-aid solutions
The speed of change in our society has increased dramatically over the past decades, and continues to gain pace. Businesses, often with only a limited view of the technological and competitive challenges ahead, are simply struggling to keep up, and the economic outlook has been uncertain for many years now. These factors have led to a prevalence in short-term thinking, and there are many commonly used business planning tools and processes that reinforce this looking only months ahead. It takes an enormous shift in thinking to invest in long-term strategies for issues that are evolving over years and decades rather than from one year to the next.
It’s hard to overcome long-held cultural beliefs and stereotypes
We have significant cultural challenges in Australia when it comes to aging. To a large extent we buy into the ‘cult of youth’, that is also evident in similar cultures such as the US. If you doubt this, try to think of examples from our culture – from advertising, television, movies or anything else – that hold up aging as something positive or desirable, and then compare that to all of the cultural examples showing youth in the same way. This bias isn’t the same for all cultures, but it creates an additional and particularly difficult barrier to shift for organisations wanting to better manage age diversity.
Australia’s workforce has changed significantly over the past 30 years, and continues to change rapidly. If you’re a business leader, it’s likely you’re already seeing the impact. If you’re still struggling with how to manage age diversity and the aging workforce, then now really is the time to act.
Cultural diversity and difference, especially in modern organisations and multicultural societies, is a topic that has been discussed, researched and theorised about for decades, and it is a fascinating one. It can also be a major challenge for leaders, and public policy makers striving to a create diverse and inclusive communities and workplaces. Inherent in trying to understand diversity, is trying to understand different and multiple perspectives. Each of us see the world through the lens of our culture, our upbringing, our gender and so on. While it can be difficult, if not impossible, to step outside our cultural perspective, we can try to lean as much as we can about other cultures. This is one of the reasons I love to travel, to experience cultural difference, and of course, a lot can be learnt from simply reading.
I have recently come across a book by social psychologist Richard E Nisbett called The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… And Why, which offers some interesting ideas, research and commentary into how culture affects the way we think. There is a lot to say about this book, and I will return to different aspects of it in a later post. For now I want to focus on the first section, which is essentially about the history of thought in dominant eastern and western cultures – specifically the cultur
Confucius presenting the young Gautama Buddha to Laozi, China, Qing Dynasty. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Confucius_Laozi_Buddha.jpg
s of Ancient Greece and Ancient China. These cultures both had wide-reaching influence in their respective parts of the globe, with echoes through to today. Nisbett provides some interesting historical insights into two very different world-views, which gives us some insight into cultural differences today, as well as a clue as to why such differences exist.
Here is a very simple summary of Nisbett’s thorough research. The most significant divergence between the thought of Ancient Greece and that of Ancient China is in the idea of individual freedom versus harmony and community. The ancient Greeks prized debate, rhetoric and individual rights and freedoms for citizens (provided they weren’t slaves or women…). Social conflicts were resolved through debate and logical argument. Greek philosophy categorised objects and people separate from their context, and sought to find and define immutable truths about the world. Thought was linear and relying largely on formal logic, truth through logical reasoning even sometimes overruling the experience of the senses. For the most part, Greek philosophers saw the world as unchanging, and people and objects as definable and separate from everything and everyone else.
In contrast, Ancient Chinese thought evolved through a combination of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. While there are differences between these three perspectives, there are also strong themes that link them. Harmony is an important concept. Things and people exist only within a context, of environment, of community, of family, and all things are connected to everything else, and seeking harmony is very important. When something changes in the world, because it is connected to everything else, that change can resonate and impact everything else. For something to exist, so must its opposite, the idea of Ying and Yang – the world if full of contradictions. Change is fluid and continuous, and you cannot separate an object or person from its context in time and space. The path or ‘the way’ is more important than uncovering a truth. Individuality and individual achievement was not prized, as it was in Ancient Greece, but rather people strive to be in harmony with their environment and their community and meet the social obligations which defined them and their relationships.
Many of these fundamentals are certainly apparent in both Eastern and Westerns cultures today and it provides an interesting insight into the extent of cultural differences, and you can start to see how such different philosophical perspectives can lead to radically different approaches to life and work, how you communicate, what motivates you and so on. I think it also demonstrates that, from the perspective of culture, there is no right or wrong way to see the world, each tradition has made enormous contributions to the world in countless ways. There are simply different perspectives. Nisbett’s book expands on this, looking into cognition and how someone’s brain can be wired differently according to the culture in which they were raised, and I’ll write more about that in a future post.
This summary is, inevitably, a simplification, and my own interpretation, so please forgive me for that. Nisbett’s book is available in libraries and through a number of online book stores either in hard-copy or as an e-book.
