Publications
How can we answer the most difficult questions?
Imagine an engineer from a car manufacturer comes to his Board of Directors with one simple question. "We have good news, the self-driving car outside is ready! However, we still have to make one choice. In the most extreme situation that the car has to intervene, does the driver die or the kind that stands in front of the car?" What do you do as the person with ultimate responsibility to answer that question?
This question is impactfull, how are you able to make such decision? Mercedes did it in ’14 and the German government answered this question also, two years later. Interesting result was that the outcome was complete the opposite.
My interest was started. What did they do in the boardroam, how did they make their decision? Did they use the Socrates methodology? Or did the use the Dilemma method or the Utrecht model as we are familiar with in the healtcare sector for answering moral and ethical questions?
Today, how to answer such a question is increasingly relevant in combination with developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI). This development means that the difficult questions may not be different, but must be made very explicit, because the AI Robot will act “on behalf of” us. And if we don't even know how to answer such a question, how do we transfer responsibility to AI Robots, who will act on our behalf.
Learn from eachother
Recently, for my E-MBA, I was able to do an initial research for answering this question: how do we answer the most difficult questions? The ethical questions. Which process do we go through? Are we going through a process at all? Can you go through a process for answering ethical questions or is it inherent in these kinds of questions that your own moral awareness must be leading in answering?
Discussing this issue resulted in most interesting conversations, but often also a surprising outcome, namely; no idea how we can answer these kinds of questions in a correct manner. The healthcare sector seems to be at the forefront, rightly so and understandably. There, tough choices are made every day that require a good assessment, choices that sometimes concerns life and death. What can we learn from them? Where can we improve our processes?
The ethical challenge in the financial sector?
In the financial sector we see important and good developments, we make agreements about our behavior (think specifically of the bankers oath), we see the development of moral compasses, the establishment of ethical committees, etc. Unfortunately, we also see these developments being necessary when we realize that there is little fertile ground for confidence in the sector. Reputation was tainted by immoral unethical behavior where self-interest sometimes preferred over customer or participant interests. It is precisely in this sector where trust is most crucial that we have to make make a difference if we try to make our choices as well as possible and are able to explain our choices appropriately, even the most difficult ones.
How do you do that?
During the research I came across the three ethical check questions from Norman Vincent Peale and Kenneth Blanchard. Simplistic in its simplicity, at the same time intriguing in its dimension. On three levels, a person is asked to consider a ethical issue. From the legal framework (is it legal?), from the balance perspective (is it balanced?) and by challenging our feeling (how does it make me feel about myself).
An interesting connection is made with the three words that are known from Aristotales: logos, pathos and ethos. The links with legal, balanced and feeling are therefore easy to connect. Another relevant aspect for the further research, in combination with the impact of AI, was that you could use data at multiple levels. This was an approach that gave sufficient reason for further research of these three questions.
In collaboration with two professors and four experts, we started a Delphi study to deepen these questions and see whether that example from 1988 has still its relevance in practice Today.
And the first answer is yes, together with an "update"
The first research result was clear. Yes, this approach is valuable to use in daily life to answer the most difficult questions. However, it does require an update and some fundamental adjustments.
Level 1: how does it make me feel about myself?
The research has shown that when answering these questions, the emotional aspect is particularly important, such that further research was necessary and requires a different prioritization in the order of questions. Deepening the question is possible by the support of the publicity test, generalization test and mirror test. With three in-depth questions you can make the emotional issue more objective. Actually, your feeling is not objective. When answering, it is also important that you start the slow thought process in your consideration. So not only your quick intuitive part of your brain, but the combination of both is relevant in this.
Level 2: Is it balanced (per stakeholder)?
Also in terms of balance, it is important to deepen and reflect on the issue, for whom is this choice actually balanced? Who are the relevant stakeholders in this issue? An important nuance in this respect is that if you are working on answering this issue from the various stakeholders, a recheck is important at this level. Namely, specific attention to those who suffer from this issue. Not by definition with the aim to compensate them, but to raise awareness of this vulnerable group. Because of the primary focus on the outcome of the answer, this important group could possibly be skipped.
Level 3: Is it legal?
The last level is the legal check. Is it legal? This has to be answered from the perspective of legislation, but possibly also from the perspective of established frameworks of the company for which you work. It is interesting to note that Peale and Blanchard started with this issue and after further research we want to end this very consciously. Why? You could simply say that if you start answering this question from the legal framework, you will automatically fall into the trap that the legal framework may be too restrictive. It is precisely in the combination with AI that we see that it is important to look further than Today. Developments on AI are rapidly and the legal framework can hardly keep up. This could mean that if you start with this issue from the current framework, you automatically run behind the facts instead of ahead.
Recheck: Is it stil in accordance with level 1?
And yet a final final check has been added. Very conscious. If you have completed all three levels, the final check is whether the outcome at the last level is still in line with the first. In this way, you secure the beginning and end process by means of an integral linked chain.
The overview below presents the ethical framework for decision-making. This concerns the simplified model. The study went one step further with the impact of AI. For example, where could we use AI to better answer these questions from data that we add to our analysis with the help of AI Robots.
Continuing in a PhD research
In the meantime it has become increasingly clear to me that I do not want to let go this theme and I am most pleased to be able to start a PhD research.
The subject inspires me, and I realize that this first step was just a first stepping stone that requires further steps. The theoretical model requires more depth, requires analysis of concrete practical experiences, and also offers opportunities to analyze whether AI can actually fulfill phase 2 & 3. But for me also the ambition to create broader support and impact and thus prevent it from remaining merely an academic reality and not having any concrete application.
Ultimately, it is the dialogue that is the main focus to moral ethical leadership. In the publication below you can read more about the first study, physical copies are also available upon request.
Imagine an engineer from a car manufacturer comes to his Board of Directors with one simple question. "We have good news, the self-driving car outside is ready! However, we still have to make one choice. In the most extreme situation that the car has to intervene, does the driver die or the kind that stands in front of the car?" What do you do as the person with ultimate responsibility to answer that question?
This question is impactfull, how are you able to make such decision? Mercedes did it in ’14 and the German government answered this question also, two years later. Interesting result was that the outcome was complete the opposite.
My interest was started. What did they do in the boardroam, how did they make their decision? Did they use the Socrates methodology? Or did the use the Dilemma method or the Utrecht model as we are familiar with in the healtcare sector for answering moral and ethical questions?
Today, how to answer such a question is increasingly relevant in combination with developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI). This development means that the difficult questions may not be different, but must be made very explicit, because the AI Robot will act “on behalf of” us. And if we don't even know how to answer such a question, how do we transfer responsibility to AI Robots, who will act on our behalf.
Learn from eachother
Recently, for my E-MBA, I was able to do an initial research for answering this question: how do we answer the most difficult questions? The ethical questions. Which process do we go through? Are we going through a process at all? Can you go through a process for answering ethical questions or is it inherent in these kinds of questions that your own moral awareness must be leading in answering?
Discussing this issue resulted in most interesting conversations, but often also a surprising outcome, namely; no idea how we can answer these kinds of questions in a correct manner. The healthcare sector seems to be at the forefront, rightly so and understandably. There, tough choices are made every day that require a good assessment, choices that sometimes concerns life and death. What can we learn from them? Where can we improve our processes?
The ethical challenge in the financial sector?
In the financial sector we see important and good developments, we make agreements about our behavior (think specifically of the bankers oath), we see the development of moral compasses, the establishment of ethical committees, etc. Unfortunately, we also see these developments being necessary when we realize that there is little fertile ground for confidence in the sector. Reputation was tainted by immoral unethical behavior where self-interest sometimes preferred over customer or participant interests. It is precisely in this sector where trust is most crucial that we have to make make a difference if we try to make our choices as well as possible and are able to explain our choices appropriately, even the most difficult ones.
How do you do that?
During the research I came across the three ethical check questions from Norman Vincent Peale and Kenneth Blanchard. Simplistic in its simplicity, at the same time intriguing in its dimension. On three levels, a person is asked to consider a ethical issue. From the legal framework (is it legal?), from the balance perspective (is it balanced?) and by challenging our feeling (how does it make me feel about myself).
An interesting connection is made with the three words that are known from Aristotales: logos, pathos and ethos. The links with legal, balanced and feeling are therefore easy to connect. Another relevant aspect for the further research, in combination with the impact of AI, was that you could use data at multiple levels. This was an approach that gave sufficient reason for further research of these three questions.
In collaboration with two professors and four experts, we started a Delphi study to deepen these questions and see whether that example from 1988 has still its relevance in practice Today.
And the first answer is yes, together with an "update"
The first research result was clear. Yes, this approach is valuable to use in daily life to answer the most difficult questions. However, it does require an update and some fundamental adjustments.
Level 1: how does it make me feel about myself?
The research has shown that when answering these questions, the emotional aspect is particularly important, such that further research was necessary and requires a different prioritization in the order of questions. Deepening the question is possible by the support of the publicity test, generalization test and mirror test. With three in-depth questions you can make the emotional issue more objective. Actually, your feeling is not objective. When answering, it is also important that you start the slow thought process in your consideration. So not only your quick intuitive part of your brain, but the combination of both is relevant in this.
Level 2: Is it balanced (per stakeholder)?
Also in terms of balance, it is important to deepen and reflect on the issue, for whom is this choice actually balanced? Who are the relevant stakeholders in this issue? An important nuance in this respect is that if you are working on answering this issue from the various stakeholders, a recheck is important at this level. Namely, specific attention to those who suffer from this issue. Not by definition with the aim to compensate them, but to raise awareness of this vulnerable group. Because of the primary focus on the outcome of the answer, this important group could possibly be skipped.
Level 3: Is it legal?
The last level is the legal check. Is it legal? This has to be answered from the perspective of legislation, but possibly also from the perspective of established frameworks of the company for which you work. It is interesting to note that Peale and Blanchard started with this issue and after further research we want to end this very consciously. Why? You could simply say that if you start answering this question from the legal framework, you will automatically fall into the trap that the legal framework may be too restrictive. It is precisely in the combination with AI that we see that it is important to look further than Today. Developments on AI are rapidly and the legal framework can hardly keep up. This could mean that if you start with this issue from the current framework, you automatically run behind the facts instead of ahead.
Recheck: Is it stil in accordance with level 1?
And yet a final final check has been added. Very conscious. If you have completed all three levels, the final check is whether the outcome at the last level is still in line with the first. In this way, you secure the beginning and end process by means of an integral linked chain.
The overview below presents the ethical framework for decision-making. This concerns the simplified model. The study went one step further with the impact of AI. For example, where could we use AI to better answer these questions from data that we add to our analysis with the help of AI Robots.
Continuing in a PhD research
In the meantime it has become increasingly clear to me that I do not want to let go this theme and I am most pleased to be able to start a PhD research.
The subject inspires me, and I realize that this first step was just a first stepping stone that requires further steps. The theoretical model requires more depth, requires analysis of concrete practical experiences, and also offers opportunities to analyze whether AI can actually fulfill phase 2 & 3. But for me also the ambition to create broader support and impact and thus prevent it from remaining merely an academic reality and not having any concrete application.
Ultimately, it is the dialogue that is the main focus to moral ethical leadership. In the publication below you can read more about the first study, physical copies are also available upon request.
Publications - downloads
| Moral and Ethical Leadership in a Digitalized Financial Industry - Paper |
| Moral and Ethical Leadership in a Digitalized Financial Industry - Presentation |
Time for Business Ethics
From moral awareness to setting norms
Ethical Dilemmas in the Financial Sector
Jop Versteegt
"Should we submit a proposal or not?" This question kicks off our meeting, usually answered with a resounding "yes." Today is different. The initial reaction is short and unanimous: "We can’t possibly do this."
We’ve received a request for a proposal from a tobacco manufacturer to manage the pension plan for its employees. Investing in tobacco manufacturers is a straightforward issue in the financial sector today—you simply don’t do it. Following this logic, you obviously wouldn’t manage the pensions for the company's employees either, right?
A discussion arises at the decision-making table, with opinions clashing and overlapping. After some time, the conversation evolves into a dialogue, incorporating reflections made using an ethical decision-making framework. One of our colleagues had prepared for this discussion. The ethical framework consists of a series of questions, and our colleague had drafted responses for each one. This deepened the conversation and allowed us to explore multiple perspectives. Then, the pivotal question emerges: "Does this mean the secretary is a bad person because we don’t want to handle her pension?" Silence falls, as everyone realizes this question touches on their own values and principles. The discussion shifts, resulting in a new decision: under certain conditions, we will submit a proposal after all.
For me, this example of investing in the tobacco industry epitomizes the ethical dilemmas I face daily in the financial sector. We often encounter issues that challenge our personal values and principles. Since time is money, decision-making processes should ideally be as efficient as possible. Often, our first instinctive reaction leads to quick decisions, but upon reflection, these may not always be the best from a moral standpoint. Does this mean our first intuition is always wrong? That would be a hasty conclusion. The question is whether our answer would be different, or even better, if we took a step back before reaching a conclusion. I believe it would. More space for moral uncertainty arises when we take time to methodically consider complex situations. While this sounds logical, we must evaluate the added value of moral reflection.
It’s evident that complex issues ideally require thorough consideration. However, in the financial sector, we deal with an open market. Concretely, consumer prices are constantly under pressure, and so is available time. And if time is available, it’s preferably invested in growth and ambition rather than extensive reflection on doing the right thing even better. Currently, under the guidance of Muel Kaptein and Marius van Dijke, I am working on my dissertation about the effectiveness of normative ethical decision-making models. Chapters one and two have already discussed two such models or frameworks. In this essay, I would like to share some of my initial research findings. Fundamentally, I believe that by following a framework, we can better handle moral dilemmas and justify our handling of them. In this chapter, I provide several arguments for using a normative ethical decision-making model.
The entire chapter can be read in "Tijd voor bedrijfsethiek," available for order at: https://eburon.nl/product/tijd-voor-bedrijfsethiek/
This compilation, with contributions from scholars and professionals, offers perspectives on business ethics. The initial chapters discuss a framework for addressing moral issues such as workplace safety, responsible leadership, and privacy. Other chapters explore politics, law, and compliance in relation to business ethics.
Business ethics is essential for navigating moral dilemmas and strengthening integrity within organizations. The compilation emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to ethical issues, combining theoretical insights and practical case studies to foster a deep understanding of moral responsibility in the business world. The goal is to inspire and equip professionals with the tools and reflections needed to act ethically in complex business environments, contributing to a fairer and more sustainable business world.
Contributors include: Edgar Karssing, Bart Jansen, Ronald Jeurissen, Wim Dubbink, Marloes de Jong, Arnt Mein, Björn Kijl, Geert Vermeulen, Jop Versteegt, and Jelle van Baardewijk.
From moral awareness to setting norms
Ethical Dilemmas in the Financial Sector
Jop Versteegt
"Should we submit a proposal or not?" This question kicks off our meeting, usually answered with a resounding "yes." Today is different. The initial reaction is short and unanimous: "We can’t possibly do this."
We’ve received a request for a proposal from a tobacco manufacturer to manage the pension plan for its employees. Investing in tobacco manufacturers is a straightforward issue in the financial sector today—you simply don’t do it. Following this logic, you obviously wouldn’t manage the pensions for the company's employees either, right?
A discussion arises at the decision-making table, with opinions clashing and overlapping. After some time, the conversation evolves into a dialogue, incorporating reflections made using an ethical decision-making framework. One of our colleagues had prepared for this discussion. The ethical framework consists of a series of questions, and our colleague had drafted responses for each one. This deepened the conversation and allowed us to explore multiple perspectives. Then, the pivotal question emerges: "Does this mean the secretary is a bad person because we don’t want to handle her pension?" Silence falls, as everyone realizes this question touches on their own values and principles. The discussion shifts, resulting in a new decision: under certain conditions, we will submit a proposal after all.
For me, this example of investing in the tobacco industry epitomizes the ethical dilemmas I face daily in the financial sector. We often encounter issues that challenge our personal values and principles. Since time is money, decision-making processes should ideally be as efficient as possible. Often, our first instinctive reaction leads to quick decisions, but upon reflection, these may not always be the best from a moral standpoint. Does this mean our first intuition is always wrong? That would be a hasty conclusion. The question is whether our answer would be different, or even better, if we took a step back before reaching a conclusion. I believe it would. More space for moral uncertainty arises when we take time to methodically consider complex situations. While this sounds logical, we must evaluate the added value of moral reflection.
It’s evident that complex issues ideally require thorough consideration. However, in the financial sector, we deal with an open market. Concretely, consumer prices are constantly under pressure, and so is available time. And if time is available, it’s preferably invested in growth and ambition rather than extensive reflection on doing the right thing even better. Currently, under the guidance of Muel Kaptein and Marius van Dijke, I am working on my dissertation about the effectiveness of normative ethical decision-making models. Chapters one and two have already discussed two such models or frameworks. In this essay, I would like to share some of my initial research findings. Fundamentally, I believe that by following a framework, we can better handle moral dilemmas and justify our handling of them. In this chapter, I provide several arguments for using a normative ethical decision-making model.
The entire chapter can be read in "Tijd voor bedrijfsethiek," available for order at: https://eburon.nl/product/tijd-voor-bedrijfsethiek/
This compilation, with contributions from scholars and professionals, offers perspectives on business ethics. The initial chapters discuss a framework for addressing moral issues such as workplace safety, responsible leadership, and privacy. Other chapters explore politics, law, and compliance in relation to business ethics.
Business ethics is essential for navigating moral dilemmas and strengthening integrity within organizations. The compilation emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to ethical issues, combining theoretical insights and practical case studies to foster a deep understanding of moral responsibility in the business world. The goal is to inspire and equip professionals with the tools and reflections needed to act ethically in complex business environments, contributing to a fairer and more sustainable business world.
Contributors include: Edgar Karssing, Bart Jansen, Ronald Jeurissen, Wim Dubbink, Marloes de Jong, Arnt Mein, Björn Kijl, Geert Vermeulen, Jop Versteegt, and Jelle van Baardewijk.
See for more info and publications also: ResearchGate
