(Crossposted from ~C4Chaos@Zaadz.com)

Below is a quote from Willam Pollard via the book Good Business:

“I don't think we've encouraged leaders to reflect. I think we've encouraged leaders to do. It starts with the education process. I mentioned in the book [The Soul of the Firm ]an experience I had at another public company, where I was on a committee responsible for interviewing, the next CEO of that company. We were interviewing at lot of candidates. We Wanted to somehow figure out what the person's philosophy of life was, whether they were reflective and thinking people. And there's all the kinds of ways you can get at that. You can ask them what they read or what they don't read, and so forth. But we decided to get at it by simply asking this question of every candidate: How do you determine whether something is right or wrong? And we got all kinds of different answers. First of all, most of them thought we were talking about how do you determine whether something right or wrong in the running of the business. How do you anticipate a problem, or something like that. So, that was the first response. We said, “We're not talking about that. We're talking about moral issues.” Why is it right to be truthful? Why was it right twenty years ago to think that women could only do certain types of jobs and men had to do every other kind of job? Why was that right? Why is it wrong today? Is it wrong today because the law says it's wrong? Or was it fundamentally wrong and it was just wasn't recognized? And what are the new issues? What are the issues in front of us right now that we ought to be thinking about–what is right and what is wrong in the way we conduct business, the way we treat people? I could get into the environmental issues. I could get into all other issues. What's driving a leader to anticipate those issues? Can the corporation be a moral community for the development of people in addition to producing goods and services? That's a fundamental question. Well, if it can be a moral community, then where is the leadership in thinking through the issue of these standards?” 

– Good Business - Leadership, Flow, and the Making of Meaning by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Well, I have no plans of applying for a job as a CEO but I think it's fun to answer those questions. So here you go….

How do you determine whether something is right or wrong?

Although there are values that we can consider “universal” such as compassion, the golden rule, in general, right or wrong is fundamentally determined by a person's moral values and the society in which these moral values are expressed and observed. So for me, right or wrong is determined by the intersection of my own moral values and the moral values of the immediate society I belong to.

In rare instances when my own moral values are not in sync with that of my immediate society, I tend to rely on my own moral values. However, I always try to expand my moral values by constantly evaluating it with that of the society (morality of the many), and other philosophy (morality of a few leading edge). This is how I grow morally. Consequently, most of the time, my moral values are in sync with the common good of all. So I think I'm doing well.

Why is it right to be truthful?

Being truthful builds integrity and respect. It's right to be truthful because social contracts and interactions such as business, politics, community, and even at the basic unit of the society which is the family are all based on integrity and respect. Trustworthiness not only builds relations but its also good for one's karma :)

Why was it right twenty years ago to think that women could only do certain types of jobs and men had to do every other kind of job? Why was that right? Why is it wrong today? Is it wrong today because the law says it's wrong? Or was it fundamentally wrong and it was just wasn't recognized?

Twenty years ago it was “right” to think that women could only do certain types of jobs because of a lot of factors namely, religious beliefs, tradition inherited from agrarian and industrial societies, and due to the recent World Wars. During the agrarian and industrial stages of societal development (and even going back to the tribal days and the early days of the Church) most human labors require physical strength, e.g. tilling the soil, lifting and operating heavy machineries etc.

Since, in general, physically, men are stronger than women (and men don't menstruate and become pregnant and nourish babies), it's just logical and practical that men do the heavy work (work that are mostly available at that time) while the women do the less strenuous jobs while tending to their children and their husbands. This practical division of labor were passed down from generation to generation and were deemed as traditionally as “right.”

However, the techno-economic base of today's world doesn't require much strenuous physical labor (e.g. financial industry, high-tech, etc.), therefore women have a level playing field on a lot of available careers as men. Equality laws and women's rights laws were established to recognize this societal evolution and to jettison the old tradition. These laws are now part of more developed societies (e.g. U.S.). That's why nowadays it is more “right” to think that women has equal rights when it comes to career choices as that of men.

But here's the rub: If for some reason these developed societies regress back to industrial and agrarian, then expect the old tradition to come back, not because men are shovenist pigs, but because it is only logical for women to revert back to caring to their children while men do the physically strenuous labors that most women won't have the physical capacity to do so. This role-playing of men and women is driven by the necessity to preserve the human race.

What are the issues in front of us right now that we ought to be thinking about–what is right and what is wrong in the way we conduct business, the way we treat people?

One of the biggest world issues in front of us today is the inequality of wealth and resource distribution. In the domain of business this manifests as a great divide in the inequalities in pay (from CEO to the lowest rank personnel), unrealistic profit margins, non moral-centric business laws (e.g. putting profit first before morals).

It's also imperative that we encourage the young to take on careers in the business and technology rather than bombarding them with the illusion and pastime of the popculture. I strongly agree with Dean Kamen in his assessment on this.

What's driving a leader to anticipate those issues?

Any business leader who anticipates those issues should have very evolved moral values, level of consciousness, compassion, self-reflectiveness, and a more embracing philosophy.

Can the corporation be a moral community for the development of people in addition to producing goods and services?

The corporation should be a moral community for the development of people. Anything less is not very fluffy :)

Well, if it can be a moral community, then where is the leadership in thinking through the issue of these standards?

Corporation aiming to also become a moral community should have leaders with strong moral and ethical values. These values should trickle from the top-down. It is the responsibility of the leaders to set as good examples since they are the most visible “faces” of the corporation.

So, am I hired? LOL. That is all.

(Crossposted from ~C4Chaos@Zaadz.com)

I googled World Development Report after hearing Charlie Rose mention it in his interview with Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Melinda Gates.

I went to the site and… Whoah! I thought that I know a lot of things already. But I'm dwarfed and humbled after surfing the WDR site. It's a must-see. We really learn something new everyday…

Sweet. Since I just listened to the Dean Kamen interview over at Social Innovation Conversations, this WDR 2007 really made sense to me. The youth is the leading edge.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

Check out this exclusive Charlie Rose hour-long interview with Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Melinda Gates. Rockin' interview with uber-mega-rich people with soul. This is philanthopy + wisdom + BIG Compassionate Balls in action! Deep bows and gratitude. Very inspiring.

   
Charlie Rose An Exclusive Hour wi..
  Charlie Rose Inc.
  56 min 40 sec

Props to a Zaadzster named Mu for the video link.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com) 

Deep bows to the inventor of the Web for being vocal about Net Neutrality.

“When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end in the USA.

I blogged on net neutrality before, and so did a lot of other people. (see e.g. Danny Weitzner, SaveTheInternet.com, etc.) Since then, some telecommunications companies spent a lot of money on public relations and TV ads, and the US House seems to have wavered from the path of preserving net neutrality. There has been some misinformation spread about. So here are some clarifications. ( real video Mpegs to come)

Net neutrality is this:

  If I pay to connect to the Net with   a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that   or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.

That's all.  Its up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.

Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free.

Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.” [ read more ]

Thanks Sir Tim! The Ninja is not alone.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

Check out this documentary hosted by Richard Dawkins. For the most part I agree with Mr. Dawkins. He's got BIG compassionate balls! But I think his approach is too confrontational. Dawkins takes stabs at (the fundamentalism of) religion while championing the scientific approach. He ditches "faith" in favor of logic, reason and scientific "truths," all the while forgetting that logic and reason have their limits. Isn't it faith that drive scientists (at first) while chasing proofs for their hypotheses? For example, the scientific approach is limited to "evidences" that can only be verified by the five senses + logic. Infinity and square root of a negative number don't really exist do they?

Dawkins proudly declares that he's an Atheist. Cool. I've got no problems with that. But he's doing a performative contradiction by championing the idea that there is no such thing as a "God." IMHO, Atheism is a step up on the developmental ladder from theistic religious fundamentalism. But even Atheism is not immune from fundamentalism. There are ideas beyond science and there are philosophies beyond Atheism. "There are more things on heaven and earth, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

However, this video is still worth watching. Even if it ignores the stages of moral development of individuals and cultures. There are parts in the video that are painfully entertaining to watch though, proving that dialogues among people with first-tier vmemes as their center of gravity don't really work (most of the time). It's like watching an adult arguing with 6-year olds. See it for yourself. Don't forget to watch Part 1-2 and Part 1-3. Happy viewing.

Jeesh. This is tough. Since I'm currently here in Ireland I'll probably go to all the bars within one block radius. Did I mention that I'm here in Ireland? This means that they've got to have like 10 bars (or more) within one block radius. Then I'd go to the counter and drop $1,000 bucks on each bar and tell the bartender to have the next $1,000 worth of drinks for everyone on me.

I know it's not philantropic or whatever. But it's gonna be fun. Btw, I'll have a Vodka Red Bull before I go. WOOT!

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

(Crossposted from ~C4Chaos@Zaadz.com)

Check out Social Innovation Conversations.

“The Social Innovation Podcasting Channel is an open and collaborative online platform for cross-sector and multidisciplinary learning for social change.

“From the pandemic of AIDS, to challenges posed by climate change, to substance abuse and global poverty, our world is faced with increasing complex and pressing social and environmental challenges. While knowledge, tools, and technologies to develop innovative solutions exist, channels are still needed to reach the people who could use and apply them to social problems.

“Social Innovation Conversations' mission is to expand the reach of important and valuable knowledge to people who otherwise wouldn't have access to it by recording and sharing the spoken words of thought leaders in all sectors and disciplines and offering listeners a multi stakeholder perspective on the world grand challenges and social issues.

“Social Innovation Conversations was made possible by the concerted efforts of the Center for Social Innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the Social Innovation Accelerator.”

Sweet. I'm listening to Dean Kamen's interview right now. Awesome discussion on enlightened entrepreneurship and technology deployment. Listen. It's free.

Props to Jon for this cool find.

LaLunaMashUp

Vox's audio integration is way cool.

I wonder why there's no Odeo integration?

Anyway, it's still cool.

Nice. I dig the YouTube integration. Vox is sooo hawT!!