E065: Ethical Decision Making in the 3rd Sector

with James and Jane. Hello, it's James, and this is James, and

here we are again with another episode of a world of work podcast. We're continuing a theme we've touched on a few times recently around responsible business, and we've got a special guest today. Who are we speaking to? Jay?

We are speaking to Russell Findlay, who is CEO of speakers trust and formerly CEO of organizations like London News games Foundation, Fulham Football Foundation, and we're going to be talking to him about ethical decision making in the third sector?

Yeah, it's a really interesting area, isn't it? And I, for me, it feels like something that's increasingly prominent in the public eye, the need for responsibility within business, the need for ethical decision making within the corporate sector, but also within the charitable sector. Yeah, I

think it's really interesting. So I mean, obviously my background is, working in nonprofit organizations, and I just, I feel like they've spent quite a lot of time being expected to model business because that's efficient. And actually, as we've started talking to other people, like B Corp, James Perry Cook, um, starting to understand how charities are adjusting, or how they're coping with making that sort of understanding their own externalities and stuff, I think it's really interesting and the pressures

they face, which I think a lot of people not think a lot of people not working in the third sector might not have as good of a grasp on as those working in for more charitable

space, yeah. And I think, I think stress is everywhere, right? But I think it's different, it's different things, and therefore we thought it might be worthy of a conversation, yeah, well, let's jump into it.

Okay, so here we are in the core of this episode, and today we're speaking to Russell Findlay. He's the chief executive of the speakers trust, and we're continuing our conversation around the theme of responsible business. And we're speaking to Russell specifically around things like ethical decision making and aspects of ethics within the third sector, the charitable sector. Before we get into that, Russell, would you be able to introduce yourself to the audience and say a bit more about yourself, your background? And perhaps for speakers trust?

Sure, I'll start with the speakers trust. Speakers trust is a charity that helps young people build the confidence, the skills, and gives them the opportunity to express their opinion. So it's public speaking training, communication skills, and then we run a stage, a series of events that give young people a platform to give their perspective on the world. That's the organization I'm currently chief executive of. I've been a Chief Exec of third sector organizations for the last 15 years, and that follows a career in the corporate sector where I was in strategy and strategy consulting across about 20 different countries. Wow. Background, yeah, and a big change. It's not the typical Charles and chief execs career pathway, but I think it gives me probably a slightly different perspective on on the world of the third sector, from from seeing different areas before,

yeah, and particularly in a conversation like this, where we're speaking about ethics and ethical decision making and the, I guess, the sort of impetus behind organizations and how they behave, it gives you a great place to have a foot in both camps and to have experienced the corporate world as well as the third sector? Yeah, absolutely.

I think the more different perspectives you take on this kind of thing, the better, and the more, I suppose, enriched your viewers.

Yeah, I think that's right before we get into the details and actually focus a little bit on what ethical decision making is and some ways around it. Why do you think that this is a relevant topic, and why is ethical decision making important? And why is it relevant in the charitable sectors specifically,

I guess for me, it's important to know what you're doing. I mean ethics at its at its core, is just about why you make the decisions you make, and while you're doing the actions you're doing. And I think if you look at the third sector, we've progressed from doing good stuff to very much the focus at the moment is on impact measurement, so looking at the return on investment or the numbers. And I think the focus, quite rightly, is shifting much more to the how, how we're doing it and the broader impact. So whilst each charity can have the impacts on its beneficiaries, none of us go through life without impacting others, whether that's employees, it's the environment and. And or it's other organizations or other impacts. So I think the the bet, for me is we're seeing it to be current now, when you look back over the last year and you see some larger NGOs having issues of how they've worked within different countries and the impact on beneficiaries, so some of the larger international NGOs, and some accusations of bullying and some of the large charities, and then some of the practices in fundraising, so things like poverty porn and and I think those are just some of the issues that strike home about charities thinking about the broader impacts of their work. It's interesting,

because I think a lot of people who aren't involved in the charitable world, with the exception of some of those more prominent news stories about decisions and behaviors, and some of them wouldn't necessarily perceive that charitable organizations are under some of the same pressures as more corporate organizations. So when you talk about the value for money, essentially, and then how you're getting return on your investment, some of that language is language that I historically would have associated more with the corporate world than with the Yeah,

I think it is changing in terms of having evidence based stories to tell about the charitable impact. But I suppose the other answer to your question about why Charities is there isn't that one target to look at of shareholder value that a corporate would have. So every charity is involved in doing social good, and in a way, that's how we're regulated. So it's really important for a charity to define what they mean by good, and that's at the heart of

ethics, yeah. And as you were chatting earlier, you you talked about the sort of timeliness in terms of the bad behaviors that we see. I think in my perspective, there's a lot of timeliness around psychic nature of doing good as well, and the SDGs and things like that. When, when we talk about focusing on achieving a good thing and producing a, you know, societal benefit, I think that sometimes we, at least in the corporate world, run into the risk of ignoring the externalities of the negative side consequences of the things that we do. Is that relatable in the third sector? Would you say, yeah,

it is. And I think I was at a conference of Chief execs, probably about six months ago, and one of the presenters was from an environmental charity, and a number of the people sitting in the audience were from a homeless charity. And what quite a lot of homeless charities advocate for is building lots more homes and changing the infrastructure we have now building and construction and concrete is one of the greatest impacts on the environment. So in some ways, the complexity of doing social good and the externalities that you talk about are real life factors, and that's what I mean about focusing beyond your own mission and your own direct impact into thinking of how you work as an organization and what that will mean for the society around Yeah, and that sounds difficult. I

mean, it's a systemic problem. And I guess when we work in compartmentalized organizations focusing on specific objectives, we do run the risk of missing some of that impact on the on the broader systems that we operate in. Do you think that

there's a difference between, I guess, corporate entities and charities and nonprofits? Do you think it's easier or harder to be ethical. Or do you think it's kind of similar?

I think there are similar issues faced. I think it's probably more at the surface for charities, because we're thinking of ethical stuff all of the time, rather than having a target of making money, which in some ways, and ethical choices as well. But I think, you know, if I look at smaller and smaller, medium sized charities, there's far less resources available to consider some of those impacts, and also, because people are very passionate and emotionally driven than the trade offs between your charitable mission and some of the other ethical considerations, I think can sometimes be harder, sort of, as a discussed with the homelessness versus versus environment case,

yeah, I think that's a fascinating point, and that kind of goes into the what do we value? And I guess the opportunity cost of doing what you're doing and not doing and the different views on how we value outcomes, which I hadn't really thought about, but certainly within the third sector, that seems hugely, hugely relevant when we talk about the types of decision making processes. Or the ways that charities go through some of this decision making around what they do and how they use their funds and things like that. Or even, I

guess, based on what you've spoken to some extent, about their organizational purpose and the objective they're trying to achieve, do you think that there are common mistakes in there, or do you think that people do things differently? Or, I guess, do you think there are ways that these organizations could be better at keeping in mind some of these risks that we've talked about here? I think you know,

one of comments I made you before we started is I don't hold myself to any higher, higher degrees than anyone else, and probably the greatest thing we all do is not being aware of the ethical dimensions of a decision. So I'll go back to something I thought about more recently, but 1010, years ago, I was leading a sports charity. We bought a lot of T shirts, a lot of sports equipment, and because we were running at 100 miles an hour to achieve what we were looking to achieve, and we measured ourselves on the outcomes that we had. The supply chain of sporting equipment is not something that was particularly relevant to us, and I think that's one of the areas with hindsight. And also I was a bit more time to consider it, you start thinking, Well, should I have been more considerate and taken more of a leadership role in that sort of area? So I think probably the greatest challenge we all have, and I don't know if it's a mistake or not, but it's having the headspace, the bandwidth to think about what you're already doing and the different ethical dimensions that that might might have.

Yeah, and I think just in full disclosure to our audience, the sports charity you're talking about is the one that we both worked for 10 years ago, to those listeners, just so that they know. And I think it's a it's a really interesting thing, because my memories of working in that organization are in a different situation, but exactly the same, that we were so cause driven about what we were doing and so fighting so hard to impact as many beneficiaries in the positive way as possible, that the externalities, and I'm thinking particularly around the mental health of the Peak volunteers that we had weren't as clear and held in our mind. And I think it's really challenging. And one of the things I think is really interesting that actually maybe charities could learn from some of the more the businesses that are trying to do this more, and I know there are not many of them, but the ones that are is, how are they, as commercial entities, still managing to factor in externalities and find that balance, because I think that would really

help. Yeah, and I think it's talking throughout the charity, so from volunteers through to the staff who are working at the front line, more centrally, but also the trustees. And I think most charities will have a board who are there for different reasons to got a slightly different take on on outcomes, but I think it's getting a sense of what kind of organization do we want to be, what are the values that we espouse, and how should we think about them? Because the decisions will be made much closer to to the action than that. But really it needs there to be an agreed approach to this, that thinking about the environment or thinking about mental health or considering the whole life of our beneficiaries is really important to us, and so that we will make trade offs between that and our financial Success or our success measured clearly by the outcomes that are sort of core to the charity.

And you mentioned the board there. Do you think who, when you're sitting as a role of a senior leader or a CEO in a charity, who is it you've got to win over to that case? Do you think is it the board? Is it the staff? Is it? Is it everyone? Is it something that has to be part of your mission and values. Or do you think it's something that you kind of learn as you go?

I think it's, it's a constant dialog between people. I mean, if you go through all the ethical theory, or the theory of different ethics and morality, there's, I don't think you'll ever get a full room of people who will see the world exactly the same way. And I think what that means is, as an organization, your business ethics, if you like, are effectively the conglomeration of the people who are in there. And so I think the most important bit is, is having a dialog. And I think this is where, in some ways, ethics gets a bad name, because it's thinking of, you're either doing things really good or you're doing things wrong and bad. And so it becomes into a blame culture. And I don't see it like that. I think it's trying to get a a sense of, Well, what's the philosophy, and in some of these really difficult trade offs, where. Do we feel the trade off sits and how do we get the organization to be comfortable and confident that everybody can make a decision that is congruent with how we see it, recognizing that everyone will have their own, you know, their own little take or go home and be avid into environmental courses or AVID into something else, but as an organization, to have a character, as it were, that reflects a set of conversations that have been had over the time. Yeah, that's fascinating.

There's some really good stuff in there. I've got, I guess, two questions that pop into mind my mind, that you're going through. Or three, I guess it's inevitable, right? Number one,

when you're thinking about those impacts, do you use a framework? Would you use something like the sustainable development goals as a way to consider the impacts that you have, or have you got? So

I think we said with the Sustainable Development Goals are a useful framework in terms of going through it. I think maybe I'm very practical, but it's raising awareness of whether we think anything we're doing is significant enough to consider different ethical parts to it, and then thinking about who that impacts, how it impacts them. And I think the important bit for me there is, what are the unexpected bits? So, you know, the the building shelters for homeless people, it's not the first thing you're thinking of as a charity leader there of what's the environmental consequence? So it's kind of the stakeholders who don't necessarily fit within your your core group and going through those and I think it's getting to the point like, are we comfortable with within all of that complexity, with the decision that we're making? And I think this is where ethics is not a black and white subject, and decisions are not black and white, but would you are you comfortable with the trade offs you've made at that point within the environment you've done it. And I think it's that sort of critical thinking rather than necessarily a structured framework. But probably, as I alluded to before that, and the most important step in any of that process is is a little bit of the awareness. Yeah,

you mentioned that you are both very practical and also that it has to be, I think you use the phrase dialog. What? What? When you're sitting running an organization, what are you or do you think others are looking to do with their colleagues as they're going through their career journey, to try and make them more aware of that? Is it as simple as telling them? Is it about walking them through the through the experiences, or sharing the decisions you make as a CEO? How can we get people early in their career to start valuing and thinking about this stuff? Do you think?

I think, you know, one of my leadership philosophies is about being transparent. And I think, yeah, I lead a team in a very small, open plan office, where we will have conversations, and it's about talking through decisions that we are making as a team, or maybe that I'm making individually, and understanding the why. And I think if people don't hear the why, then they may see they'll make up the difference. So they might see a very consistent part, but the chief execs thinking and working through things is a real cultural symbol of, how do we do things around here, which is, you know, my take on what the values are, or what the character of an organization is, is how we doing things, and what are we thinking about? And so hearing that we're thinking about people's mental well being, or we're thinking about the environment, or we're considering the potential harm that could be done from any intervention, and how we safeguard, in our case, young people, from that, it's really important that those things are discussed openly, so that people are getting a sense of we're not just doing what the policies say or what the law says, or the very minute task I've been asked to do now we're doing that with a bit of awareness around what we do. Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, it's

really Coincidentally, I was in a talk yesterday by a psychologist who's researching role modeling in environmental issues of CEOs and leaders, and how just how much senior role holders and organizations can have influence over what is considered norms. So she was particularly talking about cycling, and she was talking about the various senior staff of the university. And I think it was Nottingham who very deliberately turn up to meetings in their cycling kit, right? And they all bump into them locking up their bike outside, and they're very visible in it. And so one of the things they were talking about is that if there is something that is congruent within the lead. Natural comfort zone, and also at a value of the organization them being incredibly visible and kind of almost performative about it, so that they can demonstrate to others that it is, in fact, something that's desirable is massively impactful. Yeah,

and I think it's making sure you stay on the right side of preaching. You know, I'm a failed vegetarian. I don't feel like either preach the ethics of that to people, but actually talking about being a failed vegetarian, I think, just shows the there's a human side to what we all do. We all fail at times, but that it's considered. And I think what I see of value is that the discussion is happening, and if we might fall down on slightly different sides of an argument, I think that means that an entire team, or an entire organization, if you scale it up, start seeing that whilst their particular perspective might not be what carries it is a perspective that's been listened to.

And do you think that that, because that the implication of that is that we need to better make sure we're all comfortable with the idea there isn't a right answer, there might be multiple right answers, or good enough answers for the organization, and also the that there is a debate to be had about ethics, because I think going back to the real simplistic stuff at the very beginning that you said, do we, how do we carry that message to everybody in the organization, that it's not as straightforward as being ethical. I've been ethical today is not something that you can you know, it's a practice and it's a decision making process to do the best you can within your values,

yeah, and I think you know that comes into being conscious, but being actually, I've lost my train of thought there. Well, it's just because you were funny enough. I

think it was you who mentioned to me on Twitter the other day about humble leadership and the humility of not always being right. And how do we make sure? I think when people go into their new in career, quite often they they think there's a right answer, and their managers know everything, and there is literally, you know, if they don't know the answer, it's because they don't know the right answer, not that there isn't an answer. And actually, it's got to be a discussion and a decision that's got to

be made. So it's about ambiguity. Yeah, exactly. Being comfortable with ambiguity, all those Bucha type things. How does one,

yeah, how do we? How can we do better helping people early in their careers to understand that ambiguity of decision making? I

think in some ways, that does come from the leadership that's there. I think I try to make sure anybody who joins my team very quickly knows that I won't know the right answer. I will have a perspective. I can help them, but really often they are closer to the decision than I am. So I can give guiding principles, whether that's an ethical thing or that say, you know how we how we work more broadly, but nobody has all of the information. And I think that's where in in ethics, in business ethics, it's hard to just have cookie cutter rules. You know, you have policies, codes of conducts, etc. That's probably the easy stuff. When you get into the what do I do in this situation? How do I balance these things off? Knowing how the rest of the organization feel about that, I think, empowers people to make decisions. So I think it is, in some ways, it's hard for someone just starting out in their career to do that, but I think in some ways, you know, reading around the subject of being comfortable in their own skin that they don't need to know the answer and understand that everybody's advice or opinion is a perspective rather than a fact. Yeah,

I've got a question that popped into my head a little while ago, and maybe it's a bit of a hard one, I'm not sure, some various things, but I really occasionally pop up and say that to some extent, philanthropy and charity within itself is at risk of being unethical because it's the will of individuals pursuing their own purposes. What are your views on that? How does that? I think

it's a it's a really interesting that comes into the ethics of whose money do you take, and how do you design your programs and and I think probably a better answer to your very first question of why it's even more important with charities to consider ethics is we sit in a position between the most powerful of society and the least powerful of society. So we're often working with quite vulnerable people, and we're often funded by government, large institutions, wealthy benefactors. And so actually, it's a, in some ways, a real privilege, but it's a position of real responsibility that people need to think about. And that's where I think whether it's about if. Fundraising, or it's who you associate sales, in terms of patron, it's really important to consider what you as an organization feel, and then in terms of what you do and who you do it for. I think that's where the whole area of CO production, co creation comes. Important that you have the voice of the beneficiary within that design. So it's not what you or a wealthy individual thinks should be done to a community or to a group of individuals, but it's what those people are sense that they need themselves. And I think that's a really important balance. Yeah, and it sounds like a very difficult thing to to achieve.

Yeah, it's interesting. I it is. I think, you know, the more I think about this, the more I think it must be a very challenging position to be in. How much, how? How much do you work with other CEOs? You mentioned being in a conference those years. How much do you feel that the sector in the UK certainly works together on stuff like this to support each other,

I would say probably on issues then charities talk together and work on it. So things like the diversity makeup of senior leadership or trustees within charities, you're seeing some movements around that to get greater diversity, but I think probably don't have the luxury of time to have lots of think groups around how we approach ethics, ethics as a whole, and

from your perspective, you've obviously worked in a number of organizations now. Do you find, does this occupy quite a significant amount of your sort of mental and emotional thought and energy, or is it? Is it something that like, I mean, use word luxury there, which I think is really interesting, like, does it? Does it feel like something you have to kind of force into your time because you're so busy?

I think I would say ethical decision making is embedded in decision making, there's not a different set of decisions you're making that are purely ethical ones they come into you know, organizations will talk about their triple bottom line of the profits their society and the environment. And I think for us, it's our beneficiaries, it's the broader society which stakeholders we deal with, and the environment so every decision can have an ethical lens. And I think it's where luxury comes up, is probably how, how many of those decisions you really think about and discuss and debate more broadly about what you feel either as an individual or as a leader or as an organization that you want to take a stand on. So, you know, we, you know, in the last 15 years, I've, don't think I've ever had a this must be a vegetarian or a vegan conference. Some people will, and some people see that as a really important aspect of their organization. I'm sure the Vegetarian Society will no doubt have that. But in a way, us not making that decision is an ethical stance on its own right of that that isn't as important to an organization as all of the other things we have been looking at and that, you know, that's where it's about trade offs, and it's about flexibility. But I think it's the important bit in terms of making mature decisions, is that it's embedded in what you're doing at all times, rather than seen as an extra activity that you might have time to to discuss. So the luxury thing was really about, I suppose, bouncing these ideas off peers. Yeah,

and the thing that strikes me in all of this is that you, you you're gonna have a better opportunity to do this if you have more information, and then you'll get more information if your colleagues in your organization are comfortable and feel safe and happy to share their concerns. Would that be fair? And do you have any thoughts on how leaders and CEOs can make sure, or at least support their staff to feel confident that if they speak up, they'll be at very least not, not not challenged for perhaps questioning the methods or the ethics of organization?

Yeah, I think it is about creating psychological safe space for people in an organization. Now, where I am at speakers, trust is one of our key values, is about people being able to express themselves, bring themselves to work, and that's because it's embedded right into what we do as an organization. So we help young people give their perspective, have the confidence and skills to give their perspective on the world at large. And I think we'd be hypocrites if we didn't ensure that that went right through the organization. So for us, in a sense, that's relatively easy. I know in other organizations. It can feel difficult, but I think where you've got that safe space, you've got the conversation, and what that will do is, I won't think of the ethical lens of every decision I make, but if one of my team says something around what have you thought about that? Then that's a real trigger to me to think, have I given that consideration? And if they're too afraid to bring that up, then, then maybe I will make decisions that later. I think, you know, I'd like to have gone a different route. So I think it's an incredibly important thing to have those different perspective. Otherwise you're just, you know, going down one line without necessarily having people challenging your thinking.

Yeah. And I also think I totally agree with that. And the other thing I would say is sharing where you reflectively think you've got it wrong in the past is incredibly powerful. I think when I've had bosses in the past who have, you know we maybe we've been making a decision on an annual or a biannual basis, and we've come around to make it again, and they, they've changed their stance, and giving me the time, I think you talked about sharing your why, but when they've given me the time to explain why, they've changed their stance, and actually, with a little bit of, oh, you know, I didn't really have the time to talk think about this fully, And this wasn't where my head was, but now I see this as a different decision. I think that's incredibly powerful to share that with an organization,

yeah. And I think, you know, just as a real, practical example of the type of ethical issues that charities or nonprofits have, one I was really impressed with, and I hope I get the right example. I think it was Tate. It was either the Tate Britain or one of those museums that had a large oil company as a sponsor, and they put it out first that came through the staff. But they actually took the really brave move of, I think they were sponsoring an education program, and they put it out to the young people to have them discuss whether a an oil company with whole issues around fossil fuel, etc, would be the right sponsor for them. So actually having the bravery to have your own ethics challenge, so I don't know how the chief exec felt about that, or the board or the chair, but right out. So these are the people we're saying we help, and we're going to reflect their ethics and our decision making. You know, I don't know if I've ever had the courage to do that in such an obvious way, where a real big impact of sponsorship of a major program, but that's the sort of brave moves that I would aspire to as a chief exec and

the the what's so brilliant about doing things like that and doing them publicly is that you also, in some senses, reduce your own singular responsibility for them as an organization in a good way. So instead of feeling like you have to justify it on your own, the the strength of that argument to your board or to your stakeholders, to other funders, that you potentially might choose something that feels, at first glance to be detrimental to the charity, but is is what the beneficiaries want. Is such an easy it's so much easier to make that argument when you've got 200 school kids all saying, Well, this is what we're telling you we want. So you need to at least, very least consider that. And I think you know, one of the things that strikes me is having sat in a number of boardrooms now in small and medium sized charities, quite often it's the CEO on their own or the CEO plus one, and they are feeling like they have to justify entire ethical stances on things with constantly against their board. And so when you've got the support of your staff and your beneficiaries, and can use examples from that and data from that. I think that's really powerful,

yeah, and I think some of that just give me another thought of an organization whose response to an ethical question really was was challenged quite publicly recently, and that's the iron ally about the fact that they did work to prevent drowning internationally, and they got a lot of criticism in the press, and what was important there is that they've been really transparent about what they were doing, how their money was being spent, and that whilst and that narrative came out, and I think that donations went up off the basis of that, which reflected that their broad supporter base actually felt that taking the knowledge and skills built in in the UK around around our island, and how to keep people safe in water, should be something that they can export. But I think that's where they clearly because they responded instantly and they showed where they'd been talking about it beforehand. They'd clearly been through a process where they had thought clearly about that. So, you know, the one practical benefit from having an ethical perspective on your decisions is that, in crisis management, you're ahead of the curve. And they really were in that case,

yeah, I'd just like to reflect back on a little bit of that conversation there. So one thing that. It that makes me slightly nervous is maybe an illusion that the voice of a beneficiary as a recipient of a service are ethically pure of themselves, if that makes sense. So I think there's a risk that you go out to your population and they come back with something that that you deem to be unethical. So part of that obligation, I believe, is a stewardship obligation, and I can imagine it being very difficult to go contrary to the views of your your body of people. So for example, I know in some arts organizations, I think people wanted to keep Sackler funding over the last couple years. And I think you need to have real courage of leadership to say, despite the views of my, my stakeholder group, they're very focusing on self interest, as opposed to broader interest, and then to stand up and challenge that, I think is ethically hugely courageous. But

yeah, I would, I would totally agree with that. And I think it goes back to it's really interesting what you said about being ahead of the curve on crisis management. If you know the answer to the question that could be asked, then you're infinitely in a better place, from a decision making point of view, and with confidence in your own position, actually, irrespective of where the challenge comes from, whether it comes from the public, your beneficiaries, whether it comes from your your board members, or even your staff. And I think, I think that's really, really powerful, but it only happens if you take the time and space to have that conversation and to process. Horizon scan, yeah. Horizon scan, that's very catchy. Is that thing? Horizon scan, I'm so behind the curve. I'm sure Russell horizon scans all the time, right? Forever.

I think you know one point I was going to pick up on. I know a lot of the people you talk to in the HR world and ethics start as soon as you start employing people around. You know how you have your recruitment process, what diversity really means to you as an organization. The the advertising on that, the development is how you do salaries. And you know, large organizations a critique for salaries and pay gaps. Charities are under the spotlight there too. And so I think understanding some of the rationale of how the organization wants to be is in HR, it's really important to to be challenging that as well. Because, you know, if you think of ethics and morality about how you interact with others, then interacting with your workforce and your volunteer force is really important. I think there are so many decisions there that might just feel as though they are policy decisions from a very out of date employee handbook. But when you bring ethical discussions to life, I think that's where things like HR come alive, because that's how do we want to relate to the people who spend their their days working with us? Yeah, I

think that's a good message. I think unfortunately, though, Russell, we are getting out of time as we do. I've had some really interesting sort of moments of thinking throughout that. So thank you for for sharing that before we wrap up. If you got any thoughts on how listeners could find out more about you, what you do, what the speakers trust us, or any, any place that people might be able to read a bit more about ethical decision making

sure in terms of me, then my Twitter handle is that the still the right word is Russell worked right? Yeah. Russell Findlay, I blog on LinkedIn, and people can can find me there, and I'm no business ethics expert, as I think I hopefully said earlier, but I'll blog about anything I feel is important to the challenges of leading charities and leading social causes. Speakers, trust, at speakers trust, or speakers trust.org. Great place if you want to improve the way you communicate and have your perspective heard on ethical stuff, go out and be curious. Would be my one comment and have discussions. But one of the best online courses I've ever done is called justice by Michael Sandel, and it's from a Harvard Business School course. I think it's the most popular course in Harvard. And he talks about very day to day issues, and then brings out the kind of ethics and philosophy and kind of the theories of philosophy, and brought in a really good way through dialog. And so if anyone wants to get a little deeper dive into the the ethical theories, it's just the best place to start. That's

great. And is that on something like Coursera or edX, or do you know how people could find that through Harvard?

I always go to my favorite website, Google, and write MICHAEL SANDEL justice, and you will find it, no doubt. Yeah, I

think it's actually a book as well, yes, based on a book he wrote. So because I've got a feeling, yeah, I've got a feeling. It's on my unread list at the moment, probably from you moving to the red list,

I will straight away, brilliant. Thank you so much. It's. Really, it's been a real pleasure to get insight on some of the challenges that CEOs might face and senior leaders and charities. I you know, I think it's it's not easy and and for us to pretend that this stuff is straightforward, I feel does a disservice to the people doing the jobs. Thanks,

Russell, thank you. Okay. Bye. You. Yeah, okay, so that was our chat with Russell. I thought it was really interesting. I think there's some really good stuff in there, and he's, unsurprisingly, a good speaker about this subject, given where you work, yeah, I think it's

just the more I get into talking doing these interviews with people like Russell, and also, when we met James from cook, I just realized how complex it is going to be for organizations who want to get better at this stuff and think more about this stuff. But amazing conversation just just it is, it is. It's not simple. And I begin to understand why people have struggled with embedding it in their organizations.

Absolutely, it's such a complex area. Have you got any specific takeaways from that conversation you'd like to reflect on? Well, I

mean, there was loads, but probably the thing that I think really struck me was his conversation about it being a process, and building that process both across the organization so people are engaged in it, but also that it needs to be embedded within your decision making process. This isn't ethical decision making is not like a module you pick up and you slot into your organization. Tuesday, ethical time. It's everyday.

Tuesday, ethic day. No, exactly. It's and you have to find your way to work out what your process is such that it will improve the way that you feel you're making decisions in line with

your ethics. Yeah, it's an all encompassing sort of way of being and working, I guess, as opposed to a modular body, yeah, which, which kind of explains why it's so difficult? Yeah, it

is. Well, I guess for me, one of the big takeaways is around, similarly, some of the complexity around this, and for me, it's around the fact that, I guess, as a leader, you need to weigh up all of these things. You need to weigh up the efforts, the outcomes you're trying to achieve, you need to weigh up the externalities and the negative side consequences associated with them, and you need to make that decision around what the right thing is to do with your own sense of ethics and your own sense isn't necessarily going to be the same as everybody else's. So you need to be able to hold your position, be informed, but be comfortable with the discomfort of the fact that others might disagree, or that you might not be right, and to still still exist in that, I guess, sort of uncertain, complex, ambiguous world,

and you might not be as successful by the measures that external organizations and people and your peers hold. Yeah. So you may not hit the targets that you would have hit had you chosen not to embed that. And that is a reality. And I think that's that's a conversation leaders have to have for themselves, right? You have to be comfortable with

that, yeah, and this is an evolving area. I believe people are going to keep thinking about this and reflecting on it and trying to work out, you know, like Russell alluded to, the triple bottom line, other ways to measure organizational success.

But, you know, I just like what you said. It's about a kind of, there was, there's a piece about its effort. Yeah, it's a lot of this is about trying it and just contention and intention and keeping working at it, rather than thinking somehow you can just suddenly be this great magic pill. Magic pill, suddenly today. Yeah. Ethico, you are definitely doing branding. All right. Well, let's leave it there. Let's