Posted by ilamont 23 hours ago
It seems like the pattern is almost always the same: the ethics team exists quietly in the background, and the only time anyone hears about them is when they either publicly leave the company or start a campaign against it.
So what exactly is the business case? Is it actually worth maintaining an ethics function just to be able to say you have one, when the only time it becomes visible is when it goes against the company publicly? And if this outcome is so predictable, why do companies keep hiring these people in the first place?
Ethics is also a containment vessel internally.
With an Ethics dept, concerned employees can rest easy knowing someone else is responsible, or if they raise concerns, they have someone to route and advocate their concerns, rather than adding noise to the chain of command. If the dept. ends up ineffective after some years, employees can blame the department, or have renewed hope when personnel turn over. So (slow) turnover is good from this perspective.
Head Of Ethics comes in, looks at what is really going on behind the curtains...
Head Of Ethics scrams out of there as fast as they can.
What’s next? Head of ethics for United Healthcare?
- graduate degree in ethics from an obscure diploma mill
Strongly Preferred: - Experience in PR
- Crisis Management
- Public Speaking
- Agentic management of *flexible ethics initiatives*
All Candidates Must Have: - 5+ years experience as an executive character in workplace education films, or commensurate experience as a human mannequin.
— Personal aesthetic that could be described as “dork that can afford a personal shopper.”https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=gavin+bel...