A meta-analysis landed last week and my first reaction was: so what? Then, looking further, it does get interesting.
Ninety two randomised trials found that ethics and moral education works better when people talk to each other than when you push information at them. Pause for “so-what” reaction… Okay, we have known that for decades, e.g. 70/20/10.
Then I came back to it, and I think a lot of us are about to make the same mistake with it.
What the study actually found
Published in Nature Human Behaviour on 26 August, a team including researchers at the University of Queensland pooled the randomised evidence on interventions designed to shift ethical and moral outcomes.
A pooled effect of g = 0.65 (effect size = “how big”) (95% CI [0.49, 0.81], p < 0.001). Geeky, I know, I will explain. Just know that this number is large by education standards.
The moderator is the interesting bit. Interventions with added student discussion were more effective than those “relying solely on unidirectional or passive information transfer”.
What moved was moral sensitivity, judgement and motivation. Character development was inconclusive.
Caveat – (before you put this in a business case) only one of the 92 studies was rated low risk of bias, and the population is students, not employees. Transfer to a workplace compliance audience is a reasonable inference, not a finding.
Here is what changed my mind.
First, this is not a 70/20/10 finding.
70/20/10 is a claim about where development comes from across a career: experience > then social > then formal. It has always been on soft evidential ground anyway, having come out of retrospective survey work with executives in the late 1980s rather than anything controlled.
This meta-analysis sits entirely inside the formal 10.
Discussion here is not the 20 beating the 10. It is a design feature within a structured intervention, and the finding is that the structured intervention works at g = 0.65 (effect size) when it includes discussion.
That says formal learning design is worth funding – yet the solo asynchronous module is the weak build of it.
Second, the number is the news, not the direction.
Most of us have believed this for years and could not price it. Believing something and being able to put a defensible figure next to it in a proposal are very different positions to negotiate from.
Third, belief has not changed practice.
Everybody in this industry “knows” discussion works. The industry still ships passive compliance modules by the million, every year, in every sector. I build them all the time. When a belief has been widely held for twenty years and has not changed what gets built, the constraint was never the belief. It was that nobody could justify the cost of the better build against a cheaper one that ticks the same box.
Evidence that reprices the alternative is useful precisely because of that.
If you hold the budget, two things follow:
You are probably buying the weaker build of something that works. Compliance and ethics is the highest volume category in corporate learning, and it is almost always commissioned as the exact intervention this study says underperforms: a self paced module that transfers information, followed by a knowledge check. Not because anyone thinks it is best, but because it is procurable, auditable and cheap per head.
Your reporting cannot see the thing that moved. The outcomes that improved were sensitivity and judgement. Completion rates and multiple choice scores do not measure that. If your compliance dashboard is green and your conduct incidents are not falling, that is not a mystery. You are measuring the wrong end of the intervention.
Learning Leaders – what to do about it:
WHAT
HOW
Pick one high stakes program.
Most likely conduct, safety or ethics, and re-scope the next build. Same budget, different split: less production polish, more facilitated discussion, even if that means a 45 minute team conversation instead of a 20 minute module.
Add one judgement measure before you rebuild anything.
Two ambiguous scenarios, “what would you do and why”, scored on the reasoning. You need the baseline more than you need the new module.
Change what you ask vendors for.
If you ask for a module, you will get a module. Specify the outcome and the discussion mechanism, and see who can actually build it.
Push back on completion as a headline metric.
Do it with your own executive. This study gives you the language to do it without sounding like you are avoiding accountability.
Forinstructional designer: If you build the thing.
Design the e-learningas the stimulus. The module carries the case, the ambiguity, the consequence. The conversation carries the judgement work.
Build for the facilitator as much as the learner. Discussion guides, debrief structures and observation rubrics are the products almost nobody makes well.
Ask people to commit before revealing the answer – then display how peers responded and the reasoning behind the minority position. You preserve the cognitive tension that makes discussion effective, but at scale and without a facilitator.
The trap in all of this is concluding that discussion means facilitation = a person in a room billing hours. That is the expensive read, and it is the one that gets the idea rejected. The design problem worth solving is how to manufacture the conversation without needing to be in it.
Basarkod, G., Cahill, L. S., Burston, A., Barnett, D., Mahoney, J., Griffith, S., Swaryandini, G., Bradshaw, E. L., Devine, E. K., Akhtaruzzaman, M., Dicke, T., Wilks, M., Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Grundy, E. A. C., Lonsdale, C., Marsh, H. W., Chambers, S. K., & Noetel, M. (2026). Educational interventions are effective in improving students’ ethical and moral outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02456-x
Many years ago, I started learning Buddhism. Not as a religion, just the rational concepts resonate with my way of thinking. One of the core ideas I struggled with for a long time is the detachment of the self, e.g. letting go of the need to be accepted or of being right and taking the seat of the observer.
It’s a reflective question rooted in a practical concern, yet linked to a longing for truth:
How can I practise Buddhist equanimity – without becoming a doormat or a monk? How does anyone live wisely and skilfully in a corporate jungle that doesn’t reward detachment but rather performance, validation, and constant proof of competence?
Think about it: how can one detach itself, for instance, drop the need to be seen as competent in a corporate organisation? Will that leave you wise yet unemployed?
Detachment ≠ Disengagement
One of the most common misunderstandings of Buddhist detachment is the idea that it leads to apathy, passivity, or loss of ambition. But true detachment is non-attachment to outcomes, not non-action.
You can still strive for excellence, care about your work, communicate assertively, build a reputation, etc., but with equanimity—that inner balance where you no longer depend on the validation of others to confirm your worth or panic when things don’t go your way.
So, it’s not about being “unaffected” like a monk hiding in the hills, but about being grounded like a stormproof tree—roots deep in values, flexible branches, not brittle ego.
Here’s a practical path to turn understanding into embodied wisdom—without losing your job, sanity, or ambition:
1. Reframe competence as contribution
Instead of clinging to being seen as right, focus on being of service. That mindset removes ego while still producing excellence. This shifts you from ego-based proving to value-based contributing.
2. Practise “Mini-Meditative Pauses” in meetings
Corporate life is performance theatre. It’s easy to get caught in quick reactions. A Buddhist-inspired method is to train in response vs. reaction. Before answering a challenging question or defending a point, take a silent 3-second breath. Let that breath anchor you. (3rd Space, anyone?)
This gives your nervous system a reset and puts space between stimulus and response—classic mindfulness meets executive presence.
3. Cultivate a “Wise Witness” Journal
At the end of each day, reflect on:
One moment where you reacted from ego
One moment where you responded from presence
One thing you let go of, even if you felt the urge to control
4. Set “Inner KPIs”
KPIs measure your corporate performance. But what about inner metrics?
Did I speak from a place of clarity or insecurity today?
Was I driven by curiosity or fear of being wrong?
Did I uphold my values, even when it cost me validation?
The idea is to turn wisdom into a high-performance practice—not a retreat.
5. Use Role Models Strategically
Not everyone in the corporate world is a narcissist or a bulldozer. Some play the game wisely, with grace.
Who around me seems calm and respected?
What do they do that I can observe, mimic, and adapt?
Can I emulate their “wise assertiveness”?
This balances aspiration with grounded modelling. Wisdom can be a sharp suit with emotional regulation.
Mastery in the modern world is not about renouncing the ego but regulating it.
It’s not about denying ambition but about turning it from a source of stress into a vessel for impact.
This isn’t about escaping the game. It’s about learning how to play it without letting the game play you.
Ask yourself:
What part of your identity feels most threatened if you’re “not right” at work?
Can you think of a recent time you didn’t get your way, and it turned out better than expected?
Who is a professional role model that you admire for their composure and clarity?
Are there recurring emotional triggers at work? (e.g., being interrupted, being questioned)
If you could act from deep inner confidence instead of approval-seeking, what would change?
The sky is always there
One analogy that works well for me is that we are the sky – well, strive to be. The great storms, happy rainbows, gloomy clouds, etc., are just that: weather. They come and go. You, as the sky, are bigger, vast, unshakeable, unflappable.
The real power is knowing the sky is still there even when it’s hidden behind clouds, e.g., feedback, friction, or performance reviews. You’re not renouncing ambition—you’re reclaiming your centre.
You don’t need to become a monk → just a storm-savvy skywalker. Easy :)
Just recently, I finished a course on LinkedIn Learning on responsible AI (RAI), and the role it plays in the workplace. This triggered me to look further, so today I’m exploring some thoughts on the impact this could have on the market, on jobs, and the learning design industry.
We know the increasing integration of AI into the global economy is transforming the job market, creating new opportunities while simultaneously displacing some traditional roles.
This shift alone calls for upskilling and retraining the workforce, especially leaders.
This trend holds significant implications for the learning industry.
AI is driving change at an unprecedented pace: The use of generative AI has almost doubled in the last six months, with 75% of global knowledge workers currently using it, highlighting the urgency for employees to acquire or improve their AI skills.
Leaders recognise the importance of AI but struggle with implementation: While 79% of leaders believe AI adoption is crucial for competitiveness, 59% are concerned about quantifying AI’s productivity gains, leading to implementation delays.
AI is not just for technical roles: Non-technical professionals like project managers, architects, and administrative assistants are increasingly seeking AI skills. Myself included.
So, we have this discrepancy between leaders agreeing GenAI can increase both the quality and the speed of work, yet have no idea on how to measure the gains. Fearing being left behind, employees want to use AI at work, and they won’t wait on leaders or organisations to catch up.
Increased demand for AI training: With 76% of professionals believing AI skills are necessary for career competitiveness, the demand for training on AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude and Copilot will continue to rise. This presents a significant opportunity for learning designers to develop and deliver targeted training programs.
Shift in skills emphasis: AI is good at automating routine tasks, yet uniquely human skills like management, relationship building, negotiation, and critical thinking will become more valuable. Learning should adapt programs to focus on cultivating these essential skills.
Emergence of new roles: The rapid evolution of AI is leading to the creation of new roles like “Head of AI”, a position that has tripled in the past five years. (LinkedIn). Learning designers will play a crucial role in defining the skills and knowledge required for these emerging positions and designing training to prepare the workforce.
Looking ahead, I see a lot of work for learning to do. Think governance, compliance, fairness, digital resilience etc. Likely, another section in the Code of Conduct and Cyber Security by next year. That is, without mentioning any new training on tools, procedures, and likely roles that haven’t been invented yet.
What can you do to stay ahead?
Embrace experimentation: Actively explore different AI tools and applications. This hands-on experience will provide valuable insights for designing effective learning programs. I’ve been using pretty much every major large language model (LLM) since they became publicly available and find great value in doing so even when they fail in providing a decent answer—at times, miserably. But that’s the soul of learning, right?
Develop AI aptitude: Invest in upskilling yourself on AI tools and technologies. Leverage resources like LinkedIn Learning courses, which have seen a 160% increase in usage among non-technical professionals. As a learning experience designer (LXD), I find copywriting an unsung superpower in this field. To endure the time constraints and the drive for quality products, I have no trouble turning to AI and leveraging their capability to generate ideas in seconds. From there, I can tailor it to my audience and needs, making the content my own.
Focus on the “why” and “how”: Help learners understand the strategic value of AI for their roles and the organisation as a whole. Develop training that goes beyond basic functionality and focuses on practical application, demonstrating how AI can drive growth, manage costs, and improve customer value. For instance, many GenAI apps will own the rights to what they produce; other times, they will unitedly yield IP-protected content, as if they were just made for you. Note, there are great apps for plagiarism too.
Promote a culture of continuous learning: Encourage ongoing AI skill development within organisations. Design learning programs that are flexible and modular. With the speed of this technologies, I believe many of us will have to reinvent ourselves in shorter periods of time
Stay informed: Keep abreast of the latest trends and developments in the AI landscape.
Understanding the implications of AI’s impact on employment and proactively adapting to the evolving needs of the workforce will empower us to play a crucial role in ensuring individuals and organisations thrive in an AI-powered world.
References:
“AI at Work Is Here. Now Comes the Hard Part“, Microsoft, 8/05/2024
OECD AI Principles overview – Adopted in May 2019, they set standards for AI that are practical and flexible enough to stand the test of time.
The Reality of Responsible AI – Jeanne Kwong Bickford, Katharina Hefter, Steven Mills, and Tad Roselund, BCG
The AI Index report, 7th ed. 2024, Measuring trends in AI
Technology Trust Ethics Preparing the workforce for ethical, responsible, and trustworthy AI: C-suite perspectives (Deloitte)
Cisco Principles for Responsible Artificial Intelligence
McKinsey Quantum Black AI: Responsible AI (RAI) Principles
Once upon a time, a hare named Ishi and a leader beaver named Honcho lived in the Enchanted Wood. One morning, the group were discussing gathering berries from the east and west groves, which have different processes for each, when Ishi mistakenly mixed them up when explaining the plan.
One of his peers noticed and called out the correct procedure for each orchard. It was never executed, though, so no harm done. Ishi thanked him and was about to proceed when Honcho bellowed, “You have erred!” and subjected him to a harsh lecture in front of the forest crew. Ishi’s ears drooped lower with each barb, while Honcho challenged his competence publicly, shaking his confidence. Unfairly. (SCARF, Rock 2018)
The hare later approached the leader and said, “I mean no disrespect, but I can’t tolerate being treated like that, especially so publicly. It wilts my spirit and undermines my confidence.” But Honcho was adamant. “I was doing you and everyone a favour, correcting your mistakes for all to learn! You can’t accept feedback; that’s the real issue!”
Honcho explained that it was his “authentic style”, and the Master Owl’s words immediately came to mind: “Authenticity without empathy is selfish; without boundaries, is careless” (A. Grant). Ishi apologised a couple of times for the mix-up. He raised how the situation was poorly handled, publicly, but Honcho was never there to listen; he was too busy defending his unquestionable authority. (Goleman’s Leadership Styles; DiSC).
In the weeks that followed, the tension hung thick in the air.
Ishi raised the issue with Honcho’s manager, only to hear, “Perhaps you should seek employment with one of our suppliers.” Not nice. Defeated, he replayed the public rebuke over and over in his mind. He needed to mend the situation. He takes a step back, reflects on the feedback and the behaviour patterns (LAB Profile®), and decides to adopt a new approach.
In the following meetings, his stand-up updates prioritised established processes over discussions. No more creative inputs, no questions asked. Honcho felt back in control, and the tension gradually passed.
Eventually, harmony was back in the Enchanted Wood. The discussions disappeared, along with creative collaboration, idea sharing, and challenging directions.
The order was restored.
Still, Ishi left that neck of the woods for good! He couldn’t help but wonder, though:
How can leaders balance authenticity and empathy when giving feedback?
How can pack members communicate effectively with different leadership styles?
How can forest chiefs encourage constructive feedback and creative collaboration?
What role does clear process communication play in preventing misunderstandings?
How can individuals develop resilience and adaptability in challenging work environments?
After further learning, some inconvenient truths… I mean, thoughts:
Robert Greene, “The 48 Laws of Power”– Greene’s Law 1 suggests that a direct report should never outshine their leader. By immediately correcting the mistake, especially in public, the leader might claim they were reasserting their position and preventing any perceived dimming of their own “light.” This is a purely Machiavellian interpretation, focusing on power dynamics rather than effective leadership or team development.
Dale Carnegie, “How to Win Friends and Influence People” – You Can’t Win an Argument; Avoid It. They could argue that by immediately “shutting down” the employee’s mistake, they were preventing a longer, potentially unproductive discussion or “argument” about the process error. Their “authentic style” could be framed as a blunt but efficient way to prevent prolonged debate. Of course, this completely misses Carnegie’s emphasis on tact, respect, and preserving the other person’s dignity.
Kim Scott, “Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity”: The leader in this scenario challenged directly but utterly failed on the “caring personally” front. Scott would argue that public humiliation is the opposite of caring personally and leads to “obnoxious aggression” and “manipulative insincerity”.
Brene Brown, “Dare to Lead” (Vulnerability, Empathy, and Psychological Safety): The leader’s “authentic style” that leads to public shaming is detrimental to creating psychological safety. Brown would argue that such behaviour erodes trust and makes employees less likely to take risks, admit mistakes, or innovate.
Adam Grant, “Give and Take” (Reciprocity and Psychological Safety): Grant’s research highlights the benefits of “givers” in the workplace and the importance of creating environments where people feel safe to contribute. A leader who publicly shames a direct report is acting as a “taker”, diminishing the employee’s psychological capital and willingness to engage.
Maintaining standards and accountability (without empathy):
From a rigid, results-oriented perspective, a leader might argue that their primary responsibility is to maintain high standards and ensure accountability. The public correction was a swift way to address a deviation from process, emphasising that errors, even if “no harm was done”, are unacceptable.
An argument that often prioritises process and outcome over human interaction and development.
Last week, I was fortunate enough to be part of an innovative leadership training session on coaching, leveraging the power of VR technology.
Immersive experiences allow participants to practice real-world scenarios in a safe, controlled environment. By now, you have probably seen many studies showing (eg. PwC, 2020) that VR-based learning can increase retention rates and confidence to apply the skills learned immensely (275%), 4x faster than traditional methods.
What struck me was, in another job, I ran coaching workshops with group discussions and activities, yet this time it was quite different seeing a room full of leaders, each immersed in their own VR coaching simulation. After their personal VR experiences, the facilitator brought the group together to share insights and strategies, an interesting blend of individual exploration and collective learning.
AI-generated concept art. Still, not too far from what we had that day.
Positive feedback reinforces the potential of VR in leadership development.
I was very grateful for the opportunity to be part of this training. Witnessing leaders enthusiastically engage with a virtual ‘coachee’ and navigate non-linear conversations was truly inspiring. In 2018, I proposed a similar idea to my previous team, but it was deemed too complex and resource-intensive. Fast forward to today, and it’s incredible to see how far we’ve come!
As we embrace this ever-evolving tech, I’m excited about the future of learning and development.
