Survivor bias assumes a direct link between sacrifice and success, which risks creating rigid and unhealthy work cultures.

Meeting with young people in business can give a fresh perspective on an organisation’s culture. They bring new ideas and a clear view, often unclouded by the blind spots experience can create and their expectations for work are shaped by a completely different set of values and norms compared to previous generations. From seeking work/life balance to finding meaningful work, these evolving values can sometimes clash with the more traditional belief that success requires long hours, stress, and personal sacrifice. At a recent Young Person’s Alliance gathering, this tension was brought to light and named: survivor bias. 

Survivor bias happens when those who’ve faced tough paths to success believe that’s the only, or the best, way to achieve it. For example, many senior leaders in corporate environments, particularly women in male-dominated fields, often had to adopt intense work ethics and make personal sacrifices. Stories of working late into the night or juggling work while caring for sick kids are worn as badges of honour. 

This can lead to an expectation, conscious or not, that younger employees should follow the same path: that sacrifice builds resilience and proves commitment. “I’m actually really proud of the struggles I had, it taught me a lot and it’s made me who I am today. You miss out on that if everything comes easy”, remarked a senior leader.  

But is hardship the only way to show dedication? Or is this bias simply a product of individual survival stories? 

In conversations I’ve had with finance or law workers, this bias shows up as an “all or nothing” mentality. Leaders who built their careers on 80-hour weeks might see flexibility or work-life balance as a lack of commitment. For instance, a senior female executive who climbed the ranks through relentless hours said “We just got on with it, no one was holding my hand.” 

While this impacts both men and women, the pressure is often greater for young women trying to balance career and family. Survivor bias fosters a “suffer to succeed” culture, where personal sacrifice feels like a necessary step toward leadership. 

Survivor bias can also create a scepticism that can create a lack of generosity in the workplace as about resourcing good mental health opportunities such as counselling or other support and even stagnating salaries as leaders reflect on their own experiences. “I remember when I went through that in my life, I got through it ok, and I didn’t have nearly the same help as there is today”, said a senior not-for-profit leader. 

This mindset isn’t limited to the business sector. It’s seen in politics, sports, law, and even nursing. Serena Williams, for example, has spoken about the pressures she faced to prove her dedication to tennis after becoming a mother. Similarly, Julia Gillard’s time as Prime Minister is often framed as a testament to resilience, overlooking the intense sexism and personal costs she endured to succeed. 

The danger of survivor bias lies in how it normalises burnout and undervalues the priorities of today’s workforce, like mental health and diverse perspectives. It assumes a direct link between sacrifice and success, which risks creating rigid and unhealthy work cultures.

It looks to ‘survivors’ as the standards people should aspire to but the word survival itself represents the limited few who have overcome the odds at all costs. 

The first step to tackling survivor bias is awareness. By reflecting on how past struggles have shaped their expectations, leaders can start recognising this bias. Mentoring programs can also foster conversations across generations, allowing senior leaders to share their stories while understanding new ways of thinking about resilience and success. 

Many organisations already have flexible and inclusive policies like parental leave, but true change requires a shift in mindset. Leaders can redefine hard work to focus on efficiency and impact rather than hours worked. This sends a clear signal that organisations value healthier, more innovative approaches. 

As we engage with a new generation of professionals, especially young women, there’s an ethical responsibility to create paths that don’t equate suffering with commitment. By challenging survivor bias and embracing the values of today’s workforce, we can build cultures where resilience, fulfilment, and success go hand in hand. 

I place a great deal of importance on the work I do, I enjoy my time in the office, and spending time with my team. However, lately I have noticed a younger colleague of mine is slacking off. They frequently take sick leave, or call in to work from home, and it often feels like there’s no urgency to their tasks. I am starting to feel a growing sense of resentment, as this hardly feels fair to me or my colleagues. Is there a way I can approach what I consider to be a poor work ethic?

It’s natural to feel a sense of unfairness and frustration when you’re putting in the effort and others don’t seem to be keeping pace. After all, work is called work for a reason – it’s not meant to be effortless.  

Addressing the fairness of workload and the impact it has on the workforce is being explored more and more as automation is being used to assist with tasks and we find ourselves for the first time working alongside five different generations. 

As our behaviours are driven by our values and it’s worth considering how different generations bring different values and attitudes to the workplace. Research into generational attitudes toward work provides some useful insights: 

The Silent Generation (1928-1945) value loyalty, job stability, long-term careers and staying with one company for decades. 

Baby Boomers (1946-1964) value hard work, dedication, responsibility, job security and stability. 

Generation X (1965-1980) value independence, self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.  

Millennials (1981-1996) are the largest cohort working in business today. They seek purpose in their work, value personal development, and look for roles that allow for work-life integration.

Generation Z (1996-2010) value flexibility, work life balance, diversity, inclusion and well-being. 

So, what does this mean for your situation? While each generation may have a distinct approach to work, shared values like fairness, accountability, and empathy can create not only common ground but also opportunities. Most employees, regardless of age, want to know that workloads are distributed equitably, and that everyone is contributing their part. When this balance seems off, frustration is understandable. 

However, it’s worth considering that your colleague’s behaviour may stem from reasons beyond their control. They may be facing personal challenges or health concerns, and it’s helpful to understand that we’re often dealing with factors that aren’t always immediately obvious on the surface.  

Accountability is another value shared across generations. Regardless of how we work – whether in the office or remotely – there’s an expectation that we should be held accountable for our work and deadlines.  

It’s possible that your younger colleague isn’t fully aware of the expectations and may benefit from clearer communication, so they better understand the priority of their work. This could help address the perception that they lack motivation or urgency. 

Focusing on outcomes rather than physical presence can bridge generational differences and shift the conversation towards ensuring the work gets done effectively, no matter where it’s completed. 

At the same time, empathy and understanding are important, especially when considering values related to well-being. If your younger colleague is frequently working from home or taking sick days, it may be their way of managing their health in a more proactive manner than what might have been typical in earlier generations. This could be an opportunity to reassess your own attitudes to work and question how helpful it is to be working when you’re not feeling 100% or trialing different approaches to prevent burn-out. 

Rather than letting frustration build, consider having an open and supportive conversation. This could open a dialogue that leads to a better understanding of how to ensure both their well-being and their work responsibilities are met.  

Ultimately, acknowledging and recognising the different generational values can open up new ways of working together. Conversations can explore the impact of those differences and find solutions to any tensions. Addressing these issues through a balance of our shared human values such as fairness, accountability, and empathy can create a more harmonious work environment for everyone. 

As Bob Dylan famously said, “The times they are a-changin’” and if you’re asking, “who’s Bob Dylan?”, check him out, I think you’ll love him. 

I recently interviewed an 88-year-old woman who had been scammed out of $49,000. She acted quickly, and presumed the bank would be able to recoup her money.

In her case, she downloaded a third-party app, before logging into her bank account as instructed. She shared the security code with the scammer, enabling them to authorise the transaction before quickly realising she had been duped, hanging up the phone.  

She had the account number where the money had been transferred to and an investigation was launched, but despite being a customer at her bank for 60 years, the bank said there was nothing they could do to get her money back.  

How scammers operate

Scams are growing increasingly complex and sophisticated. Sometimes pretending to be from your bank, scammers might target you online or social media, or by phone, text or email. If they’re clever, they might give you some information that seems genuine to try and gain your trust, or may suggest there’s a problem to fix, such as a problem with your computer, an overpayment or suspicious activity on your account.  

Collectively, Australians lost $2.7 billion to scams in 2023, with online dating and romance, investment, products and services, threat and extortion, employment, and impersonation scams among the most common. Victims are encouraged to report their scam to the National Anti-Scam Centre, but Scamwatch says people often feel ashamed, resulting in around 30 per cent of victims never reporting it. 

There has been strong resistance from the banking sector to compensate scam victims. And while Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones has vowed to crack down on organisations that enable scams and don’t pay up, indicating a keenness to ‘redesign fraud out of the system’, banks reimbursing scam victims doesn’t appear to be on the government’s radar.   

While the banks put the onus on their customers to ‘hear the alarm bells’, Labor wants scam victims to be compensated under a plan to fine banks and social media platforms $50 million and be forced to pay compensation if they fail to protect customers from scams.  

The banks argue against reimbursing scam victims, saying it would create a honeypot effect that would entice criminals to target Australians more often. The other argument is that reimbursing funds lost in scams would make the crime ‘victimless’, making consumers even more attractive to money-hungry scammers.  

Currently, if a customer in Australia transfers funds to the wrong account, the bank that sent the money is responsible for dealing with the complaint, rather than the bank that received the funds. The banks are also not obligated to repay scam victims.

Banks educate, not reimburse

Instead, banks have embarked on an education campaign reminding customers to remain vigilant to the threat of scammers, while the recently announced Scam-Safe Accord includes a $100 million investment by banks in a new confirmation of payee system to ensure people can confirm they are transferring funds to the person they intend to. 

It’s a far cry from the UK, where most banks already voluntarily compensate customers who are tricked into sending money to scammers, but in a world first, authorities recently mandated that banks must refund fraud victims up to $EU85,000 within five days, unless they are at fault. 

As of this month, a new shared liability proposal by the Payment Systems Regulator is expected to impact financial institutions around the world. The system makes both sides responsible for the reimbursement, which is hoped will encourage collaboration between all players to detect and prevent scams.  

It’s a policy welcomed by CHOICE and the Consumer Action Law Centre, which wants the government to go a step further and establish a reimbursement model similar to that used in the UK. They work with victims, who often don’t ever emotionally recover from the ordeal.  

Who is the onus on?

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has been clear that banks aren’t doing enough to protect vulnerable customers. Despite this, the banks rely on a tenuous moral argument that suggests that customers will be less attentive and take greater risks if they think they are in line for compensation.  

Perhaps Australian banks can take a leaf out of UK’s TSB Bank, which started reimbursing almost all customers who fell victim to scams about four years ago. The bank says the results were stunning, actually resulting in a reduction in fraud. 

TSB says voluntarily reimbursing scam victims resulted in its share of losses sitting well below what it would expect for a bank of its size.   

Examples of these gestures of goodwill can foster loyalty and trust between banks and their customers, beyond strict legal or educational obligations. While victims can face significant distress, offering reimbursement is an ethical way for banks to support their customers, helping both restore their financial and emotional well-being.

While there is an asymmetry of resources and knowledge when it comes to keeping our money safe, a shared responsibility acknowledges the ethical duty to continually improve safeguards when it comes to scams.

After all, it’s compassionate business practice and a shared burden that strengthens corporate character. 

The digital revolution has ushered us into a theatre where the stage extends into our living rooms, and the audience is always watching. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the context of work.  

In the pandemic-driven shift from office to home (and back again), the curtains between personal and professional lives have not just been pulled back but torn down. This has changed not only where we work, but how we work, and crucially, how we are seen by our colleagues. It also has radical implications for what it means to be ‘authentic’ in the workplace. 

Where the pre-2020 professional may have meticulously managed their work persona, the pandemic era has introduced authenticity by default, for better or worse. This collision of worlds invites us to question: In the blur between ‘onstage’ and ‘offstage’, which parts of ourselves do we bring to the virtual office table? 

Presenting our authentic selves

David Hume, a prominent Scottish philosopher of the 18th century, radically destabilised our notions of a consistent, singular self. In A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume argued that our perceptions are the only real things about us and that these perceptions are constantly changing.  

He famously stated, “When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.” 

In essence, Hume’s view of the self as a ‘bundle’ of perceptions challenges the idea of a singular, unchanging and enduring entity. Instead, our sense of self is more like a series of fluid, dynamic experiences that are related but distinct, with no unifying core or essence. This perspective has had a significant influence on later philosophical thought, particularly in discussions about personal identity and the nature of the self. 

Given that for Hume, the self is a collection of changing perceptions, it might follow that our self-presentation is inherently fluid and adaptable. This adaptability might imply a level of control, as different situations or contexts bring different perceptions to the forefront, thus altering our self-presentation.  

Rather than managing a stable, singular identity, self-presentation for Hume may be more about managing perceptions, both internal (how we perceive ourselves) and external (how others perceive us).  

Hume also acknowledges the influence of external factors like social context and relationships on our perceptions. This indicates that while individuals might have some control over their self-presentation, it is also shaped by external circumstances beyond their complete control. 

Self-presentation on the new office ‘stage’

In 1959, the influential sociologist Erving Goffman explained self-presentation as how we try to control how others see us. Drawing on theatrical metaphor, Goffman, noted the different roles we play in front of different audiences. He also highlighted the importance of ‘backstage’ spaces – private areas in which we are free to drop any act without spoiling the performance.  

Current workplace paradigms, however, often involve catching glimpses of life behind the scenes. We increasingly perform our work roles immersed in the geography of our non-work selves while trying to create some separation between the two. Self-presentation in these new liminal spaces is therefore less straightforward than it might first appear and, again, poses questions about authenticity.  

Pre-2020, jokes about pairing waist-up office wear with below-desk pyjamas were largely targeted at newsreaders. However, the pandemic-driven move from office to home sent many of us hurtling into colleagues’ worlds like never before.  

The abrupt pivot to online meetings flung open virtual doors into our colleagues’ sanctuaries – spaces that were once off-limits to our professional personas. The sanctity and intimacy of the home, traditionally a retreat from the public gaze, became a shared space, albeit digitally, and often reluctantly.  

The unexpected cameo of a pet, the soft murmur of children playing in the background, or the occasional appearance of a spouse served as reminders of the complex lives beyond the professional facades we maintain. These moments, while humanising, also signalled a tectonic shift in our understanding of authenticity. 

As we continue to navigate this uncharted territory, it’s clear that our pre-pandemic understanding of privacy needs re-evaluating. The distinctions between work and private life must be redefined to protect the sanctity of both.

Employers and employees alike must collaboratively develop new norms and etiquettes that respect personal boundaries while accommodating the realities of our interconnected digital lives.

Examining authenticity

Identity curation is a core part of self-presentation, and we do it constantly. It is this curation that radically undermines claims of self-authenticity. In many workplaces, the move online merely highlighted ambiguities or inconsistencies in thinking about authenticity that were always there. 

The language of authenticity is pervasive in the workplace; it features in mission statements, company values and even competency frameworks yet is rarely defined by organisations in any meaningful way. 

The idea of an authentic self underpins the relatively recent introduction of the notion of ‘bringing your whole self to work.’ We have witnessed a radical shift from earlier 20th-century conceptions of workplace conformity and strict adherence to a professional persona that often required suppressing personal identities and emotions, to a workplace culture that rhetorically valorises the uniqueness of individual’s ‘lived experience’ and the expression of people’s unique perspectives and backgrounds in the workplace.   

However, it still begs the question as to what precisely constitutes an individual’s authentic self? And which modes of authenticity are valued over others?

Expecting employees to somehow just be authentic – a complex and debated concept in an era of multiple states of self-presentation – is therefore an unreasonable ask, whether offline, online or moving between the two.

Recent discussions on authenticity in the workplace highlight a complex landscape where the concept is both lauded for its potential to enhance individual well-being and critiqued for its unintended consequences. Hamilton and Almeida at the LSE Business Review point out that an authentic work environment can be beneficial to psychological health and performance outcomes, yet the narrow social norms of professionalism often limit who can genuinely express themselves without repercussions, leading to assimilation and code-switching​​​​. 

Furthermore, Hamilton and Almeida also found that authenticity can become a source of cognitive strain and alienation when individuals feel compelled to align with dominant group norms, which may conflict with their innate values and personal identities​​. This is particularly challenging for minority groups within organisations, as the pressure to conform can lead to psychological distress and inhibit genuine self-expression​​. 

Critiques also focus on the potential for a culture of authenticity to inadvertently perpetuate social inequalities, as those who cannot or choose not to conform to the dominant narrative of authenticity might self-segregate or face negative work-related consequences​​. Additionally, the pursuit of authenticity can stifle dissent and innovation, as uniformity of thought undermines the benefits of a diverse workforce​​. 

The call for authentic self-expression in the workplace must be balanced with a conscious effort to foster an inclusive environment where diverse voices are not just heard but valued. This requires leadership that understands and actively manages the dynamics of group identity, as well as a collective effort among employees to embrace and respect differences​​. 

Economists and business councils have been telling us for years that we must improve our productivity if we want to be more prosperous but, so far, they’ve had little success. Surely, there’s something else we could try?

As we’ll see, it’s something for Treasurer Jim Chalmers to ponder as he puts the finishing touches to next Tuesday’s budget.

This article was originally published in The Sydney Morning Herald.

If you’re looking to start investing in the stock market (and you’ve stumbled across this article), chances are you might be investigating how you can do it ethically – without supporting companies that are actively causing harm to the world.  

“Ethical investing” has no fixed definition in Australia, Life and Shares host Cris Parker points out in The Ethics Centre’s latest podcast. Susheela Peres Da Costa, Chair of the Responsible Investment Association of Australasia (RIAA), says typically ethical, or responsible, investing is about, “consumers assuming something is screened out of the portfolio – what you don’t invest in is a typical ethical investment question.” 

But finding out which companies are involved in activities you don’t want to financially support is not as cut and dried as you might hope. 

“There’s a lot of seductively simple solutions out there,” Peres Da Costa says, such as points-based system ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance Investing). 

“Some of the most profitable companies involved in some of the most harmful activities actually do very well on some of the scoring systems,” Da Costa says, “because they’ve got great volunteering programs and programs for replacing their light bulbs with LEDs, and they give a lot of money to charity. But investors need to be smart about not falling for the gloss. As someone who’s professionally analysed company reports, I would never, ever believe anything in a value statement…” 

“However, we really need to address the elephant in the room, which is actually the cost. It is just so expensive to obtain proper financial advice – to give you an example, the median price in Australia is $5,000 per year.” 

Even if you don’t think of yourself as being in the stock market, if you have super in Australia, then your super fund is investing your money on your behalf. Happily, many super funds offer investment packages classified as “sustainable”, which aim to buy into clean and renewable energy shares and avoid companies involved in fossil fuels. 

The RIAA ranks Australian super funds on their responsible investment approaches: its Responsible Investment Super Studies highlight funds that choose shares in companies that aim to do good for people and the earth and screen out those with poor or questionable practices. 

Still, the waters are murky as to which companies are doing the most harm, and which are trying to do good. As Life and Shares host Cris Parker points out, one of the best performing sustainable exchange traded funds in the past year had a large holding in mining company BHP. 

But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, says Da Costa. “It’s easy to think about mining companies as those that dig up the ground, tear down the trees and all those things. But they’re also the ones that are producing the lithium, for example, and all the rare earths that we need to transition from our dependence on fossil fuels. So I think one of the things you have to be really careful of is assuming that a company is one thing, good or bad.” 

“One of the things you have to be really careful of is assuming that a company is one thing, good or bad.” – Peres Da Costa

Of course, there’s no legislation to prevent you from investing in whatever you want – and if you don’t buy shares in a particular company, someone else probably will. Unless you have the financial power to buy a controlling stake, you won’t be able to control board decisions as a shareholder. But it doesn’t mean you can’t try. 

“If your objective is to have an impact in the world, then the levers that you have available to you are very different if you’re a consumer versus an institution, and you need to have a theory of change about how you have that impact,” Da Costa says.  

A theory of change is a conceptual model outlining the specific actions and interventions your investments will use to achieve the desired impact. In the case of sustainability and climate change, this means putting your money into renewables, divesting from fossil fuel companies, and being an active shareholder – paying attention to what your invested companies are doing, and wielding your shareholder voting power at AGMs (Annual General Meetings). 

One simple action that should be on every good global citizen’s to-do list is checking your super fund’s ethical position and investments, along with checking where your bank invests and if your power company uses renewables or coal and gas. 

Looking to your own values and ethics, and using those as a guide to what you will and won’t invest in, is probably your best personal guide for how to invest ethically.

For instance, does it bother you to earn dividends from companies involved in mining and fossil fuels, weapons manufacturing, supply chains that aren’t signatories to sustainability or anti-slavery regulation, and alcohol, tobacco, or unethical pharmaceutical companies? Are you willing to make trade-offs and invest in a company doing harm in one area but good in another? As Da Costa says, you can’t assume “a company is one thing, good or bad.” 

Whether you’re actively trading shares and avidly following financial news or just tinkering with your super investment options, the stock market will always be an ethical minefield. But with research and the knowledge of how to take control of your money and how it’s used, you can start investing more responsibly and purposefully. 

Life and Shares unpicks the share market so you can make decisions you’ll be proud of. Listen now on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.