Is it possible to maintain a professional career while adhering to one’s own moral and ethical standards? Are we able to accomplish “good work” without it being clouded by market pressures? Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, and Damon are a group of psychologists who set out to answer these questions and many more by interviewing over a hundred leading geneticists and journalists striving to achieve their career and personal goals while staying true to their values and ethics. Good Work illustrates the results of a parallel study into the fields of genetics and journalism. While these two fields are seemingly unrelated, both practicing journalists and geneticists face ethical dilemmas in their professions. But how they behave and react to moral challenges determine if they can accomplish “good work.”

A closer look at how a profession is defined is necessary before we can focus on the Good Work study. The four components of the professional realm are individual practitioners, domain, field, and other stakeholders. These components come together to create and develop a profession. A group of practitioners unites to define the set of skills, values, and specific knowledge required to form a profession. Every culture is made up of different domains such as medicine, gastronomy, or journalism. Two symbolic codes are required to form a domain: ideas (or memes) and ethical dimension. For example, in medicine the domain consists of the knowledge and skills physicians must learn before being permitted to practice medicine. Physicians also must prove their values are consistent with those of society to be trusted by their patients and colleagues.

The field is the third component of the professional realm. Society is made up of many different fields, from carpentry to law. The workers in these fields practice the skills and procedures of a certain domain. The field of certain realms remains fluid. For example, a journalist may practice many of the same skills as other writers but identifies as a journalist due to their expertise. However, a person cannot simply identify as a physician. The strict requirements of the medical field prohibit anyone without a medical license to practice medicine.  

Lastly, there are the stakeholders of the professional realm: shareholders and the general public. The shareholders of corporations can influence professions with expectations of certain outcomes, and especially expectations of profit. The general public also influences the professional realm with its preferences and opinions on everything from what makes a good news story to what genetic manipulations are morally and ethically acceptable. 

Some of the most enjoyable and rewarding moments occur when we enter a state of flow while performing expertly skilled tasks. When our work is finished, we feel a sense of accomplishment. These experiences often happen at work when we are completely immersed in the task at hand. 

The three main elements at the heart of achieving good work are mission, standards, and identity. The mission of a profession should benefit basic societal needs. The practitioners in each field—whether it be genetics, journalism, or another field entirely—need to adhere to and carry out their profession’s mission. The ability to be true to one’s mission despite conflict is one way to accomplish good work.

The second aspect of good work lies in the standards upheld by professionals of a certain field. The standards should reflect those of participating members of both the field and society. For example, physicians are required to take the Hippocratic oath upon entering the medical field. The oath includes standards of the profession such as prioritizing the treatment and confidentiality of the patient, as well as leading an honorable life both personally and professionally. Finally, an examination of one’s identity is integral to completing good work. A person’s identity is made up of his or her background, values, and morals.

Authentic alignment is the primary goal of a professional attempting good work. Authentic alignment occurs when the domain and field are in sync, the values of the culture match those of the domain, and stakeholders’ expectations are aligned with the domain. These conditions encourage professionals to function at their best while maintaining high morale. Unfortunately, authentic alignment can be difficult to achieve due to factors such as competition in the field, lack of societal resources, and internal corruption.

Long before genes were discovered, farmers noticed physical traits in livestock. Farmers bred the strongest livestock to pass down the positive traits to their offspring. In essence, this was the birth of eugenics. The term eugenics was coined by British polymath Sir Francis Galton in 1883. His studies found that families with high intellect were uncommon, but by arranged marriages between such families, this would produce a “gifted race.” After the National Socialist Party of Germany applied these principles in an attempt to breed a “pure Aryan” race, eugenics was no longer recognized as an objective branch of science.

Erwin Schroedinger was the Nobel Prize winning scientist who helped define the field of genetics. In 1943, he reaffirmed the work of biologists by noting that genes were either dominant or recessive. However, Schroedinger furthered this work by noting that genes must have a structure that allows them to repeat and form a genetic code. Once the double helix structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by British scientist Francis Crick and American molecular biologist James D. Watson, the fields of genetics and biology grew rapidly.  

The discovery of DNA soon caused concern for scientists. The ability to manipulate the genetic code came with immense responsibility. The scientific community would essentially have to police itself to keep the public safe. Scientists gathered in California in 1975 and again in 1982 to discuss the parameters of genetic manipulation. Positive discoveries such as in vitro fertilization and the ability to produce better pharmaceuticals alleviated some concern about the field as a whole. The field of genetics continues to thrive, and much of its success depends on the moral and ethical code of scientists. 

Out of the hundred geneticists interviewed for the study, there was a consensus about their scientific missions. Over three quarters of the geneticists interviewed believed that their scientific work would benefit others. Four consistent themes in the interviews included “the thrill of scientific inquiry, the pleasure of working with scientific materials, the quality of thinking, and the belief that science foregrounds a certain kind of rational thinking.” In addition to these themes, the geneticists often spoke of their honor and integrity. 

Eighty-two percent of the geneticists interviewed noted their responsibility to society, such as keeping them safe and informed, as an important part of their profession. In addition to society, geneticists recognized a responsibility to their domain, to other geneticists and to their workplace, as well as a responsibility to themselves.  Most scientists are attempting thoughtful work while acknowledging these responsibilities.

One of the positives about working in genetics is that the market helps raise large amounts of money for scientific research. However, working for a large biotech company limits a geneticist’s autonomy and places an emphasis on the profit gained from the research rather than the possible benefits of the outcome. At times, the emphasis on profit can cloud a scientist’s ethical standards. Many scientists prefer to work at universities or nonprofit research centers to allow more freedom for their research. The focus can remain on the scientific work rather than the potential profit. 

The roots of journalism lie far back in history. Before written news, information was exchanged by word of mouth. Preliterate societies had to listen to and remember vital pieces of information, from the names of their ancestors to which plants were edible. These oral exchanges were instrumental to early human survival. 

They also helped to shape the human mind. To learn how, let’s consider memes. Memes are more than just the humorous internet exchanges we know today; they are cultural behaviors and beliefs embedded in society over years of imitation and replication. The authors also define society’s memes as “units of information that, once mastered, condition—indeed constitute!—the way that we think and that can be passed along from one person to another.” The word-of-mouth exchanges of preliterate society and the data modern journalists provide are both examples of memes. These experiences and information shape the human mind, and without them, the authors say the mind is “useless.” Our brains must select which memes to adhere to and which to ignore, which also shapes the mind. 

Journalism and the media are responsible for providing the public with trustworthy news and information—an enormous responsibility considering how such products can shape the human mind. The journalists interviewed for Good Work perceived their work to be the presentation of objective facts to ensure the public can make informed decisions. However, many of the journalists recognized that staying true to their mission of providing accurate and pertinent news has become increasingly difficult due to the corporate takeover of the media. 
 

The news has great influence over the memes of society. But what if misinformation seeps into the memes the media projects? How will people determine fact from fiction? These are some of the questions that plague the journalists interviewed for the Good Work study. Journalists have a responsibility to present the news while adhering to society’s values. Unfortunately, most of the media members interviewed see this journalistic ideal crumbling.

News is accessible any time of day via the Internet. This “news” often caters to specific political and social beliefs, making it harder to determine what news is trustworthy. There is a lack of cohesiveness in the media due to the variety of news outlets vying for the public’s attention. In today’s media the goal is profit, not truth telling, and this permits an abundance of misinformation. 

The journalists interviewed for the study pinpointed two main areas of concern in their field. Sixty-four percent of participants were concerned with the for-profit business demands of the industry. The second area of concern was a decline in moral and ethical values in the field. Sixty-three percent of participants noted a deteriorating moral compass in the media. The clamoring for market share stifles the noble desires of many journalists. Many participants felt a pressure to present news that was entertaining, rather than in-depth news stories. This can lead journalists to just go through the motions and not stay true to their values.

While the journalists interviewed expressed concerns in their field, they also conveyed a hopeful outlook for the future. Most of the interviewees noted a feeling of being “called” to the field of journalism and spoke of a commitment to inform the public. None of the journalists noted entertainment or increased market share as reasons for entering the field. Most participants agreed that “finding important new information and airing it openly is the most fundamental mission of the news business.” The overall hope was that fellow journalists would stay true to this mission and the press could continue to be a powerful and trustworthy entity.

At the core of all professions, including genetics and journalism, lies the mission to contribute to society in a positive and responsible way. Conditions are changing constantly and may inhibit one’s ability to stay true to this mission. The authors recognize three questions that pop up during times of a professional crisis:

        Core Values: Why should my society trust me with power and prestige?

        Exemplary Beliefs and Practices: Which workers realize the calling best?

        Sense of Moral Identity: How do I feel about myself when I look in the mirror?

When answering the first question, both geneticists and journalists expressed a strong adherence to the standards and values of their fields. The second question addresses the respect and recognition of one’s peers, which also proved important in both professions. The Nobel Prize is the ultimate accolade for scientists, whereas journalists strive for a Pulitzer Prize. The third question can be referred to as the “mirror test.” A larger contrast existed between geneticists and journalists during the “mirror test.” Most geneticists felt positive and spoke proudly of their work. They felt they were making responsible and beneficial contributions to society. Journalists did not convey this same sense of pride. Most journalists expressed concern with the workplace not reflecting their values and believed the field of journalism could benefit from its own “mirror test.”

When faced with a threat to their personal identity, a professional must decide how to respond. One way to stay true to a mission and purpose is to create a new institution or outlet. A journalist could establish a new publication, or a geneticist could start up a new biomed company. Another approach could be to revitalize a current institution’s moral and ethical standards. Success prevails when professionals work together to reestablish the values of an institution. 

These insights are just an introduction. If you're ready to dive deeper, pick up a copy of Good Work here. And since we get a commission on every sale, your purchase will help keep this newsletter free.