A request to work the weekend, without pay. A passed‑over promotion, with the advice to “lean in.” A hiring decision where “being a good fit” trumps qualifications.
They don’t scream scandal but are the kind of quiet, everyday dynamics that shape today’s workplaces, and they’re at the centre of Jae Yun Kim’s work in the Asper School of Business.
He’s four years into his role as the Richard Morantz and Sheree Walder Morantz Professor of Business Ethics, established to develop research in this growing discipline and give UM students a stronger foundation for the choices they’ll make as business leaders.
“The problems we face today are even more complex than the problems we had in the past,” Kim says.
Namesake Sheree Walder Morantz [BA/80, LLB/84] experienced her own ethical dilemma early in her career as a family lawyer. In her first trial, her client lied under oath. Sheree knew that if she continued, the lie could win the case—and get a young child returned to a mother who wasn’t ready to parent.
“I had to make the decision to withdraw as counsel,” Sheree says. “That was really a lesson to me that no matter how far into the process you are, no matter how much you want to win, the truth governs. It counts for more than the scorecard.”
She pondered how, in law, you must pass an ethics program before you practise, and a governing body holds you accountable afterwards—but, what about in business?
For Richard Morantz [BComm(Hons)/81], a long-time real-estate developer and owner of Globe Capital Management, the 2008 financial crisis sharpened this same conviction.
“People had a very short‑term outlook,” Richard says. “They needed to get the results done for the next quarter so they would get their bonuses, and there was really very little thought to their client’s long‑term, rational self‑interest. Encouraging the study of ethics in business seemed a way to counteract that—to make people think twice about what they’re doing.”
Events of the past 40 years have cast an even brighter spotlight on questionable business ethics, Richard Morantz says. Stock traders with insider knowledge look to reap rewards through short selling—a strategy where they bet on, and benefit from, a drop in a stock’s value. “There are reports that some may have had non-public information relating to certain industries, and sold shares of the companies in those industries short, only to buy them back at depressed prices at the opportune time,” he says. “Human nature is human nature, and there will always be those trying to take advantage of the system. So, an education that includes a solid grounding in business ethics is one way to minimize the negative effects of these types of decisions going forward.”
Established 10 years ago through a $5-million gift from the couple, the professorship was one of the first of its kind in Canada. In 2021, it brought Kim to UM from China’s Southern University of Science and Technology, with a portfolio of research in leading journals. Here we invite him to walk us through some of the ethical issues explored in his research. Have you seen them play out in your own workplace? Read on to find out.
Scenario 1: “You’re so passionate about this”
At a small non-profit, a junior staff member consistently goes above and beyond—volunteering for events, offering ideas in meetings and expressing how much the cause means to them. When a major donor event comes up on a weekend, their manager asks if they can cover, without pay.
“You’re so passionate about this,” the manager says. “You’d be perfect.”
Kim calls this “passion exploitation.”
“The manager who believes the worker is extremely passionate about the cause may see the work as already compensated by the pursuit of passion,” Kim says. “Therefore, the extra work without extra pay is not necessarily problematic because it’s subjectively compensated.”
In most cases, the manager isn’t trying to harm the worker, Kim says. But there is still a kind of mental gymnastics at play, as the manager rationalizes to themselves why the request feels fair.
Non-profit and arts-related employees are particularly vulnerable.
“The cause you’re pursuing, the art you’re pursuing—those make it easier for people to rationalize and legitimize what’s being asked of these workers.”
Scenario 2: “She just needs to lean in”
After a junior female staff member is passed over for a leadership opportunity, her manager is discussing the situation with another team lead. “She’s talented,” the manager says, “but she just needs to lean in more and show she wants it.”
The manager’s comment echoes a wider cultural script, Kim says, one popularized by Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In and a wave of self‑improvement advice urging women to claim their place at the table.
In workplaces, these messages can shift the focus entirely to personal effort. Instead of examining structural barriers, they suggest that with enough self‑improvement, anyone can rise.
“The message would be something like: If you work harder, if you improve yourself further, then you can become the leader,” Kim says. “And once you become the leader, then you can help other women.”
This framing is used to explain away inequality.
“In this scenario, it’s just rationalizing not giving her a promotion because of her sex or gender,”
Kim says.
Almost all of the research I conduct is experimental and requires quite a lot of money to run it. Without this professorship, it would have been extremely challenging to pursue these ideas. — Jae Yun Kim
Scenario 3: “Not quite the right fit”
A company is hiring a new team lead during a period of financial uncertainty. The strongest candidate is a Black woman with experience leading progressive workplace policy initiatives. While her qualifications are exceptional, some on the hiring panel express concern that her leadership style might not mesh with the current team and say she’s “not quite the right fit for where we’re at right now.”
Kim says situations like this can reflect a deeper dynamic he has studied around uncertainty and decision‑making.
“With all the uncertainty going around, people are likely to feel that they have low control,” Kim says. “So they’re less likely to want to work with people who are different from themselves.” That instinct can make “fit” a stand‑in for comfort, especially in hiring. In the moment, the choice can feel safe and even practical. But over time, Kim says, one of the trade‑offs is diversity.
“It will definitely hurt diversity—diversity in terms of the ideas or cultural backgrounds or even the education of employees,” Kim says.
A homogenous team may offer short‑term stability, but another long-term trade‑off is innovation.
“If you have people who are pretty much the same, have the same style, have the same mental models, then you have a big problem in terms of creativity.”
It was at UM where Sheree Walder Morantz says she found a love for psychology and law. “I had some incredibly passionate professors. I learned a tremendous amount about human behaviour, which has served me very well as a family lawyer. The impact a passionate professor—who really cares about his or her students—can have on long-term development in your career is pivotal.”
Sheree Walder Morantz and Richard Morantz believe in a future fuelled by generosity. What does that look like? It’s in the faces of new graduates with big ideas, in bold research solutions for Manitoba and the world, and in community initiatives coming to life in collaborative ways. Here, a legacy of philanthropy is shaping the leaders, innovators and change-makers of tomorrow. Learn how you can get involved.