Technology should be open for discussion, not considered a fait accompli
The digital age offers unprecedented possibilities in terms of speed and efficiency. AI promises to optimize processes and minimize errors. These are advantages that no manager or supervisor in the business world can or should ignore. At the same time, ethical unease is growing in some quarters. What happens if we let ‘technology’ run rampant? Is there a risk of a race to the bottom, in which anything that can be done is done, as long as it is legal and profitable? Behind the unprecedented possibilities of algorithms, looms a fundamental ethical question: if technology offers virtually unlimited possibilities, where do we, as executives, supervisors, and leaders, draw the line?
Algorithms focus backwards
A boardroom needs to fully understand that technology is not the solution to all challenges. Most AI applications are particularly good at recognizing and reproducing existing patterns. That is precisely where its strength lies: analyzing enormous amounts of data and distilling what has been successful in the past. The result is an increasingly refined version of previous successes. More efficiency, more predictability, more best practices. But something like 'innovation' rarely arises from predictability. Innovation requires breaking patterns, daring to make mistakes, and questioning what seems self-evident. Algorithms look backwards. This creates an uncomfortable tension as, for decades, we have been warning that 'past performance is no guarantee of future results' – and yet we increasingly allow that same future to be steered by systems based on the past.
Mistakes and Risk
Good entrepreneurship requires taking risks and daring to make mistakes. The old adage ‘always make new mistakes’ may seem outdated, but it is no less relevant. Not only executives, but also supervisory board members and other regulatory bodies play a crucial role in this. Their task is not to eliminate risks, but to ensure a learning organization with an explicit and supported risk appetite. Which risks are acceptable? Which are not? And how do we create space to experiment without becoming reckless?
The Rules... and Beyond
Ethics does not begin with laws and regulations, protocols, or compliance departments. It begins with the moment something ‘does not feel right’, with the infamous ‘gut feel.’ In the digital age, that moral compass is increasingly at risk of being drowned out. Technology is designed for convenience, speed, and comfort. This makes it more difficult to consider whether we should want something, even if it is technically possible and even if it is within the rules. Good leaders therefore ask themselves not only: what are the rules and how do I comply with them? The more essential follow-up question is: what is the right choice here?
Look at yourself, not at someone else
A frequently heard (follow-up) question in boardrooms is: what are others doing? Or more specifically: how close to the edge of the rule are our competitors going? But ultimately, that is the wrong question. Ethics cannot be outsourced to the market. The unethical behavior of others does not absolve anyone of their own responsibility. In fact, a finely tuned ethical compass can be a distinguishing advantage. Consumers, employees, and investors, increasingly value organizations that not only pursue profit but also take responsibility.
The example cited in this magazine by philosopher/ethicist Roos Slegers of tech billionaire Elon Musk's AI chatbot Grok (see: ‘Critical thinking in a world smoothed over by AI’ on page18) illustrates this point sharply. Grok was able to generate sexually suggestive deepfakes of existing people without any significant technical limitations and did so on a large scale. The question was not whether it was possible, but whether it was desirable. The societal response ultimately turned out to be that no, it is not. After a storm of criticism, Musk decided to take measures against his own chatbot. On the one hand, this example shows that, fortunately, ethical boundaries do still exist. On the other hand, it also shows that these boundaries can easily be crossed by technology. It is therefore up to individuals, to users, to set the boundaries.
Discomfort as a compass
What should a boardroom do with this ethical discomfort? What do we do when a new digital technology is legal and profitable, but morally questionable? The answer lies in culture. In a culture where people feel safe to say: ‘This does not feel right’ or ‘Is that really what we should want?’
Discomfort is not a weakness, but a signal. It is a litmus test that indicates something that cannot be captured in spreadsheets, is at stake. Allowing discomfort requires vulnerability and courage, especially in an age where speed and entertainment are rewarded. But a boardroom without room for doubt and dissent loses its moral edge.
Know the technology
A meaningful ethical discussion about digital technology also requires knowledge. Executives and supervisors need not be programmers, but they do need to understand how technology works and where the opportunities and risks lie. Anyone who wants to use a GenAI tool must know what that tool can do, but also what it cannot do, and what biases it contains. Without this knowledge, ethics becomes an abstract discussion, disconnected from practice. In a supervisory role, this means asking the right questions, and making sure you are informed about and open to the actual role of technology in the organization.
Take the intergenerational dialogue seriously
The ethical discussion about technology is partly fueled by intergenerational differences. Younger generations are often the early adopters of new technologies but are also often the first to question boundaries. They demand offline time (unreachable on vacation), develop new forms of etiquette (Snapchat), and make agreements about accessibility and use. With every technological wave, new social contracts emerge. WhatsApp etiquette, hybrid working, permanent availability – these are not technical questions, but social ones. Perhaps the early adopters are also the early rule setters. By taking this dialogue seriously, including in the boardroom, technology remains open for discussion instead of a fait accompli.
Show courage, embrace imperfection
Philosopher and ethicist Roos Slegers rightly pointed out that in a world smoothed over by AI, courage, friction, and critical thinking can come under pressure. However, it is precisely these values that are essential for sustainable innovation and successful entrepreneurship. After all, without dissent, doubt, and discomfort, there can be no creativity. From that perspective, the challenge of the digital age is not so much a technical one as a moral one. It asks whether we are willing to allow friction in a world that wants to smooth everything over. Technology can offer us much, but it cannot absolve us of the responsibility to continue to think for ourselves. Managers and supervisors who dare to slow down, sleep on a decision, and create space for doubt and dissent, will ultimately make the difference. That is precisely why we should show courage, embrace imperfection, create space for criticism, and seek discomfort.
This essay was published in Management Scope 02 2026.