Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
1,677 subscribers
Checked 5d ago
추가했습니다 nine 년 전
BBC and BBC Radio 4에서 제공하는 콘텐츠입니다. 에피소드, 그래픽, 팟캐스트 설명을 포함한 모든 팟캐스트 콘텐츠는 BBC and BBC Radio 4 또는 해당 팟캐스트 플랫폼 파트너가 직접 업로드하고 제공합니다. 누군가가 귀하의 허락 없이 귀하의 저작물을 사용하고 있다고 생각되는 경우 여기에 설명된 절차를 따르실 수 있습니다 https://ko.player.fm/legal.
Player FM -팟 캐스트 앱
Player FM 앱으로 오프라인으로 전환하세요!
Player FM 앱으로 오프라인으로 전환하세요!
들어볼 가치가 있는 팟캐스트
스폰서 후원
N
No Limit Leadership


1 81: From Nothing to a Billion: The Leadership Playbook They Don’t Teach You w/ Harry L Allen 36:51
36:51
나중에 재생
나중에 재생
리스트
좋아요
좋아요36:51
Traditional banks often lack personalized service, and local businesses struggle to find true partnership in financial institutions. Meanwhile, higher education faces scrutiny over relevance and ROI in a world where information is nearly free. Harry Allen helped launch Studio Bank to blend technology with high-touch service, fueled by community investment. At Belmont, he's applying the same entrepreneurial mindset to modernize university operations and embed practical learning experiences, like a one-of-a-kind partnership with Dolly Parton, into academia. In this episode, Harry L. Allen, co-founder of Studio Bank and now CFO at Belmont University, unpacks the bold vision behind launching a community-first bank in a city dominated by financial giants. He shares the leadership lessons that shaped his journey, how to lead through crisis, and why mentorship is the key to filling today's leadership vacuum. Key Takeaways Leveraging both financial and social capital creates a unique, community-first banking model. High-tech doesn't mean low-touch, Studio Bank fused innovation with personal relationships. Leadership means showing up, especially during crisis. Universities must shift from being information hubs to delivering real-world experience. Succession and mentorship are vital to cultivating the next generation of leaders. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Harry L. Allen 01:49 The Birth of Studio Bank 04:29 Leveraging Technology in Community Banking 07:25 The Courage to Start a New Venture 10:37 Leadership Challenges in High Growth 13:02 Leading Through Crisis: The COVID Experience 17:55 Transitioning from Banking to Education 21:16 The Role of Leadership in Higher Education 25:16 Adapting to Challenges in Higher Education 30:04 The Leadership Vacuum in Society 33:17 Advice for Emerging Leaders 35:21 The American Dream and Community Impact No Limit Leadership is the go-to podcast for growth-minded executives, middle managers, and team leaders who want more than surface-level leadership advice. Hosted by executive coach and former Special Forces commander Sean Patton, this show dives deep into modern leadership, self-leadership, and the real-world strategies that build high-performing teams. Whether you're focused on leadership development, building a coaching culture, improving leadership communication, or strengthening team accountability, each episode equips you with actionable insights to unlock leadership potential across your organization. From designing onboarding systems that retain talent to asking better questions that drive clarity and impact, No Limit Leadership helps you lead yourself first so you can lead others better. If you're ready to create a culture of ownership, resilience, and results, this leadership podcast is for you.…
Moral Maze
모두 재생(하지 않음)으로 표시
Manage series 1301209
BBC and BBC Radio 4에서 제공하는 콘텐츠입니다. 에피소드, 그래픽, 팟캐스트 설명을 포함한 모든 팟캐스트 콘텐츠는 BBC and BBC Radio 4 또는 해당 팟캐스트 플랫폼 파트너가 직접 업로드하고 제공합니다. 누군가가 귀하의 허락 없이 귀하의 저작물을 사용하고 있다고 생각되는 경우 여기에 설명된 절차를 따르실 수 있습니다 https://ko.player.fm/legal.
Combative, provocative and engaging live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. #moralmaze
258 에피소드
모두 재생(하지 않음)으로 표시
Manage series 1301209
BBC and BBC Radio 4에서 제공하는 콘텐츠입니다. 에피소드, 그래픽, 팟캐스트 설명을 포함한 모든 팟캐스트 콘텐츠는 BBC and BBC Radio 4 또는 해당 팟캐스트 플랫폼 파트너가 직접 업로드하고 제공합니다. 누군가가 귀하의 허락 없이 귀하의 저작물을 사용하고 있다고 생각되는 경우 여기에 설명된 절차를 따르실 수 있습니다 https://ko.player.fm/legal.
Combative, provocative and engaging live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. #moralmaze
258 에피소드
모든 에피소드
×M
Moral Maze


The Bank of England has been accused of being the 'Bank of Wokeness' after proposing to cut historical figures from banknotes. Images of Winston Churchill, Jane Austen and Alan Turing could be replaced by images of themes such as nature, innovation, or key events in history. It raises the possibility of British birds, bridges, or bangers and mash featuring on the next series of £5, £10, £20 and £50 notes and would take us down the route favoured by the Euro which feature many an imaginary structure or window. But what do we lose when we potentially erase these historical figures from a place in our pocket? Are they problematic figures who are essentially divisive? Or are we discarding important figures who achieved greatness and still embody moral values? Is the concept of heroism one we need to reject altogether or do stories of human endeavour still represent the best way to promote culture and identity? PANEL: Anne McElvoy, Ash Sarkar, Matthew Taylor, Tim Stanley WITNESSES: Paul Lay, Historian Maddy Fry, Writer and Journalist Professor Simon Goldhill, Historian Professor Ellis Cashmore CHAIR Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASST PRODUCER: PETER EVERETT PRODUCTION CO-ORDINATOR: Pete Liggins…
M
Moral Maze


1 Is social cohesion a moral good? And can governments influence it? 56:53
56:53
나중에 재생
나중에 재생
리스트
좋아요
좋아요56:53
Are we at risk of becoming “an island of strangers”? The Prime Minister, backtracking on many fronts, has apologised for the phrase - he says he hadn’t read it properly before he said it – but he’s backed a grand-sounding Independent Commission that’s now at work to fix a society it says is a “tinderbox of division”. Is it? Social attitude surveys suggest we’re one of the most tolerant countries on earth. What do we mean by social cohesion? Is it something wider than community cohesion? What about the class divisions? Is it important for us all to mix with each or a natural human instinct to cleave to those who are like you? Is social cohesion a moral good in itself? And is ‘getting on with each other’ something that can be achieved by government fiat? PANELLISTS: INAYA FOLARIN-IMAN, LORD JONATHAN SUMPTION, PROF MONA SIDDIQUI, SONIA SODHA WITNESSES: MATTHEW SYED, Journalist SIMON LEVINE from ODI, a global affairs think tank JULIE SIDDIQI, Community relations consultant RAVI GURUMURTHY, CEO of NESTA, the UK innovation foundation for social good Chaired by Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASST PRODUCER: Peter Everett EDITOR: Tim Pemberton…
M
Moral Maze


ID cards are back on the political agenda, digital this time, being pushed by an influential group of Labour MPs, and – surveys suggest – public opinion, which is increasingly worried about illegal immigration and benefit fraud. Time was, when privacy was a free-born Briton’s birthright and a policeman asking for your papers anathema, the mark of foreign dictatorships. We live in a different world now where even your household gadgets are capable of gathering information on you. Is privacy out of date, or a moral good that’s the basis of freedom? Can we no longer tell the state – or Big Tech – to mind their own business, and does it matter? WITNESSES: Kirsty Innes, Director of Technology at Labour Together Rebecca Vincent, Interim director of Big Brother Watch Dr Hazem Zohny, University of Oxford Tiffany Jenkins, Cultural Historian PANELLISTS: Rev Dr Giles Fraser Anne McElvoy Lord Jonathan Sumption Matthew Taylor Chaired by Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton…
The National Health Service is at a crossroads. Systemic pressures are lengthening hospital waiting times. Resources are finite. That’s why the government is coming up with a 10 year plan to make the NHS ‘fit for purpose’. But what is the ethical purpose of the NHS? The ethical ambition has always been that everyone, regardless of their background, should have equal access to healthcare. It’s seen as a moral triumph of civilization and political suicide to meddle with it. But when we look at the statistics about the effectiveness of care alongside other comparative countries – the cancer survival rates, premature deaths from cardiovascular disease, and the disparities of life-expectancy according to UK postcode – is it time to question this foundational principle? This is not simply a matter of which funding model works best. It is fundamentally ethical. For example, rather than focussing on equality of access to healthcare, should the goal instead be the equality of health outcomes across society? In other words, should we prioritise care for the most disadvantaged patients? Or would doing so be addressing a symptom and not the cause of deeper intersecting inequalities? Practically, it’s a question of who gets treated first. Philosophically, it’s a collision between competing notions of equality and fairness. Should we care more about equality of outcome – being equally healthy – or equality of access – treating everyone the same? What is the ethical purpose of the NHS? Michael Buerk chairs a special debate at the Nuffield Trust Summit 2025. Producer: Dan Tierney Editor: Tim Pemberton Panel: Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor Inaya Folarin-Iman Witnesses: Kiran Patel Sheena Asthana Tony Milligan Jamie Whyte…
Self-defence, as a justification for war, is much more difficult to argue if you strike the first blow. The Israelis say their devastating pre-emptive strike on Iran is a special, truly existential, case. A regime, long committed to their destruction was, according to Israel, within weeks of developing nuclear weapons, just one of which could effectively wipe out their state and most of its citizens. How far does that justify the abandonment of diplomacy, the targeting of leaders, the collateral damage and death? And, by the way, why is it ok for some countries to have The Bomb- and not others? Witnesses: Sir Richard Dalton, Jake Wallis Simons, Prof Mary Kaldor, Prof Ali Ansari Panellists: Carmody Grey, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman , Mona Siddiqui Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton…
There’s been a fair amount of focus on the concept of pronatalism recently and debate over whether it is left or right wing for governments to introduce policies that encourage women to have more babies. Others argue that the matter is too big to be consumed by the culture wars. This week, the United Nations Population Fund issued its strongest statement yet on fertility decline, warning that hundreds of millions of people are not able to have the number of children they want, citing the prohibitive cost of parenthood and the lack of a suitable partner as some of the reasons affecting birth rates across the world. For a country in the developed world to increase or maintain its population, it needs a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman on average. Last year in the UK, it fell to 1.4. Like many developed nations, women are having fewer babies, which poses economic problems as countries face the impact of both aging and declining populations, and a smaller workforce in relation to the number of pensioners. Why are people in richer nations choosing to have fewer babies? Has parenthood had a bad press? Is it too expensive to have kids or do people just wait too long to tick off life goals before they realise their fertility window has closed? And is it manipulative for governments to encourage women to have more children? For some, a low birth rate is the sign of a civilised society where women have reproductive autonomy. Is there a moral duty to have children? PRESENTER Michael Buerk PANELLISTS Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, James Orr GUESTS Caroline Farrow, Prof Anna Rotrich, Prof Lisa Schipper, Sarah Ditum PRODUCER Catherine Murray ASSISTANT PRODUCER Peter Everett EDITOR Tim Pemberton…
M
Moral Maze


Almost the first thing the newly chosen Pope Leo XIV did was to warn of the dangers of Artificial intelligence, of technological advance outstripping human wisdom. AI promises unapparelled efficiency, streamlined lives, complex problems solved in milliseconds. But will it make humans redundant literally and metaphorically? Will it hijack creativity? Will it imprison us in our prejudices? Will it destroy the concept of objective truth? AI: Promise or Peril? was recorded at The Hay Literary Festival Witnesses: Dr Kaitlyn Regehr, author of Smartphone Nation: Why We're All Addicted to Our Screens and What You and Your Family Can Do About It Marcus Du Sautoy, author, mathematician and Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, Dorian Lynskey Sir Nigel Shadbolt, longterm researcher of AI, Professor in Computer Science at Oxford University and government advisor. Panellists: Anne McElvoy James Orr Mona Siddiqui Matthew Taylor Presenter: Michael Buerk Producers: Catherine Murray & Peter Everett Production Co-ordinators: Brigid Harrison-Draper &Sam Nixon Thanks to Lucy Newman and the whole team at Hay.…
President Trump has imposed tariffs on all America’s trade; China has hit back; other nations, including our own, are working out how to cope with what Sir Keir Starmer has called a “new world” governed by “deals and alliances” rather than rules. In this crisis, we have turned to the economists, who argue about percentages. But shouldn't we be asking – what is the moral thing to do? Trump’s ‘MAGA’ project always said it wanted tariff barriers to revive US industry and rebalance world trade; the American voters chose that strong medicine; now they – and the rest of the world – must swallow it. The first question is not whether it will work; time will tell. The first question is: given the consequences for the whole world, does Trump have a moral right to exercise that mandate? The second question is the one that confronts Britain, and all the other nations that have been reliant (perhaps too reliant) on trade and co-operation with America. It is not about numbers but about morality. The three most influential economic philosophers in history – Adam Smith, Karl Marx and J.M.Keynes – reached different conclusions about it. Is free trade a moral good? Chair: Michael Buerk Producers: Peter Everett and Dan Tierney Editor: Tim Pemberton Panel: Anne McElvoy Ash Sarkar Matthew Taylor James Orr Witnesses: Mariana Mazzucato Hamish McRae Maxwell Marlow Sir Dieter Helm…
Last year was a record-breaking year for poetry sales. In the age of smartphone ‘doom scrolling’, that might seem surprising. But the boom is in part due to social media. The bestseller is the Scottish poet Donna Ashworth, who has been described as "a cheerleader of Instapoetry". Her verse is short, direct and shared online. She has both brought poetry to a new audience and prompted a backlash. According to the cultural commentator James Marriott, “The sales of such books say as much about a public appetite for poetry as the sales of “Live Laugh Love” signs do.” But if poetry is, according to Robert Frost, “when an emotion has found its thought, and the thought has found words”, then who is to say what “counts” as poetry or any other form of art? Meanwhile, Arts Council England, it is claimed, has lost the confidence of the classical music world. ACE has been criticised for its “Let’s Create” strategy, which aims to ensure access to the arts for all. John Gilhooly, the artistic director of Wigmore Hall, says this has led to the council “judging community events and the great artists of the world by the same criteria”. The tension between so-called ‘high art’ and popular culture is as old as the hills. Is it wrong to assert that some works of art are more culturally valuable than others? Or should art be judged on how it is perceived, appreciated and valued by its audience? After all, what gives art value? Does cultural elitism damage or protect art? Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton Panel: Ash Sarkar Anne McElvoy Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley. Witnesses: James Marriott Henry Normal J. J. Charlesworth Barbara Eifler…
The Netflix drama ‘Adolescence’ has prompted a national conversation about a ‘crisis of masculinity’. In a society where gender roles are changing, progressive attitudes are in tension with traditional ideas about male behaviour. Studies suggest Gen Z men and women are more divided than those of any other generation on questions about feminism, gender roles and women’s rights. Meanwhile, teachers highlight the alarming prevalence of misogyny in schools, influencers can be influential than parents, and social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to teens. This is happening at the same time as rising rates of depression, anxiety, and a higher likelihood of suicide among young men. Traditional ideas about ‘manliness’ - strength, dominance, independence, and emotional stoicism - are seen in many contexts as inappropriate and harmful – both to men and women. While the feminist movement and women’s advances in education and the workplace, for example, are a mark of social progress, some believe they have also challenged men’s sense of purpose in a way that has perhaps been overlooked. Others think this analysis is dangerous because it doesn’t apply to all men, it sets up men's mental health and wellbeing in opposition to the opportunities of women, and denies some men the agency to make the right choices. At the same time, it can be uncomfortable to discuss how men and women are different – physically and psychologically – and how they might have different and complementary roles. Do we need to re-define or reclaim masculinity? What’s wrong with men? Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton Panel: Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor Anne McElvoy Witnesses: Clare Ford Brendan O'Neill James Bloodworth John Amaechi…
Proposed new guidance from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales – which is due to come into effect in April – would make the ethnicity, faith or personal circumstances of an offender a bigger factor when deciding whether to jail them. The independent body is responsible for issuing guidelines “to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing”. Official figures show that offenders from ethnic minorities consistently get longer sentences than white inmates for indictable offences. Supporters of the guidance see it as an important correction of implicit bias within the justice system, leading to the most effective balance of punishment and rehabilitation for the individual. But critics – including the Justice Secretary – are concerned it will create "two-tier justice". As Shabana Mahmood put it: "As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind". How much should judges consider an offender’s background? Questions about the “fairness” of sentencing are the symptom of a wider disparity within the justice system: the fact that black and Muslim men are disproportionately represented in the prison population, and how that might be addressed. How much is it the mark of a “rigged” society, which traps multiple generations in poverty and deprivation? How much is it about family and community dysfunction and a lack of role models? How just is our justice system? Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton Panel: Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Inaya Folarin-Iman Giles Fraser Witnesses: Kirsty Brimelow Henry Hill Sheldon Thomas Rakib Ehsan…
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said it was discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill". The Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said there is a “moral case” to cut the welfare budget ahead of the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. Spending on sickness benefits, including a rise in mental health disability claims since the pandemic, is forecast to increase to around £100bn before the next general election. Ministers have complained that people are incentivised to be out of work, encouraging some to "game the system". Poverty charities have expressed deep concerns about what they see as the disproportionate impact of any cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable. Debates around welfare spending can never escape the language of morality, in often moralising terms. Phrases like ‘benefits scroungers’ are emotive and can encourage knee-jerk judgment. To paraphrase words ascribed to both Thomas Jefferson and Ghandi: the measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members. But welfare is morally complex. While it is an important safety net, at what point does it disempower people to pursue a better life, encourage passivity rather that self-reliance, and foster self-entitlement over personal responsibility? Even if we could discern these things, we live in an imperfect world. Life is a lottery. What some perceive as ‘lifestyle’ choices, others argue are often made from few options, due to entrenched structural inequalities. How much is this really a matter of nurturing individual moral character and virtue? Is there a moral case for cutting welfare? Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Chloe Walker Panel: Anne McElvoy, Giles Fraser, Sonia Sodha and James Orr. Witnesses: Grace Blakeley, Tim Montgomerie, Miro Griffiths and Jean-Andre Prager.…
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed his "gratitude" for US military support. It comes after the heated exchange in the Oval Office, where President Trump and Vice-President Vance told Zelensky he was not thankful enough. Cicero referred to gratitude as "the parent of all virtues", but like all virtues, it plays a complex role in our moral life. Ancient philosophers like the stoics and modern positive psychologists agree that recognising what we have rather than longing for what we don’t have can reduce anxiety and foster happiness. Expressing gratitude, they say, helps to build trust and deepens bonds between people, creating a sense of community and reciprocity. In difficult times, gratitude can provide perspective, allowing individuals to focus on what matters rather than being overwhelmed by hardship. Gratitude sceptics, however, think that a perpetual state of thankfulness might not be that good for us. An over-emphasis on gratitude, they suggest, can make people passive and discourage ambition or protest in situations that demand change in our lives. The idea of a ‘thankless task’ implies that the absence of gratitude is sometimes necessary for virtue to exist. When gratitude is socially expected, it can damage relationships; it can feel transactional and forced rather than sincere, making it a tool for control and manipulation rather than authentic appreciation. Whether expressing thanks is healthy or not depends on the circumstances, which requires discernment. So when should we be grateful? Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton Panel: Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Sonia Sodha Anne McElvoy Witnesses: Annette Kellow Mark Vernon Susie Masterson Julian Baggini…
Three years on from the invasion of Ukraine, President Trump has called President Zelensky a 'dictator', leaving many to conclude that the US has sided with Russia. We have entered a new phase of an already unstable global order. Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump this week. How should Britain respond? Emphasise friendship in the hope of gaining influence in Washington or stand up to Trump in the knowledge that it will damage relations? On Ukraine, there are those who argue it’s clear cut: Putin is the dictator, Zelensky is a war hero, and sometimes we have to fight for our values no matter the sacrificial cost. But Trump’s supporters believe ending the war is the moral priority, and if peace comes at the cost of land, that’s a deal worth doing. But History tells us that realpolitik only gets us so far. Bluntly, Trump’s detractors don’t see him as a rational actor on the world stage, pointing to his plan for Gaza. Domestically, they say, he’s behaving like an authoritarian dictator. To his followers, Trump is an important disrupter who is shaking America and the West out of its complacency. Where should lines in the sand be drawn in negotiations? When is it better to be pragmatic than principled? When should moral conviction trump realpolitik? Chair: Michael Buerk Producer Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton Panel: Giles Fraser Mona Siddiqui Inaya Folarin-Iman Tim Stanley Witnesses: Mykola Bielieskov Peter Hitchens Brian Klaas Jan Halper-Hayes…
M
Moral Maze


In every species, including homo sapiens, the family is nature’s way of passing inequality down the generations. The family gives us our genetic make-up and a large proportion of our training, education, socialisation and cultural attitudes. It may bequeath to us wealth or poverty. None of this is fair. Should we get cross about silver spoons and livid about nepotism? We don’t seem to. Inheritance tax is deeply unpopular (not just with farmers). And it's not merely money that tilts the scales when a child is born. There's the where and when of it, there's parental character and competence, there are genetic pluses and minuses. How should we, as a society, address the unfairness that results from inherited advantage? And how can we know whether it’s made a difference? Everyone claims to want equality of opportunity. Some of us want to measure our success by equality of outcome; the rest of us say ‘dream on.’ Should we aim to eradicate or compensate for inherited inequality? Should we try to correct for the effects of genetic and environmental misfortune? Or should we just accept that, in the words of William Blake, 'Some are Born to sweet delight. Some are Born to Endless Night'? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Tim Stanley, Ash Sarkar, James Orr and Mona Siddiqui Witnesses: Aaron Reeves, Ruth Porter, Will Snell, Edward Davies. Producers: Dan Tierney and Peter Everett. Editor: Tim Pemberton…
플레이어 FM에 오신것을 환영합니다!
플레이어 FM은 웹에서 고품질 팟캐스트를 검색하여 지금 바로 즐길 수 있도록 합니다. 최고의 팟캐스트 앱이며 Android, iPhone 및 웹에서도 작동합니다. 장치 간 구독 동기화를 위해 가입하세요.