Michelle Causton

Michelle Causton is a multifaceted individual whose professional journey has been marked by a relentless pursuit of excellence and a profound commitment to fostering growth and development in others. With a dynamic presence as a public speaker and educator, Michelle has left an indelible mark on the worlds of accounting, education, and professional development.

A Fellow of the Chartered Professional Accountants (CPA) and a holder of an MBA from Laurentian University, Michelle’s credentials demonstrate her dedication to mastering her craft.

Michelle volunteered for her professional organization for many years culminating in a term as president of CGA Ontario. There she played a pivotal role in shaping the organization's strategic direction and advocating for the interests of its members.

After working in public accounting, Michelle’s passion for education led her to a career as a university and college professor. There she imparted her knowledge and expertise to countless aspiring accountants. Her impact extended far beyond the confines of the classroom, as she inspired her students to strive for excellence and pursue their goals with vigor and determination. Her contributions were recognized with an award for excellence in teaching and to the prestigious Lorna Harrison Mentorship Award from CGA Ontario. These awards are a testament to her unwavering commitment to guiding and empowering the next generation of accounting professionals.

A firm believer in the power of communication and ethical leadership, Michelle has dedicated herself to promoting these values throughout her career. Whether through her captivating speeches, insightful writings, or engaging online content, she strives to instill a sense of integrity and purpose in all those she encounters.

As a member of the Canadian Association of Professional Speakers, Michelle continues to share her insights and expertise with audiences around the world, captivating and inspiring them with her engaging delivery and thought-provoking ideas. Her ability to connect with people on a personal level and convey complex concepts in a clear and compelling manner sets her apart as a true master of her craft.

In addition to her professional endeavors, Michelle is deeply committed to giving back to her community through volunteering and mentoring. She understands the importance of paying it forward and takes great pride in helping others realize their full potential.

With a wealth of experience in public accounting, teaching, volunteering, and training, Michelle Causton continues to inspire, with humour and warmth.

Contact Michelle at: michellec@bzmind.ca

Posted July 23, 2024

Discussion group on the virtues inherent in robust critical thinking

Posted by: Michelle Causton | Posted for: the Community

{"ops":[{"insert":"At some point we delved into ethics and its relation to critical thinking. From the discussion I learned this:\n\"The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those that enhance the well-being of others—which warrant praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant criticism.\" \nI can not disagree with that. But I want to suggest that a true ethical dilemma is where there are two (or more) alternatives both of which will enhance the well being of others but you cannot do both. If neither is \"wrong\" how do you decide?\nFor example: A politician has to decide whether to increase spending on infrastructure which will enhance the life of many people - better, safer roads; facilitation of transportation. Of course if they do that there will be less money for education. Which weighs more? Both will enhance the well being of others. How do you decide which is more important. \nOr a simple example: Saving for a child's education is a selfless act which will enhance the child's well being in the future. If financial disaster befalls the family is it \"wrong\" to access the savings to keep a roof over your head?\nThese are the types of ethical questions I like to explore. \nIn these cases we can judge someone else's decision but it is more useful to think about how we would have made the decision. \nThanks to everyone for making me think deeply!\n\n"}]}

🗨 2 Comments

Ken Stringer - 48d Ago

{"ops":[{"insert":"Hello Michelle! I had forgotten an important work I used years ago professionally whose author I actually invited to present to a senior seminar of CIA managers: How Good People Make Tough Choices by Rushworth Kidder, Regrettably, he died in 2012 at the age of 67. He was the founder of the Institute for Global Ethics that aspparently continues out of Rockland, Maine. You may welll be familiar with his work and the Institute, but if not I highly recommend them to you as a very useful, insightful perspective on addressing and resolving the kind of ethical dilemmas you mention--which fit perfectly into his concept of \"right versus right\" questions--neither choice is \"wrong\" which makes them far more difficult to address. I think Dr. Kidder's approach closely parallels that of the critical thinker in that he counsels thinking through the \"competing\" values. In other words, if one has applied ethical reasoning conscientiously, it will serve to help make the choice--decided between two ethical rights. And, as you say, if we are to assess (judge) someone's else's decision, we have to think through how we would have made that decision. Thank YOU for jogging my memory on Rushworth Kidder and his seminal work.\n"}]}

Gerald Nosich - 37d Ago

{"ops":[{"insert":"Hello Michelle,\nYou raise an excellent question. That is, the discussion is not only about whether an action is ethical or unethical. It is also about whether one action is \"more ethical\" than another. (Many of the students in my ethics classes came in with the preconception that there couldn't be a \"more\" or \"less\" with respect to ethics. They thought of it as an all-or-nothing issue.)\nThere is more than one case here. One is that if the choice ahead of you is to save the life of one person or to save the life of 100 people (in a mining disaster, say), then--other things being equal--it is better to save the life of 100. (Whether it would be \"wrong\" to save the one is a different question.) This is not the case of comparison you bring up.\nIt seems to me that your case is more about the depth and breadth of the thinking, rather than about the actual ethics of the situation. How do you weigh a highly complex set of variables against another highly complex set of variables. In the two cases you bring up, it doesn't seem clear to me that either decision would be "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"ethically"},{"insert":" wrong. It might be "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"mistaken"},{"insert":"--\"wrong\" in that sense--but that's different from being ethically wrong. (Of course it could be ethically wrong if I made choice solely because it would advance my selfish interests, but that's not the case you sketch.)\n\tHowever we answer these complex cases, what I like to keep in mind is that the most central sense of \"ethical\" has to do with harm versus enhancement of the well-being of others. The \"others\" includes myself, but I don't get to allocate a privileged position to myself in figuring out what is ethical or not.\n\tOne last comment: Near the end you suggest that we think about what we ourselves would do in the situation. I think you don't mean \"what we "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"would"},{"insert":" do,\" but \"what we "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"should"},{"insert":" do.\" Being guided by my own conscience is a risky way of figuring out what is ethical. Many people's consciences are warped by egocentrism or sociocentrism.\n"}]}

Create a Comment / See More Comments

There are no more posts.

Michelle Causton's Connections

Work Experience

Education

Academy Tutorials

Reading and Writing Alcove ▼

Wheel of Reason ▼

Criteria Corner ▼

Virtuous Virtues ▼

Triangle of Thinking, Feeling, and Desires ▼

Wall of Barriers ▼

Top ▲