Systems Thinking

Join the CONNECTED Westerville Mastermind Group for a dynamic afternoon of B2B networking! This event is perfect for professionals looking to expand their business connections, share insights, and foster collaboration within the community. Whether you are a seasoned entrepreneur or just starting out, this event offers a valuable opportunity to exchange ideas, build relationships, and grow your network in a supportive environment. Connect with like-minded individuals, explore potential partnerships, and discover new opportunities for professional growth. Don't miss out on this chance to enhance your business network and take your career to the next level with CONNECTED Westerville Mastermind Group! We meet the 4th Monday of every month from 11am-1pm. Welcome and general networking from 11am - 11:30am with core meeting 11;30 - 12:30 and a final round of networking from 12:30 - 1pm.

Join other experienced and aspiring agile coaches and professionals to: * develop and practice your coaching skills in a peer-to-peer environment * share current successes and challenges in your work environment and get support from each other * learn from each other, build better relationships and experiment with new ideas ***NOTE:*** Pre-registration is required for this event. **Please arrive 10 minutes early** to check in at the security desk.

A WiA Collective Wisdom Exchange At the start of this year, we gathered to look back, set intentions, and imagine the next chapter. This is the follow-up. Not a check-in. Not a progress report. A small, facilitated circle to reconnect with what you said mattered — and honestly explore what’s actually happening now. Together, we’ll explore: • What you intended at the start of this year - and what that looks like three months in • What’s surprised you, supported you, or shifted • What the next chapter needs now that you know what you know If you were at our January gathering, bring whatever you made or wrote — your word, your artifact, your intention. We’ll look at it with fresh eyes. If this is your first time, you belong here too. You’ll start where we all started: with what’s true right now. Optional art materials will be available for anyone who wants to reflect creatively alongside conversation. If you brought something home from January, you’re warmly invited to bring it back. The intention is the same as always: everyone leaves feeling more clear, more connected, and a little lighter. Space is intentionally limited to keep the experience intimate. What to Expect • A small, welcoming circle (not a large meetup) • Structured conversation so everyone has space to speak • Reflection, listening, and lived experience — not advice-giving • Optional creative reflection alongside conversation • A calm, supportive environment Who This Is For Women and underrepresented folks working in or around agile, product, technology, leadership, or organizational change — especially those looking for honest conversation and community beyond frameworks and buzzwords. Good to Know • No preparation required • If you attended in January, we invite you to bring anything you created or wrote (or something that represents your intention at the start of the year) - it’s optional but invited • Participation is invitational; listening is always welcome • Creative activities are optional

It feels like we just saw each other 🤷. Join members of the local design and UX community for our monthly breakfast. For May we’re stopping in for Rooh’s popup breakfast/cafe concept. You know someone is getting the lobster yuzu croissant, and that’s not even the prettiest thing on the menu!.

When judging morality, should we prioritize **intentions/duty** or **outcomes/results**? It introduces two influential philosophers as representatives of these approaches. * **Immanuel Kant (deontology):** An action is moral when it is done from **duty** and follows rational, universal principles (the **categorical imperative**). Certain acts—like lying—are wrong regardless of the consequences; you can’t do a wrong thing for a right reason. * **John Stuart Mill (utilitarian consequentialism):** The morality of an action is determined by its **effects**, specifically how much **happiness/well-being** it produces. Mill argues that some pleasures are “higher” than others, and that good intentions don’t redeem harmful outcomes. ## Discussion Questions 1. **The lying dilemma:** A murderer comes to your door and asks if your friend is hiding inside. Kant would say you must not lie. 2. **Can good intentions rescue a bad outcome?** 3. **The organ harvest problem:** A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient in for a checkup. Killing the one to harvest organs would save five lives, and the math works out for the utilitarian. Why does this feel so deeply wrong? Is that feeling a point in Kant's favor, or just a bias we should overcome? 4. **Do rules need exceptions?** Kant insists moral rules must be universal, with no exceptions. But most of us can imagine extreme scenarios where any rule seems like it should bend. Does the need for exceptions fatally undermine deontology, or is the strength of the system precisely that it refuses to bend? 5. **Who gets to calculate the consequences?** Utilitarianism asks us to maximize good outcomes, but we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences. If we can't reliably know the results of our actions, is it practical to base our entire moral system on outcomes? Does this uncertainty push us back toward rules and principles? 6. **Everyday morality:** Think about a real moral decision you've made recently, even a small one. Did you reason more like a Kantian (what's the right thing to do in principle?) or more like a utilitarian (what will produce the best result?)? Do most people naturally lean one way? 7. **Justice vs. the greater good:** A town can prevent a deadly plague by sacrificing one innocent person. The greater good is clearly served. But is it just? Can an action be morally right and deeply unjust at the same time? 8. **The big synthesis question:** Are these two systems actually opposed, or do they often arrive at the same answers by different paths? Is it possible that we need both: rules to guide us in the moment and consequences to evaluate systems and policies over time?