In any organization, leaders are responsible for making decisions.
Some decisions, like where to open a new location or whether to change prices, can largely be
decided based on research, rational discussion, and clear lanes of
decision-making authority. But other decisions boil down to value-based
judgements, bringing out strong opinions and offering no easy answers.
These decisions typically aren’t a case of one person being right and another wrong. Often people on both sides of a debate raise good points.
“What interests me is when there are ethical and moral issues at play,” says Brooke Vuckovic,
a clinical professor of leadership at the Kellogg School who teaches
moral complexity in leadership. “These decisions have implications for
the values that the organization espouses, on how their clients or their
employees are treated, and on how team members view themselves as
agents of this organization.”
So how do you land on a decision that everyone can accept in situations like this?
Here, Vuckovic offers three tips on how you can make ethical decisions and communicate them effectively when there’s no single right answer, only disagreements about priorities and values.
Zoom out to view the problem anew
One way to view the problem anew through multiple perspectives is to simply zoom out, Vuckovic suggests.
If leaders can reframe a contested subject as a tension between two ideas or classic dilemmas—say, short term versus long term or individual rights versus community responsibilities—then stakeholders may be able to talk about their dispute in a more-neutral way.
“The goal is to take it up a couple of levels from whatever the individuals’ positions are,” Vuckovic says. “Work with them on it.”
Take,
for example, a situation where an organization is looking to fill a key
position. The hiring committee has two choices: a longtime employee who
is excellent at what they do and wants a promotion, and an external
hire who is flat-out extraordinary.
In debating this choice, it’s easy for the conversation to boil down to
a competition between two individuals. But if the leader can focus the
decision on the organization’s needs, rather than the committee members’
personal preferences for individuals, they can defuse tensions.
“You
are facing a dilemma between loyalty to the current employee and
loyalty to the organization,” Vuckovic says. “If you start to describe
it as a classic dilemma, it tends to cool things off a little bit. Those
involved aren’t portrayed as loyal or disloyal; they’re simply embodying different types of loyalty.”
Look for viewpoints beyond your team
If the decision makers are operating in tight silos, they must solicit outside perspectives across the organization to anticipate issues to which they are blind. To prepare for these situations, it’s important that leaders find those trusted advisors before disagreements arise.
“You need to invest in building those trusted relationship bridges before you need them,” Vuckovic says.
Once these relationships are established,
leaders can seek invaluable perspectives on how others may react to
their decision across the organization—from potential misunderstanding
to disagreement to active skepticism.
“For example, leaders can ask: If
someone misunderstood my intentions here, how might they interpret this
action?” Vuckovic says. “Or, if the press were writing a hit piece on
this decision, what aspects would they be homing in on?”
In seriously considering other perspectives, Vuckovic says, leaders may find new solutions that don’t fall to either of the “camps” of the original disagreement.
“We
originally thought we could go one of these two ways. But, in talking
to others across the organization, is there something that we’re missing in between?” Vuckovic says. “That’s when you start to get into more-creative solutions through moral imagination. You start asking, ‘How might we be successful and ethical at the same time?’”
Keep an eye out for moral remainders and miscalculations
When a decision is made, it doesn’t magically erase the tensions, and some people will be disappointed at the resolution.
“With morally complex issues, you’re not going to solve them perfectly,” Vuckovic says. “You’re never not going to disappoint someone with these kinds of dilemmas, because people will have really strong, often opposing opinions around them. You will always have some people who believe that mercy was more important than justice, for example, in addressing wrong doing. And vice versa.”
Vuckovic calls these lingering feelings from people who feel their values weren’t honored a “moral remainder.” And business leaders need to be careful that this moral remainder doesn’t always fall on the same category of people.
In addition, it’s
important to recognize the limits of your power and to acknowledge that
sometimes, even after a long debate or promises, the ultimate decision
ends up being outside your control.
That means that you may make miscalculations along the way. For example, as a manager, you may assure your team that layoffs won’t
be necessary because your division has been profitable, only to find
out that upper management has decided to spread the pain evenly across
the organization. Or a new organizational work-from-home policy may
conflict with promises you have made to your team about their schedules.
“The
worst thing to do is badmouth the decision,” she says. “You need to
show how and why you missed the mark on what you should have promised.
You have to eat a little crow—and put the organization first as you do so.”
In
these situations, it is critical to own your miscalculation
transparently and in a way that elevates the higher vision of the
organization, Vuckovic says.
“Those
who can zoom out to constructively engage their team in dialog, connect
across the organization to reduce their blind spots, and respond with
transparency when they miscalculate can steadily build a reputation as
leaders who can handle the thorniest of values-based decisions.”