This simplifies the decision down to a choice between 1) attempting to persuade key stakeholders to align the expectations of her role with her personal morality or 2) sacrificing her individual views for the greater good.Īdding further complexity to difficult decisions like this one is the fact that none of the three dimensions are static. This suggests that the requirements of her role align with her ethics but conflict with her personal morality. And if she believes her role requires her to protect the interests of as many of the organization’s key stakeholders as possible - including shareholders, employees, customers, and community members - then she may conclude that her job demands that she lay off employees to protect the majority of the organization. Ethics, however, demand that leaders weigh the tradeoff between the wellbeing of a smaller number of individuals and the potential for risk to the entire organization. Filtered through the lens of morality, she might feel that taking away an individual’s livelihood in such a hard time would be immoral. When this happens, there are no easy answers - but by carefully interrogating these three dimensions, leaders can move forward with confidence that the decisions they make reflect the best possible balance among their different principles.Ĭonsider a CEO facing the decision of whether or not to lay off employees during a recession. Unsurprisingly, these considerations often come into conflict.

Role responsibilities, or your understanding of the responsibilities associated with your role in the organization.

Morals, or your own internal sense of what is right and wrong, shaped by upbringing, family, community, identity, faith, etc.

Ethics, or context-specific principles around what is acceptable in your organization or society.

Specifically, every complex leadership decision must balance three subjective dimensions:

And most complex decisions fall into this category. But these frameworks tend to fall short when it comes to decisions based on subjective information sources that suggest conflicting courses of action.

Many decision-making frameworks aim to help leaders use objective information to mitigate bias, operate under time pressure, or leverage data.

Tough decisions