Reviews
Part of Which ethical dilemmas are real, and which are just temptations
Ethical Dilemma Examples at Work, Each Paired With a First Move
Eight ethical dilemma examples at work, each paired with a first move: tell first, decline, step back, name your role or set the rule before the names.
The eight cases below are invented and genuine: each has two obligations with a real claim on you. Each is paired with a first move, a thing to do or say, that deals with the conflict without pretending it was easy.
Moves are grouped by what they ask of you. Speak first, step back or decline, or put the principle on record before the names are known.
What to take away
- A move is concretetell the colleague first, say which hat you are wearing, hand the case to someone else, write the rule down.
- Where harm is continuing, delay is a decision. Where it is not, an hour to write the case down usually improves it.
- Where a fourth option exists, it usually involves asking someone rather than deciding for them, and it usually costs less than the argument about whether you need to.
- Say your account once, in writing, to whoever is deciding, and do not campaign.
Moves that start with a conversation
Four cases are settled by what you say, and to whom, before you act. In each the quiet option feels safe and protects only you. The move is to speak early, plainly and once.
The confidence that should be broken
A colleague tells you, in confidence, that they made an error six months ago that is still affecting customers. They ask you to say nothing while they work out how to fix it. The promise was real, and you gave it before you knew what it covered.
The move: tell the colleague what you are going to do and give them the chance to do it first. That honors as much of the promise as remains available. A promise cannot bind you to let continuing harm run against people who never agreed to anything.
The manager who is about to be blindsided
You know something about your manager's project that they do not, and telling them means revealing that a colleague told you in confidence. The harm here is to one person's reputation rather than to customers, which changes the weight but not the question.
The move: ask whether the information will surface anyway and whether the manager can still act. If both are yes, the kind thing and the honest thing are the same. Honor the colleague's confidence by telling them you are going to speak.
The friend in the redundancy pool
You are managing a process that will affect a personal friend, and they ask you directly what is coming. Deflecting damages the friendship. Answering breaches a process that exists to treat people equally.
The move: say which hat you are wearing. "There are things I cannot discuss, and you should take that seriously" is honest, breaches nothing, and most people understand exactly what it means.
Consultation and notice in redundancy are legally specified in many places, so what you may say is a legal question before it is a personal one.
In the United States the WARN Act covers notice of plant closings and mass layoffs. In Great Britain, section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 covers collective consultation.
The customer who should not be sold to
A customer wants a product you believe is wrong for them, and they are entitled to make their own decisions. Respecting autonomy and protecting them from a bad outcome are both defensible, and paternalism has its own costs.
The move: check whether they have your information. If they do not, tell them plainly, once, then respect their choice. If they know and still want it, the decision is theirs. Where the product touches credit, insurance or essential services, duties to customers who may be in difficulty are often legally specified and sector-specific. That is counsel's question.
Moves that take you out of the decision
Two cases are settled by what you decline to do. You hand the decision to someone better placed, or you refuse to say more than you can stand behind.
The reference you cannot give
A former colleague you liked, dismissed for conduct, asks you for a personal reference. You want to help them and you know what they did. You owe something to a person whose career you could affect, and something to whoever relies on what you say.
The move: decline without denouncing. Saying you are not the right person to give this reference is honest and does not require you to describe conduct you would have to be able to substantiate. It may cost a friendship you may lose anyway.
What you may say about a former employee is also legally constrained in most places, and the constraints differ. Have that conversation with counsel before you have it with a caller.
The investigation into someone you rate
You are asked to investigate a report about a person whose work you depend on and whose account you instinctively believe. Your judgment is genuinely compromised, and you are also the person best placed to understand the context.
The move: recuse. Hand it to someone with no relationship to either party and say why. You lose control of the outcome, which is the point, and the person reported about gets a process that will be believed.
Moves that put the principle on record
Two cases are settled by writing something down. The record protects the person who cannot see the conversation, and it protects you from arguing backwards.
The team that closed ranks
Your team has a shared account of an incident. You were there and the account is wrong in a way that shifts blame onto someone in another department. Correcting it makes you the person who broke ranks, and the team's version is not exactly a lie; it is what people convinced themselves of.
The move: say your account once, in writing, to whoever is deciding. The person carrying the blame cannot defend themselves against a version they cannot see. Loyalty that requires an outsider to absorb a cost is not loyalty, it is a transfer.
One place, two candidates
A development opportunity will change someone's career. Two people have equal claims, one of whom has been passed over before and one of whom is better on the day. Fairness points both ways: past disadvantage is a real claim, and so is present merit.
The move: decide the principle first, in writing, using the rule you would apply if you did not know the candidates. Then apply it.
Deciding the person first and reasoning backwards is the failure mode, and everyone can recognize it afterward, including the person who lost. The same pattern appears in an ethical frameworks case study, where reasoning was built to fit a decision already made.
Which shape each move serves
Each move belongs to one of four conflict shapes, and it prevents the error that usually defeats that shape.
| Move | Fits when | Error it prevents |
|---|---|---|
| Tell them first | Harm is continuing, or will surface anyway, and they can still act | Treating the promise's wording as the whole question |
| Say your account once, in writing | The agreed version makes someone else absorb the cost | Calling a transfer of blame loyalty |
| Name the hat you are wearing | You hold the manager's information and a friend asks | Answering as a friend while holding the manager's information |
| Decide the rule before the names | Two people have equal claims | Deciding the person, then finding the principle |
| Recuse or decline | Your judgment is compromised, or you cannot substantiate what you would say | Keeping control of a case you cannot judge fairly |
Four shapes and their tie-breakers
Shape
- Promise against harm
- Harm continuing, and to whom
- Loyalty against truth
- Who absorbs the cost
- Role against person
- Naming your role out loud
- Two equal claims
- Rule set without knowing names
What breaks the tie
- Promise against harm
- Treating wording as whole question
- Loyalty against truth
- Calling blame transfer loyalty
- Role against person
- Answering as friend, holding manager info
- Two equal claims
- Deciding person, then principle
Common error
- Promise against harm
- Loyalty against truth
- Role against person
- Two equal claims
A move is a first step, not a formula. A case can be two shapes at once. Classification stops the discussion from becoming a debate about who is the more reasonable person in the room.
Where to take a case next
The Markkula Center's ethical decision-making framework gives structure to case discussions by applying several ethics lenses to the same case, which suits a case that stays hard after you have tried the move.
Reporting wrongdoing is a different situation from weighing two duties, with its own protections. In Great Britain the statute is the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and the government's review of the whistleblowing framework is research into how effective that regime is. In the United States, the Dodd-Frank Act's whistleblower provisions are run by the SEC.
The personal cost of acting on any of these is in employee ethics, and what a manager owes the person bringing them is in leadership ethics.
Common questions
What if I cannot tell which shape a case is?
Ask what each option breaks. If one option breaks nothing except your preference, it is a temptation. If both break something with a claim on you, it is a dilemma, and the thing each breaks names the shape.
Do I have to decide immediately?
Rarely, and the useful question is what a delay costs and to whom. Where harm is continuing, delay is a decision. Where it is not, an hour to write the case down usually improves it.
Should I tell people I found it difficult?
Yes, to the person affected, and briefly. Saying what you weighed and what you accepted as the cost is more respectful than presenting a hard call as an obvious one, and it is also more accurate.
