Running head: FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
Finding a Personal Ethical Decision-Making Approach
Daniel M. Roberts
Virginia Commonwealth University
1
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
2
Finding a Personal Ethical Decision-Making Approach
Contemporary leaders are confronted with myriad challenges that previous leaders never
faced. The world of the 21st century is faster, more complicated, and international than anytime
in human history. Successful leaders must process information, contextualize it, and consider
any and all cultural and international variables with speed and aplomb. Having a well-grounded
understanding of ethical frameworks can facilitate consistent decision-making in this ever
changing and difficult environment. Likewise, being conversant in related decision-making
models and their practical application can improve a leader’s chances for enjoying success.
This paper focuses on how theoretical constructs for ethical decision-making can and
have improved the work of leaders. It includes a strong focus on the ethical issues related to
admitting under prepared students to my university. This ethical issue is examined through the
paper using different ethical frameworks and perspectives in order to recognize how the study of
the same ethical issue can produce different results and insights. The paper concludes with
reflections on the importance of ethical leadership and how its applications can improve the work
of education leaders.
Philosophical Frameworks for Decision-Making
Johnson (2012) provides a straight-forward presentation of five major ethical
perspectives to be considered by leaders. These perspectives include utilitarianism, Kant’s
Categorical Imperative, justice of fairness, communitarianism, and altruism. Each of these
distinct perspectives allows leaders to frame a moral challenge and to receive guidance.
Significantly, Johnson notes that the five perspectives are rarely distinct in their application and
that “ethical pluralism”, or a combing of perspectives, is more often the reality. Johnson
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
3
explains: “Often you’ll need to combine perspectives (practice ethical pluralism) in order to
resolve an ethical problem” (Johnson, 2012, p. 178).
Utilitarianism resonates most strongly with my personal work experience and
environment. It is an ethical framework that lends itself to real-world decision making and for
repeated interactions with peers and constituents. Of course, the other four perspectives have
unique and attractive qualities as well. Their applicability to university administration, however,
is more limited.
For example, Kant’s Categorical Imperative provides an attractive moral grounding in
what is right and just. It does not, however, easily accommodate exceptions or competing moral
values, which are issues that are common in university administration. Justice as fairness is an
ethical perspective that holds considerable theoretical attractiveness, but is found lacking in the
real world, including within a university administration. Justice and fairness are ideals that few
individuals, let alone groups, can define let alone agree upon. The need for democratic freedoms
and transparency are additional burdens that are difficult to replicate in anywhere other than in
specific theoretical environments. Communitarianism provides for the possibility of utopian
arrangements wherein the greater community good becomes the goal over individual interests.
Of course, within the university individual goals and achievements are often justifiably
encouraged. And finally, while altruism provides an attractive ethical perspective to consider, it
is not practical within the university setting as a single approach. Despite the inspiring and very
humanistic elements of altruism, it is nearly impossible approach to implement in a complex
administrative environment.
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
4
Thus, utilitarianism remains as the single most applicable framework for my work within
the university setting. As Johnson notes, utilitarianism seeks “to do the greatest good for the
greatest number of people” (Johnson, 2012, p. 154). Within the university context, decisions
must be made that can be easily evaluated by multiple layers of overseers, including government
entities (federal and sometimes state), governing boards, faculty and staff, community, and of
course students. The standard by which the greatest good is provided to the greatest number of
people is one which can be defended to external reviewers. It follows a logic that can be easily
understood and replicated in multiple forums and settings.
The downside of utilitarianism is that the calculus used for decision-making can be too
short-term in nature and thereby produce results which do not serve the greatest number of
people in the long-term. Cost-benefit calculations are useful for building arguments because
they focus on what are the likely inputs and outputs of a decision. They are often, however,
biased by the perspective of the leader doing the analysis. And, thus, the distinct possibility
exists that under the utilitarian ethical perspective suboptimal outcomes might often be realized.
The weaknesses of the utilitarian ethical perspective are considerable, and reveal the
importance of ethical pluralism. Work within the university administration demands flexibility
and accommodation of different needs and perspectives. It has been my experience that while
the utilitarian perspective provides the greatest applicability to my work, justice as fairness also
plays a helpful role. Justice as fairness provides a useful complement to the more rigid
utilitarianism that I rely upon to address most issues.
Comparative Analysis of an Ethical Issue
One of the more vexing issues that I have dealt with in the past two years relates to the
admission of students to the university. Changes in federal regulations for financial aid and the
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
5
ever increasing cost of tuition combine to ensure that a majority of the university’s students will
leave before they receive a degree, either because of a failure to make satisfactory adequate
progress (SAP) or an inability to make tuition payments. Institutions that provide access
opportunities are particularly challenged in the current economic environment as consideration
must also be given to the implications for the student and often family for failure to graduate.
Institutions are now being more severely scrutinized and penalized for low graduation rates.
Thus, how should institutions similar to mine make admission decisions for students when their
chances for success (as measured by graduation rates) are known to be low?
The multiple ethical paradigms of justice, critique, care and the profession provide useful
perspectives on addressing ethical dilemmas (Shapiro & Gross, 2008). The ethical issues
stemming from the admission of students to university that have profiles that do not align with
even modest graduation rates, represents an excellent case through which to analyze the multiple
ethical paradigms. The ethic of justice is informative in this case as the related board of visitors
has an explicit policy of granting admission to 10% of the entering student body that do not meet
standard admission criteria. This policy allows slightly more than 120 students to be annually
admitted in this classification. Of course, far more students are admitted into university
programs for which they are woefully unprepared (e.g., engineering, education and nursing).
And because of the related national exams and accreditations associated with these disciplines,
hundreds of more admitted students are very unlikely to graduate within six years, if at all. The
ethic of justice allows us to consider the admission of the marginally prepared students as an
acceptable application of policy. It does, however, raise the important question of whether the
policy and broader admission criteria might need to be revised to reflect current realities.
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
6
The ethic of critique proves a natural transition to consideration of whether the
policymakers were cognizant of the implications the “10% policy” would have on the students,
their families, and the university itself. No doubt, considerable deliberation was given to the
benefits of the policy (expanded opportunities and mission sensitive action) against the costs
(lowering of the university’s graduation rate while increasing the number of indebted nongraduating students and families). The ethic of critique gives light to the issues that can emerge
from inequalities. The question of granting admission to ill-prepared students touches these lines
in unexpected ways, as the question of providing opportunity conflicts with the desire not to hurt
students that may be set-up to fail and be further burdened by student loans.
The ethic of care is important to “educational leaders who are often asked to make moral
decisions” (Shapiro & Gross, 2008, p. 27). The ethical issues related to the admission of
marginal students require broad consideration of the affected parties. These include the students,
their parents and families (that often provide necessary financial assistance), communities that
support the students, and other societal actors. Of course, the state and federal governments must
also be considered with respect to how scare resources are allocated. The university and its
alumni and supporters are also relevant actors as well. In order to address the ethical challenge
on admissions thru the ethic of care, leaders must be prepared to work from a different set of
calculations than are traditionally used. This is very unlikely.
And, finally, the ethic of the profession leads us to consider what guideposts and codes
might help educational leaders to make ethical decisions. Shapiro and Gross (2008) suggest that
the root consideration for educational leaders must be what is best for the student. Under this
paradigm, admission standards would appear to be in need of urgent revision. The counter
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
7
argument to this conclusion, however, is that students also need chances to succeed at the
university level. Further standardization and increased rigor of the admissions criteria at my
university will prevent students with unorthodox backgrounds and those that need a chance from
receiving an opportunity to study at the university. Even framed as a question of what is best for
the student does not render a clear ethical response as there can be considerable debate as to what
constitutes the student’s best interests.
Nash’s 12 Question Decision-Making Model
Decision-making models provide leaders facing ethical dilemmas with the opportunity to
systematically examine their problems before reaching a conclusion. It is hoped, of course, that
the models can provide the necessary framework for the leader to reach the most ethical decision.
Nash’s 12 Questions is an example of an ethical decision-making model. It seeks to take a leader
thru twelve distinct questions to allow them to better understand the implications of a given
decision on related constituencies. It is similar to other decision-making models in that it
requires the acquisition of lots of information and facts. It is different, however, in that it
requires focused consideration on the perspectives of multiple constituencies that would be
affected by any decision. Johnson’s (2012) critique of Nash’s 12 Questions notes that it is both
very time consuming to complete and lacks specificity for the implementation process of a
decision. The Nash model, despite its noted weaknesses, however, does provide a helpful
mechanism to evaluate the ethical issue related to the admission of unprepared students to my
university. The focus on constituencies affected by a decision represents an important strength
of the model.
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
8
Thus, an evaluation of the ethical issue related to the admission of unprepared students to
my university using the Nash 12 Questions model does portend the possibility to realize both
useful insights and a clearer direction for moving forward. The first step in the process requires
consideration of how well the problem is defined and understood. Indeed, this is a complex
problem for all universities with wide tentacles emanating from the problem into nearly all
corners of the university. At its root, however, the question is about striking the right balance of
an admissions policy. The second Nash question requires decision-makers to carefully consider
how well the problem is defined from the perspective of those impacted. In this case, the
constituent groups are numerous and will require lengthy consultation to fully capture their
perspectives. Students are only the most obvious group to involve.
The next two Nash questions get at the historic underpinnings of the issue, and consider
how the issue arose and where the decision-maker believes she or he sits within the organization.
These questions get at the origins of the admissions question and how the background of the
decision-maker within the organization may impact how the question is understood and
answered. Indeed, there is much history behind how admission standards at my university have
been developed. If you are part of the history of the institution, the possible answers to the
question are more circumscribed than how an objective external reviewer would report.
Nash’s fifth and sixth questions turn to the intention of the decision-maker and how this
might bias the actual results. The questions force the decision-maker to examine how they frame
the issues related to the main question, including its relative importance. As I am concerned
about the question my own biases must be examined and whether these unfairly impact any
decision that I might make.
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
Questions seven and eight consider the impact of a decision that would alter the status
9
quo, including impacted parties and whether their input might reasonably be included in the
analysis. This is certainly an example of where Nash’s model would significantly extend the
time necessary to reach a decision. In the case of my university, the aggrieved groups could
easily be interpreted quite broadly and include dozens of constituent groups. In the end, this is
an example where more information would clutter and confuse the decision-making process. As
an example, in communicating with alumni groups, you might reasonably be expected to receive
vociferous complaints about any policy that would stiffen admission requirements. Employer’s
groups and government agencies, in contrast, would quickly see benefits to both themselves and
the organization of more rigid admissions policies.
Questions nine and ten consider whether a decision could withstand open scrutiny from
external reviewers and whether the decision has staying power. Both are important
considerations. In the case of my university, a change of policy on admissions would have to be
made quite publically and include open hearings by the Board of Visitors. As to the staying
power of the decision, it is difficult to tell whether a policy change might be seen positively over
time. These kinds of decisions should be returned to from time to time as universities change
and respond to the times in which they operate.
The final two Nash questions direct decision-makers to consider symbolically how a
change of policy might be received and whether exceptions to the policy might be accepted.
These are both particularly relevant to the case of my university as a change of admissions policy
would likely have a very significant impact. Indeed, admission decisions are closely tied to the
historic underpinnings of the institution and so any changes would have the potential for consider
symbolic impact. Typically, offices of admissions maintain some flexibility to allow for the
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
10
admission of some applicants with exceptional circumstances. This safety valve cannot easily be
eliminated.
In summary, Nash’s 12 Questions provide the kind of model that facilitates good
decision-making when evaluating vexing ethical issues. The Nash model serves to improve the
reliability and sustainability of ethical decisions as it requires thorough study of the related
issues, the various perspectives of all constituencies, and the implications if policy changes are
made. As noted, the issues related to the implementation of a policy change were not
considered by the Nash model.
The Nash model did force me to consider the much broader implications of a policy
change on admission standards. Indeed, there are far more groups and constituencies that should
be considered beyond the students being evaluated for admission to the university. The Nash
model places these broader groups into a more prominent role in the decision-making process. It
forces the decision-maker to try to step outside of his or her position and to consider opposing
perspectives and the broad and lasting ramifications of any decision.
The Nash 12 Questions requires more time and study than is generally allotted to an
ethical decision. Used correctly, though, the Nash 12 Questions force methodical and engaged
analysis before any decision is ever made. Despite the clear benefits of more and varied
information and perspectives, this additional information does coms at a considerable cost.
Specifically, ethical decisions should generally be made with some speed. There are real costs to
delayed attention to ethical decisions, and thus I would be reluctant to use the Nash 12 Questions
to address the ethical question related to admissions policies at my university.
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
11
Conclusion
This paper has considered the ethical challenges related to the admission of unprepared
students to my university. The process of framing and evaluating a policy change associated
with admissions has been reviewed from multiple perspectives. Each has provided a different set
of considerations as the ethical considerations were evaluated thru multiple lenses and models.
What is apparent thru all of this is that the ethical challenge related to an admissions policy can
be evaluated at multiple levels, including from the specific perspective of affected students to the
much broader university and environmental considerations under the Nash 12 Questions Model.
As the analysis becomes broader, the speed slows and cost increases for a decision. Longer and
more costly decision-making processes do not necessarily result in better decisions, however.
It is clear that ethical decisions can and should be carefully considered by serious leaders
in education. The course has been very effective at causing me to systematically evaluate the
numerous ethical issues that I confront in my work on a nearly daily basis. The journal process
was helpful for me to do more than simply record ethical issues, but to thoughtfully consider
their sources and the impact they have on my workplace.
Probably the most significant long-term impact of the course has been my own
perspective of ethical leadership. I have moved from perceiving the term as being highly
theoretical to a much more practical and important professional responsibility. As a leader, it is
my responsibility to confront the ethical issues that arise in a manner which can be understood
and respected by those around me. Ethical issues rarely solve themselves or disappear with time.
Instead, time and distance from the problems tend to exacerbate them. Effective leaders must be
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
12
willing to confront ethical issues and not allow them to damage their organizations. I believe
that I have developed both the requisite knowledge and skills to more effectively play this role.
FINDING A PERSONAL ETHICAL
13
References
Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: casting light or shadow
(4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publishing.
Shapiro, J.P., & Gross, S.J. (2008). Ethical educational leadership in turbulent times: (Re)
solving moral dilemmas. New York: NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.