EAI
A3 - Application Example
Ethics Awareness Inventory - Gain New Insight Into Your Ethical Perspective
FROM AWARENESS TO ARTICULATION AND APPLICATION:
AN EXAMPLE OFTHE LANGUAGE OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
That first important step in ethical decision making is developing an Awareness of the ethical
perspective and style (the principles and processes) you use most frequently in determining what you
believe to be right or wrong. As you review some of the most common ethical CORE perspectives and
styles used by others, you also become aware of the principles and processes that guide them in
approaching decisions that require the making of ethical choices. While understanding the differences
between these perspectives is foundational, this understanding is little more than an enlightening
educational exercise until you come to appreciate the critical importance of how you and others
Articulate (communicate) these perspectives to one another and then Apply this understanding to
dialogues that lead to shared decision making.
Examples sometimes are useful in demonstrating how these three steps—Awareness, Articulation and
Application—are integral to real decisions in real corporate settings. A scenario presented on the
following pages depicts four managers struggling with the all-too-common budget dilemma that requires
concrete decisions that will result in cutting costs. Their most recent directive is to consider the
implementation of a series of layoffs.
Character and Results Perspectives
Grace Carter, Director of Marketing (coming from a Character perspective), and Tony Remick, Director
of Finance (coming from a Results perspective), are having a working lunch together in preparation for
the next management team meeting that is scheduled to deal with the idea of implementing layoffs in
order to cut costs:
Grace: “You know, Tony, I’m concerned about considering layoffs so early in our budget discussions.
In difficult economic times, we rely on loyal customers to keep our doors open, and a large segment of
the population in a town of this size are either employees or close friends of employees. We need to
protect our good reputation in the community.”
Tony: “I understand your concern, but we can’t let compassion cloud our vision on this one. We have
to remember why we’re here—and we’re here to stay in business. We simply can’t remain in business
without reducing costs. We must turn a profit or lose the backing of our investors.”
Grace: “But based on good conscience, we can’t just announce layoffs with little or no notice and with
no plan to offer assistance to employees who have been with us for years. It’s not fair, and the
community would react negatively to our lack of goodwill. I understand your need to focus on the
dollars, but goodwill has a very real value in the marketplace as well.”
Tony: “True, goodwill does carry a value, but not a value large enough to balance the bottom line.”
Grace: “You can’t ignore the fact that our stated corporate values include ‘Integrity’ and
‘Trustworthiness.’ Taking care of our employees in a town of this size is simply the right thing to do.”
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org
info@ethics-twi.org
480-517-1891
EAI
A3 - Application Example
Tony: “I’m sorry, but we also need to keep the big picture in mind. If the company folds, an even
larger segment of the community will be hurt. We need to find a solution that offers the least damage to
the majority of our stakeholders.”
Obligation and Equity Perspectives
Meanwhile, Corey Olson, Director of Personnel (coming from an Obligation perspective), and Su
Nguyen, Director of Corporate Policy (coming from an Equity perspective), are discussing the proposed
layoffs during their customary lunch-time walk around the city park:
Corey: “I don’t understand why layoffs are the first thing we consider when faced with a tight budget.
These are the same loyal employees who have been instrumental in the development of our highquality product line. We have a duty to protect them as long as possible.”
Su: “Why are you so surprised? The directive for us to begin to consider layoffs as a means for cutting
costs comes from our corporate headquarters. This approach protects those who have the power and
the larger share of the corporate dollars! We could cut costs significantly if the suggested employee
cuts began at the top rather than the bottom.”
Corey: “But they deserve better!”
Su: “Of course they do. The practical reality is that the proposed employee layoffs are going to hit the
ethnic community the hardest. Diversity is important to our customer base, but it appears that ‘cultural
sensitivity’ is not even being considered as a part of this decision.”
Corey: “I wonder if our corporate leaders understand the hardship stories I hear on a daily basis. We
need to make an attempt in this meeting to ‘put a face’ on these employees.”
Su: “I’m in agreement with what you say. Let’s propose that we slow down and view the long-term
impact of this decision by hearing from some of our employees. Perhaps they have some ideas that we
have not yet considered. After all, they are closer to our products and the heart of our community than
many of us.”
The Decision Making Process
Fast forward to the day of the meeting. The corporate Vice President in charge of realignment has
arrived to lead the meeting. She surprises everyone by suggesting that they take the two days they
have set aside to walk through a structured decision making process that provides multiple
opportunities for dialogue. The discussions begin with the presentation of a four-part framework that
provides each participant an opportunity to offer input into the dialogue leading up to a decision. By
using this framework, a variety of aspects descriptive of the spectrum of ethical perspectives
represented by decision makers will become a part of the interactive dialogue.
The VP asks each participant in the dialogue to take a few minutes to share her/his thoughts on the
implementation of a series of layoffs to address the current budget dilemma. As a part of this brief
presentation, each individual is asked to also offer a preferred solution for cutting costs until the budget
becomes more stable. Other participants are asked to listen carefully and respectfully, taking notes,
if necessary, and to withhold any questions or comments until an appropriate time later in the
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org
info@ethics-twi.org
480-517-1891
EAI
A3 - Application Example
discussion process. When everyone’s perspective is “on the table” for consideration, the dialogue is
opened with a discussion of Step One in the decision making framework, followed by discussions of
each of the other three steps in turn. Individuals are asked to share their responses not only for the
proposed layoff decision but also for their own proposed alternative decisions.
Step One: Who will be affected by our decision? The three topics chosen for inclusion in this
dialogue are:
9 Besides the individuals directly involved, who else would be impacted by a layoff decision—
including those who may not be so obvious immediately—both in the short-run and a year or so
from now?
9 Who is recommending a series of layoffs, if anyone, and who has not had a voice in this
decision so far? What steps, if any, might we want to take to hear from others affected by this
decision?
9 What do our customers, stakeholders and the larger community think about the possibility of
layoffs?
Step Two: What would be the impact of our decision?
9 Have we heard from everyone involved—and have we asked for feedback on alternative
decisions?
9 Have we been careful to seek input from all stakeholders without doing anything to bias the
collective response?
Step Three: What ethical perspective is reflected in each participant’s preferred decision—
Character, Obligation, Results or Equity?
9 What are the key components of each participant’s perspective that compel them to believe that
their decision is the best decision? (Each individual is asked to articulate his/her position on the
layoffs and any proposed preferred solution.)
9 Are any factors present that have not been entered into the dialogue, e.g., outside pressure,
aspects of personal financial gain, lack of additional facts/information or personal fears/threats?
Step Four: Can we justify our decision on ethical grounds?
9 Is our proposed decision fair to everyone involved? On what grounds have we determined
fairness?
9 Do any of us have serious concerns about our decision? If so, what are they? If we were on the
receiving end of this decision, would we feel that we have been heard and treated fairly?
9 On what ethical grounds can we defend our decision? Have we rationalized our position based
on personal biases rather than basing our decision on ethical grounds?
Through the use of this structured dialogue, the question of layoffs and each alternative cost-saving
solution is considered carefully. Although all decisions of this type are complex and difficult, through the
use of this structured process, the management team is able to work together to feel that all possible
alternatives have been considered and, through thoughtful articulation of the various positions and
ethical perspectives, they are able to see the best possible solution for their company emerge—one
that they can all support, even during difficult economic times.
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org
info@ethics-twi.org
480-517-1891