Why do you frequently tell those who write to you what to consider, and what questions to ask themselves, instead of just giving them the right ethical answer? Surely you have more experience than they.
I’ve been hoping someone would ask this!
I have four main reasons:
- General experience cannot make up for lack of information about a specific situation.
- The individual often has the wisdom inside to find the right answer, if asked a good set of questions. People are more likely to apply and be committed to their own choices than to external suggestions.
- The decision-making process helps the decision maker to understand how they reached a decision, which in turn makes it easier to explain and justify.
- I seek to transfer skills and knowledge so all readers can make better ethical decisions every day. Ethics specialists can’t be everywhere or give timely enough answers.
Since I receive anonymous requests for advice, via the CharityVillage site, I cannot engage in the usual dialogue to uncover more information, help find the hidden wisdom, or work through an ethical decision-making framework. I speculate about the issue, based on my experience and a “between the lines” reading. I hope that even if my assumptions or suppositions are wrong, the approach still helps readers learn the types of questions to ask of themselves and others, and what approaches to decision-making would be helpful to them.
I also always hope they are asking others besides myself for more timely support and information. Such discussions build ongoing trust relationships, as well as helping them understand their current situation better. For example, there is no use asking me if their anonymous organization has a policy on some specific issue, particularly if such policies vary greatly among organizations.
Impartiality is key
Anyone who is asked for ethics advice must remember that it is not the same as moral support. A crying friend does not need a set of probing questions; he or she needs compassion. But someone who asks for ethics advice often filters the information they provide. They may consciously or unconsciously leave out information that puts them in a bad light, or makes the decision that got them upset look more unreasonable.
Formal ethics advisors like ombuds must therefore impartially encourage information-sharing and ethical thinking, and not become a supporter of one side until and unless they consider all perspectives and hear from all stakeholders. Nods, uh-huhs, and “tell me more” comments should not be taken as a sign that the ethics advisor is on your side!
If there was a dialogue, what questions would I ask? I would be seeking more information, to help guide the person towards types of policies, people to involve, options to consider, and reasons the situation that worried them might have arisen. For example, if the question were about falsified expense accounts, the options might be quite different if the individual alleged to be falsifying were newly employed (options could include training or policy awareness since the person might just have misunderstood) versus if the person were the chief financial officer (options could include reporting the situation to the executive director).
Policies and values
The questions would help to elicit the underlying values as well. Why does it bother you? It’s not fair. What about it is not fair? Would the situation appear unfair to the decision-maker, or was that person lacking important information? Would it appear unfair to others, and for the same reasons? Was the decision explained, and if not could an explanation be requested? Could more information be provided in future to help the decision-maker, or could future decision-making on this issue be delegated to those who have the information?
Another example is to ask if they have checked for a policy. Even if I knew the policy of the specific organization (and occasionally I do), I would not just read it to them. I want to find out if the policies are accessible to staff, if the person knows that policies exist, and if the person is able to read and interpret a policy document. Policies are of little use if only the people enforcing them can find them. I might be recommending that an organization do something as simple as moving a binder to a bookshelf outside the ED’s office, or something more complex like setting up an Intranet site so employees and volunteers working at a distance could also search the policies easily. If the policies are accessible but the person did not think to check, maybe they will next time.
Some questions would deal with a decision-making process. What options have they considered? If the options are at extreme ends of a continuum, as starting options often are, are there less radical choices? Choices that “cherry-pick” the best aspects of each initial option? Choices that are less likely to cause harm or put someone or something (reputation, assets, etc.) at risk? Often at least one of the initial options would put the inquirer at risk; they might lose their job and the ability to support themselves.
These questions elicit information; they also hopefully teach a process that can be used in future. Also, remember that I am hoping that all readers of this column will learn from it, not just the one who asked the question.
The decision-making process
The December 20, 2004 column dealt with considering mission in the decision-making. Other areas to consider are:
- Whether the choice helps create the future for the community that the organization has defined (the vision);
- How well the choices fit with organizational and professional values;
- How stakeholders would react and what that would mean for long-term relationships; and
- Whether you can live with the result.
Finally, sometimes the main questions deal with what would satisfy the individual who was harmed or offended, or who made a mistake. It may be as simple as an apology. It might be a commitment to send the individual on the next available professional development course, or put them on the committee of their choice next year, or a promise to investigate an allegation and act after the facts have been confirmed. But, in the end, only the person deserving of reparation can determine what action will suffice.
I worry that I am sometimes far too directive in my columns, since I cannot engage in dialogue. I try for an approach that combines useful advice with skills transfer, and welcome suggestions for how to improve.
Since 1992, Jane Garthson has dedicated her consulting and training business to creating better futures for our communities and organizations through values-based leadership. She is a respected international voice on governance, strategic thinking and ethics. Jane can be reached at jane@garthsonleadership.ca.
To submit a dilemma for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Jane directly.
Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.
Please note: While we ensure that all links and email addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other websites and email addresses may no longer be accurate.
