In the book Ethical Leadership in Human Services: A Multi-Dimensional Approach author Susan Schissler challenges leaders to use a decision framework to help us get things right the first time. The intent is to provide an opportunity to consider key questions which may be overlooked when making critical ethical decisions in the public or private sectors. The decision making process includes six stages, namely awareness, feelings, thinking, evaluating, action, and reflection.
Awareness involves recognizing the what and why of a moral or ethical issue. Under this heading we need to ask several key questions. Is there something wrong personally, interpersonally, organizationally, or socially that could be damaging to employees, consumers, community citizens, or other people, the environment, the organization, or society? What if we stood on the other side of the issue?
Feelings reflects the well being of the other individuals or groups who may be affected by our decisions or actions. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? What is at stake for each? Do some have a greater stake because they have a special need, or because we have special obligations to them? What values and perspectives are represented through these individuals and groups? What cultural traditions, norms, and beliefs are important to these stakeholders? What are their choices or preferences in regard to the issue?
Thinking reflects knowing the facts and the wisdom to use them. What are the relevant facts of the issue? What information needs to be obtained? What list of questions needs to be answered and by whom? What is the symbolic potential of our action if understood or misunderstood? What sources can we turn to for guidance? Code of ethics? Ethical theories or principles? Experts? Consultants? Peers? Constituents? Stakeholder?
Evaluate the ethical dilemma from different perspectives such as ethical theory, principles and philosophies. What option will produce the most good and the least harm? What option respects the rights and dignity of the shareholders? Even if not everyone gets what they want, will everyone get treated fairly? Which option would enable the deepening of those virtues and character traits that we value as individuals, professionals, employers, and society?
Taking action requires a level of comfort with the decision. What are the political, natural, and societal forces surrounding the proposed action? Are their stakeholders that we might need for support? Who might resist the action? What strengths would help reduce or eliminate the resistance?
Reflection provides the opportunity to evaluate the consequences of implementing the decision, and what we learn from that experience. How did it turn out for all concerned? If we had it to do over again, what, if anything, would we do differently? What were the unintended consequences? Do we need to rethink existing policies, procedures, or processes?
In conclusion, it is unlikely that we could quickly answer each of the questions during a single reading of this article. However, it is likely that the questions in fact are a self-examination which will cause us to take a little more time weighing out our options to "get things right the first time!"
