by researcher Kirsten McHugh
We at The Good Project talk a lot about ethical dilemmas and how these sorts of difficult scenarios can make achieving good work so challenging. My colleagues and I have recently formalized our approach to confronting dilemmas at work. We refer to this approach as “The 5 D’s” and touched on it briefly in our group post, “The Good Project and COVID-19”.
To bring this tool to life, let’s take a look at how we might apply The 5 D’s to one of The Good Project narratives: A Tale of Two Lawyers.
In this real-life narrative, Joseph is a lawyer presented with the opportunity to represent a large bank in his city with a new acquisition deal. Unfortunately, the terms of the agreement required Joseph to withhold information from a colleague representing a competitor to the bank. With financial and professional gains at the forefront of his mind, and along with the support of senior members of the firm, Joseph accepted the offer from the bank. At the same time, he also only provided a half-truth to the colleague representing the bank’s competitor when this individual directly confronted him about the specifics of his dealings. Eventually, the full story came out, and his colleague was furious. The relationship remained icy, and thereafter others at Joseph’s firm were wary of working with him. While sharing the story, Joseph admitted he wishes that he had acted differently.
Joseph believes he did not technically cross any ethical lines according to lawyers’ ethical code of conduct, but he still regrets the outcome of his actions. In this way, Joseph’s dilemma is one that does not have a technically “wrong” or “right” answer that he could simply “look up”. This is precisely the type of dilemma that we had in mind when we envisioned the 5 D’s.
In his account, Joseph admits that he felt “torn” about what to do after his initial meeting with the bank. That being said, he did not explicitly categorize the situation as a dilemma. Realizing that you are in the midst of a dilemma is vital to recognizing that you need to slow down and consider the terrain before moving ahead with any gut reaction. Without this first step, it’s unlikely to find a path to the next stages of discussion and deliberation. In Joseph’s case, it’s clear that his jumping to a quick decision cost him his reputation among some of his coworkers.
How might have this story unfolded if Joseph had instead followed the 5 D’s? Let’s imagine a different series of events for Joseph and how they might have led to a more considered outcome.
1. Dilemma: Recognize a difficult decision in your daily life that may not have a “right” course of action.
As discussed, Joseph felt torn, but that feeling unfortunately did not tip him off that he was in the midst of a dilemma. Had he been aware of the 5 D’s, perhaps he would have recognized that this was a situation with serious implications involving others—implications of which he might not be fully aware—and that he should stop to consider the landscape more carefully.
2. Discuss: Consult with others regarding possible options, pros and cons and probable consequences of various courses of action.
Had Joseph known he was facing a dilemma, his conversation with the firm’s upper-management might have been presented as a genuine question regarding the appropriate next steps instead of as a “pitch” for approval of his taking on the bank as a client. Ideally, senior partners of a firm are aware of the various matters other lawyers are involved in and would have voiced concern over any competing loyalties. They may have also shared their wisdom and long-view regarding the value of a trustworthy reputation among peers versus the short-term gains of one lucrative contract.
Obviously, to be effective this type of conversation requires “good workers” as colleagues. The senior partners would need to put the firm’s financial gains to the side and be prepared to give honest—even if possibly disappointing—advice to their colleague.
3. Deliberate: Engage in self-reflection and consideration of the various options available.
If Joseph had engaged in thoughtful discussion with his superiors, he might have then taken time on his own to sift through their advice. Allowing different opinions to settle and to reflect on his own priorities and responsibilities, Joseph may have been able to carefully think through the repercussions of each available course of action.
4. Decide: Make and potentially carry out your decision
Joseph says that if he could go back, he would do things differently. He has already written an alternative ending for himself. As Joseph describes in the original narrative:
“I probably would have gone back to the new client, and I probably would have said to him, ‘Look, everyone in our firm is a professional. In order for us to make an intelligent decision about this, I have to have a complete and open conversation with all of my partners, including partners who are connected to the other bank. And you have to just trust my partners that they will not disclose this confidence.’ And then if he had said, ‘Sorry, you’re either going to keep this to yourself or it’s not going to happen,’ then I probably would have declined.”
5. Debrief: Reflect on the consequences of your decision and how you might handle similar decisions in the future.
Joseph says that over the years he has “told this story many times” and that “most people have advised him that he did the right thing”. We can assume that he is referring to others within the legal profession, but it’s not clear whether or not they are simply trying to console him.
If Joseph had followed the earlier steps, it’s possible that he could have debriefed with the senior partners he spoke with during step 2. This conversation might have also involved the colleague working with the bank’s competitor. It could have been an opportunity to build trust and comradery as a team, feeling like the decision was a group effort.
At the end of the narrative, Joseph describes his regret in how handled the situation:
“I felt that I owed the highest duty to the client, to follow their instructions in terms of not disclosing the matter. I felt I executed my duty of loyalty and candor to my partner as best I could under those circumstances… I think I touched all the right ethical bases, and everything I did was by the book, but it wasn’t necessarily the best way to handle it.”
Perhaps if Joseph had originally recognized this situation as a dilemma and been able to use the 5 D’s as a tool at the start, he would have saved his reputation and salved his conscience.
The problem with a dilemma is that there often isn’t one right or wrong answer. The 5 D’s don’t promise to bring us the “right” answer; but hopefully they help guide us towards the best available option based on our own personal values and ethical framework. And if things did not turn out as well as one had hoped, one still feels one did one’s best and will be better prepared for the next dilemma—assuming it’s recognized as such!