Tackling Dilemmas at Work

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!

September Wrap-Up: 5 Articles Worth Sharing

by Danny Mucinskas

With the arrival of autumn in the United States, the weather has been turning a little cooler, and a back-to-school season like no other has been underway. While this month was a difficult one on the national stage (COVID cases rising, wildfires ravaging the West, and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), we recognize that, oftentimes, tumultuous situations provide the impetus for people to do good work in the future. We are collecting here a few recent articles about ethics and good work that we found to be thought-provoking to share with our readers.

1.      Who Should Get the COVID-19 Vaccine First? In the race for the development of an effective COVID-19 vaccine, some nations like the U.S. seem to have embraced “vaccine nationalism,” whereby priority would be given to a country’s own citizens in distribution. Ethicists argue that resources should be shared internationally, but also draw a distinction between equal sharing of vaccines relative to population size, which the WHO recommends, and equitable sharing of vaccines in accordance with need.

2.      “The Social Dilemma” Director Says the Internet is Undermining Democracy. Several members of our team have watched Netflix’s new docu-drama “The Social Dilemma,” a portrayal of the dangers of social media, including addiction and mental health crises among users, as well as misinformation campaigns and resulting political instability, that are often overlooked when we focus on the positives of online communication. Jeff Orlowski, the director of the film, argues that social media may threaten democracy itself by creating a climate of outrage and engendering a lack of shared truths.

3.      Are You Lying More in the Pandemic? Some Certainly Are. Research indicates that people are not always honest with each other about their COVID status or possible symptoms. Experts believe the reasons people lie are complex and involve factors like desire for social contact when sick and mental calculus that takes advantage of excuse-making.

4.      Putting Common Sense Back in the Driver’s Seat. Much of the discourse surrounding the use of self-driving cars has focused on dilemmas that look a lot like the classic “trolley problem,” in which a car’s algorithm would have to decide between two groups of people to hit. Julian De Freitas, a Harvard doctoral student, makes the case that these types of dilemmas are oversimplified, unrepresentative of real-world situations, and would require algorithms to recognize ethical dilemmas in a way that is unlikely in practice in the first place.

5.      What is Good Teaching? Author Kristina Rizga presents the case for “good teaching” from The Atlantic’s “On Teaching” project, for which she spoke to a number of veteran educators around the United States in an effort to collect their wisdoms before their retirements. She finds that effective teaching involves navigating a world constantly in flux, addressing student needs with individuality and attention, and overcoming the challenges of funding cuts, inequalities, and a policy landscape that does not often invite teacher perspectives.

ON GOOD LEADERSHIP: REFLECTIONS ON LEADING MINDS AFTER 25 YEARS

by Howard Gardner

Once I had begun to write about the varieties of human intelligence (Gardner, 1983/2011), people frequently asked me about the intelligences that leaders have—as well as the ones that leaders lack or do not need. As I pondered this question—which I’ll return to below—I formulated ideas about how leaders function, what makes for an effective leader, which leaders I have admired and why. As a lifelong citizen of a democratic society, it seemed natural for me to focus on voluntary leaders—people who are able to get, to persuade, to inspire others to think and act differently without forcing them to do so.

In Leading Minds (Gardner, 1995/2011) I portrayed 11 leaders whom I admired—ranging from university presidents, to military leaders, to individuals who—despite lacking an ascribed platform—succeeded in changing the minds and behaviors of many individuals. According to the cognitive view that I proposed in that book, leadership takes place as an exchange between minds. The powerful vehicles that leaders wield are not tangible weapons—they are stories. Leaders create stories—and they embody these stories in the lives that they lead. These “lives of saints” (and of “sinners”) are “existence proofs” so to speak. The evocative stories told and exemplified by effective leaders affect people; and, in turn, the people come to behave and act differently as a result of encountering the stories.

Today, I still believe this account in general. But events of the past 25 years have given me considerable pause.

By 2010, some wrinkles or challenges to my account were already becoming clear. In an edition of Leading Minds published the following year, in a section called “Leadership in the era of truthiness, twaddle, and twitter”, I reflected:

No leader today can afford to ignore this powerful trio: The ease of promulgating false statements; the detritus that permeates the blogosphere; and the prominence of the ad line and the gag line. Indeed the challenge to the leader is to counter these forces when they are inimical to his or her goals and to put forth a powerful counter-story that highlights truth against truthiness, clarity against twaddle, and a developed and substantiated story as opposed to a twitter-length teaser. As I write these lines, US president Barack Obama clearly understands these challenges; but it is uncertain whether he—or, indeed any thoughtful leader capable of complex thought—can be heard and understood above the din. (Gardner 2011, p. xii)

Of course the threats to authentic stories, compellingly told, and actually “lived” have been exemplified by the persona and behavior of President Donald Trump. But I don’t want to focus unduly on Trump because we hear similar contrived stories, and encounter analogous faux embodiments around the world—consider the words and actions of contemporary leaders—Bolsonaro (Brazil), Duterte (Philippines), Orban (Hungary), Erdogan (Turkey), Xi (China), Putin (Russia)… and the list could be easily extended.

Nor are these threats limited to the early twenty-first century. My cautionary words of 2010-2011 could (and perhaps should) have been applicable in the 1930s—in the years leading up to World War II—and no doubt in earlier eras as well. It has long been tempting for leaders to create powerful myths—posing as heroic loners, arrayed against the forces of evil—and to persuade an impressively sizable cohort of followers that what they say is true and that, as a consequence, their edicts should be followed. (Niccolo Machiavelli would not have been surprised). And as I pointed out in Leading Minds, a simple or even simplistic story all too often prevails over one that may be more accurate and more appropriate and more truthful, but also more complex.

 An Approach to Good Leadership

In recent years, as part of what we call The Good Project (thegoodproject.org), my colleagues and I have shifted our focus from what makes for an effective leader to what makes for a good leader. And in this line of research, we have identified the three key features of a good leader:

Excellence: The good leader knows the field in which he occupies an influential role, keeps up with developments, and draws on his knowledge appropriately.

Engagement: The good leader cares about her work, finds it meaningful, looks forward to carrying it out effectively even at times when conditions are not favorable.

Ethics: The good leader ponders the ethical implication of contemplated words and actions, strives to do the right thing, reflects on consequences, and seeks to do better the next time.

It’s not always easy to determine whether someone is a good leader. With respect to excellence, many leaders rely on previous knowledge and/or do not know how to proceed when conditions change significantly. With respect to engagement, one may well be deeply engaged in carrying out work that is compromised or even malevolent (see Shakespeare’s histories and tragedies).

My colleagues and I have been particularly concerned with the ethical dimension. In almost any position of leadership, there are certain well-established norms and rules which can and should be followed. In following such norms, one does not need to exercise one’s ethical muscles. 

The “ethical test” occurs when challenges arise for which the standard procedures are not adequate or appropriate, and when the leader recognizes this conundrum. I’ve termed this recognition the ethical “A-ha.” Indeed, if you don’t recognize and then attempt to deal with the new situation, there is no possibility of an “A-ha” nor, accordingly, for pursuing a better course of actions. 

In such challenging situations, leaders need to reflect on intentions or motives, the means at their disposal, and the necessity of dealing with the consequences of the actions that they undertake or choose deliberately not to undertake (Nye, 2020). Accordingly, we judge the “goodness” of leaders in terms of recognition, action, consequences, and lessons learned. And of course, the cycle continues throughout the tenure of the leader.

Here’s  a rough metric that one can apply in an evaluation of whether leaders qualify as good leaders:

1. They seek to determine the truth and tell the truth; and when they have made errors, they admit it and try to make amends.

2. They recognize the existing norms and abide by them, or are willing to challenge them openly and bear the consequences (which might entail civil disobedience).

3. When the norms are not adequate, or new issues arise, they publicly acknowledge this situation—I call this awareness The ethical “A-ha”.

4. They articulate and ponder the dilemma—they don’t claim to have all the answers.

5. They search for the best input—expert and political—including advice from a “team of rivals’’.

6. They make a decision openly, anticipate the consequences, are poised to change course as necessary, and to revisit the consequences of actions taken or not taken.

7. They indicate their willingness to repeat this cycle and, ultimately, help to bring about a new or revised norm of ethical awareness and reflectiveness with respect to the conditions with which they have been dealing.

A Word on Intelligences

As mentioned, once I began to carry out scholarly work on leadership, I was asked about the kinds of intelligences that leaders had. I formulated an answer to this question: Leaders need linguistic intelligence, because they are essentially story tellers; and they need interpersonal intelligence, because they have  to put themselves in the place of audience members or followers and appeal to their better angels. It is helpful as well if they have intrapersonal intelligence—though, as illustrated by the case of President Ronald Reagan, one can be an effective leader even if one has little inclination toward introspection. Other intelligences (musical, spatial, etc.) are fine, but they are optional.

When asked about Donald Trump’s intelligences, I was initially stumped—because he has modest gifts in language (several commentators have suggested that he is dyslexic, and his vocabulary seems to be quite limited); and clearly he has not an inkling of intrapersonal intelligence. This is not a new story at all—the long-standing saga of populism in the US.

Perhaps we should postulate a new intelligence—media intelligence. Because even if one wants to castigate Trump, one must concede that he mastered the medium of television via his long-running show The Apprentice and has used Twitter in a way which is astoundingly successful (Trump 2020). Media intelligence might be a form or strand of interpersonal intelligence, but one entirely devoid of empathy or of understanding of particular individuals (as contrasted with an appreciation of “the crowd”). And indeed, in the past, successful leaders have displayed mastery of the new media—Franklin Roosevelt (and, alas Adolf Hitler) with respect to radio, John F Kennedy with respect to television, Ronald Reagan with respect to movies, and so on.

It’s also been suggested that Trump has the ability to read the “spirit of the times”, a more significant achievement. That may be so. On the other hand, it’s equally possible that he has long had a litany of complaints and proposals over the decades and—for reasons unconnected to his persona—the spirit of the time intersected with his program.

Concluding Note

My goal in this essay is not to denigrate Trump or to raise other leaders to a higher status. Rather, I have sought to revisit my initial conception of leadership. Specifically, I have emphasized the need to take into account a fast-changing landscape; and the pressures to master the most popular media of communication. Also, I no longer take for granted a democratic society with clear standards of right and wrong and with a faith in the importance of the truth. Rather I have focused on what it means to be a good leader and on the properties and processes that a good leader needs when faced with challenging dilemmas. In a phrase, we don’t need more leaders—we need better ones; and we need to help those with leadership potential to deploy their gifts in pro-social ways. 

 ©Howard Gardner 2020

References

Gardner, H. (1983/2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993) 1993). Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner. H (1995/ 2011). Leading Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2011). Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner H. Ed. (2010). Good Work; Theory and Practice. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c5b569c01232cccdc227b9c/t/5e7e1b520a5e5d2a3e0677fc/1585322850147/GoodWork-Theory_and_Practice-with_covers.pdf

Nye, J. (2020). Do Morals Matter? New York: Oxford University Press.

Trump, M. (2020). Too Much and Never Enough. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Encouraging College Students’ Responsibility During the Pandemic

by Shelby Clark

A few weeks ago, The Good Project researcher Kirsten McHugh wrote about “Parents as Educators: A Good Work Perspective”. But what about the other side of the story--the students? What does it mean for students to be good workers during a pandemic?

As college campuses have become the new “hot spot” for COVID-19 outbreaks, this question has become even more important. College students consistently encounter ethical dilemmas, but the pandemic has thrust new ethical dilemmas upon them, such as whether to “snitch” on fellow classmates holding gatherings, or even large parties where numerous people might become infected. Because of COVID-19 we are now asking young adults to think more and more beyond their own needs, and to be responsible as well to others in their community and society; yet, we know from past research that youth often have difficulty with such “beyond the self” thinking. With COVID-19 constantly throwing new dilemmas in young people’s ways, how can we as educators and adults help our students to think about their responsibilities to self and others during the pandemic? 

When trying to help youth handle ethical dilemmas, it is helpful to use a tool such as The Good Project’s Rings of Responsibility. This tool was originally designed to help individuals think about to whom or what they are responsible in their work. The rings of responsibility are five concentric circles that begin with responsibility to oneself, and then expand to wider and wider areas of responsibility. The second ring represents responsibility to others, like family, peers, and friends; the third ring represents responsibility to community, such as one’s school or neighborhood; the fourth ring represents responsibility to one’s profession, which, for students, indicates commitment to being a student and the rules and norms of being a student; and the fifth ring represents responsibility to the wider world or to society as a whole (see image). 

Let’s take the example of whether a student should “snitch” on their classmate’s unallowed party on a college campus in the age of COVID-19. Below, I consider how I might reflect on my own responsibilities if I were a student in such a situation. 

• Self: I would most likely feel guilty if I did not inform on my classmates. As such, “snitching” would be a way to ease my guilt and by doing so act responsibly towards myself.

• Others: Perhaps the classmate holding the party is a close friend; if so, I would think that my responsibility to “others'' would be to not tell on the friend in order to save my friendship. 

• Community: On the one hand, I can see that being responsible towards my community means informing on the party; in doing so I can protect the public health of other students on the college campus. On the other hand, I’ve seen as a researcher that when students are expelled for misbehavior, it can create stark divisions on campuses that lead to mistrust amongst the student body--it may therefore be better for the community’s mental well-being that I keep silent after all.  

• Profession: Are there codes of conduct for the students at their university regarding these parties? If so, informing an authority is likely the correct thing to do according to the student code of conduct. I would also need to consider whether doing so would promote or hinder student learning at the university, which is, ultimately, the “point” of higher education. 

• Wider World: In light of the ripple effect seen from a variety of parties held during the pandemic, it seems likely that informing on a classmate’s party could save lives. 

Ultimately, the choice becomes whether I would not inform on the hypothetical campus party and potentially save a friendship and campus dynamics, or whether I would “snitch” and uphold the college community’s public health, the student code of conduct, societal public health, and ease my own guilt. For me, as an adult, the choice is clear: the outer rings of responsibility should come first, and I would inform on the party. However, for youth the choice is often not as transparent. 

Given that youth often have difficulty thinking beyond their own self-interest, it is more important than ever that adults and educational institutions continue to find ways to help young people to think about, and make decisions in light of, their broader impacts on society. Certainly, considering the rings of responsibility doesn’t give a student the answer of what to do in a difficult situation. In fact, students might feel that it pits their responsibilities against one another--what’s good for them versus what’s good for others. Ultimately, though, it should help a student consider the pros and cons of a situation, and how they might weigh their various responsibilities to self and others when things become difficult. We know the pandemic will continue to throw new ethical challenges in the way of our students; as such, let’s give students the skills needed to become the socially responsible adults the world needs.

Announcing: New Research Paper

We are excited to announce that we have added a new research paper to our collection:

Professions in the Age of Information Technologies and Artificial Intelligences:

The Case of Medicine, Law and Education in China by Xin Xiang

This paper, by Xin Xiang, examines “the possible futures of the professions in China: Will the Chinese professions be able to leapfrog over the professionalism stage and become global leaders in the age of information technologies and artificial intelligences, or will they be crippled by the under-development of professionalism throughout the 20th century?"

To read the paper, visit our publications page or click here.