Ethical Reasoning
Frank J. Navran

The quest for a simple yet comprehensive model of ethical reasoning for use in the business world has been a sort of “Holy Grail” for those of us who write about and teach in this area. Being a “visual” person I have been trying to create a picture of the ethical reasoning process. Flowcharts, logic diagrams, continua and others have all come close. But so far, all have also fallen short.

This latest effort also comes close. It does not add much in new content but presents much of what we already think we understand in a visually unique from. It has an “organic” look and that may be appropriate to suggest that the ethical reasoning process is alive - dynamic and evolving.

The picture may, in fact, speak for itself, but a narrative might illuminate.

Starting at the center of the model and working outward we first encounter “ethical reasoning”. This is the goal. It is surrounded by four “petals” that unfold to reveal four sets of considerations. It is these considerations that under-gird the process.

To arrange them in any order could communicate prioritization or ranking. I do not believe there is any such scheme - and so pick an order of convenience - starting from the most “external” set of considerations and moving further “inward”.

But first, some simple definitions.

If we purport to describe ethical reasoning let us at least define “ethical,” “values” and “reasoning”.

• In this paper ethical is used to mean actions and behaviors that conform to agreed-upon standards - specifically those standards that describe or define what is right, good and fair.
• Those standards that define what is right, good and fair are what we call values.
• The reasoning portion of the process requires us to sufficiently understand the general situation, the specific problem at hand and the alternatives available to us and to apply our judgment to that information as we pursue the optimal solution.

Formal Rules

Formal rules exist outside the decision maker and are typically imposed upon that person. The model suggests three sets of formal rules: law, regulation and policy.

• Law can be characterized as society’s voice. Government promulgates laws to define boundaries that society demands be respected. Law is often the society’s way of stating what is or is not acceptable as a means of building commitment to a specific standard of conduct.
• Regulation resembles law and differs primarily in its source. Regulations typically originate within an administrative body versus legislative body, in the US federal system for example - but still external to the organization.
• Policy, still external to the decision maker, is a bit closer as it typically refers to rules imposed by one’s employer. Often, policy details the specific procedures for implementing law and regulation. It describes the specific manner in which the organization wants certain persons (most often employees - but can include others such as vendors, suppliers, and sub-contractors) to perform specific, prescribed tasks.

Collectively the formal rules are considerations the ethical decision maker ought include in the ethical reasoning process, as failing that, the decision may violate the rules and fail to meet the standard of compliance. In most cases legal, regulatory and policy compliance are considered minimums for ethical decision making.

The exception (unethical rules) must be mentioned but it should be noted that this is a rare exception reserved for issues such as legalized segregation or slavery that may be “legal” at a given point in time but lack moral authority.

Organizational Culture

As was the case with Formal Rules, Organizational Culture also exists outside the decision maker. The model suggests three sources of informal rules.

• Societal norms are the rules of conduct that are generally deemed “socially acceptable” or unacceptable. Dress codes are a simple example. Society communicates what is appropriate business attire and it varies from occupation and most certainly across societies. At a more complex level, gender roles are detailed in law and policy in many parts of the world but not in others, where tradition (a societal norm) is the rule.
• Industry standards are a narrower set of informal standards that define how a sub-set of society (an industry) chooses to behave. There can be an understanding within the airline industry, for example, not to compete on matters effecting public safety, or to share training materials related to ethics, as is the case within the defense industry. These standards are often not formalized - they are simply “understood” and many are motivated by the recognition that safeguarding the reputation and integrity of the industry serves all its members.
• Organizational norms are closer and narrower than industry norms as they define how we do things here. These are the common understandings within the organization as to how things “really work” independent of what the formal rules might. In every organization there are some disparities between what the rules say and how things work in reality. Often these differences play out as a more “liberal” interpretation of the rules - as in the case of a “good” employee being allowed to deviate from a policy that may be more strictly enforce with a “problem” employee.

As a whole, the organizational culture provides an alternative, informal set of rules and the reasoned decision considers both sets of rules.

Goals and Objectives

Decision-making need be concerned with more than following formal and informal rules. There are also outcomes to consider and the consequences of those outcomes. What will the decision produce and are those products ones that are acceptable and/or desirable? Again, there are three sets of considerations.

• Strategic goals and objectives address the long-term view and consider the bigger picture. Is this decision consistent with the mission and vision of my organization? Is it going to move the organization in the right direction? It is less about the immediate consequence and more about the future. Strategic goals consider what best serves the whole of the organization - not just what is good for my function, my group, unit, division or myself.
• Tactical goals and objectives come closer to the decision maker than those with a strategic focus. Typically, tactics address the specific short and intermediate term goals and objectives that determine success of the smaller group/unit and have a more immediate effect on the individual’s performance review, pay and advancement. These are your group and individual performance goals and may or may not move the larger organization closer to its long-term goals
• Personal goals and objectives are the aspect of the decision that impact us individually. This the “WIIFM” question - “What’s in it for me?” Every time we make a decision we consider what will happen to us as a consequence. This is not the only consideration and often not the most important and it is unavoidable. It is nearly impossible to make a business decision without also thinking about how this will impact on us and if that impact is consistent with what we want, need or believe we deserve. We may choose to subordinate personal goals for larger organizational goals but we will always consider them.

Values and Ethics

Ethical reasoning presumes that we consider the values and ethics of our choices and the consequences that can reasonably be presumed to create. In keeping with our pattern of three perspectives for each of the four ethical reasoning considerations, we will look at three sets of values and - standards of what is right, good and fair and the behaviors these standards require.

• Societal values and ethics are our context. Interestingly, there is a good deal of agreement across societies regarding values - honesty, integrity, compassion, respect, responsibility, courage, citizenship are common to almost every culture. What varies are the behaviors that each culture associates with the values. For example, in some cultures it may be more important to be polite and respectful while in others it may be more important to be straightforward even if that means being insensitive. Those are cultural differences that must be considered as part of the context of ethical reasoning.
• Organizational values and ethics are also critical considerations when we make decisions at work. We are deciding on behalf of the organization and typically are obligated to reflect that body’s values and ethics.
• Self refers to the values and ethics we bring to the process from within. Integrity demands that we consider and respect our own sense of what is right, fair and good. Failing that, we make satisfy the external criteria but we do real harm to ourselves. While we possess a remarkable ability to “rationalize” decisions that contradict our own values, eventually we must face the reality rationalizations are lies and relying on them to justify what we know is wrong is a flawed reasoning process and suggests a character flaw that should be addressed.

Conclusion

As suggested above, ethical reasoning defies simplistic models and rules. It is a complex process whereby we apply our reasoning skills to a set of circumstances in pursuit of a desired outcome. The model’s value may simply be that it reminds us to ponder all four sets of considerations;

• What formal rules apply and inform my decision?
• How does my organization’s culture inform the process?
• What goals and objectives am I pursuing and how do they influence my reasoning?
• Have I adequately considered if and how my decision meets the standards of rightness, goodness and fairness?

Ultimately, no model or process relieves us of the responsibility to reason through and, using our best judgment, make the best decision - with “best” defined by all the criteria suggested above - and any others that might be relevant to the decision, the decision-maker and those affected by the outcome.