When people watch how you make decisions, what are they learning about what is acceptable?
In my previous article, I explored the balance between our individual rights and our responsibility to others. The starting point was a collection of questionable life hacks that seemed to admire people for getting away with conduct that imposed a cost on someone else.
The discussion led to a question that applies well beyond those examples: when we explain why a choice is acceptable, are we examining its fairness or making ourselves comfortable with something we already want to do?
That question becomes particularly important when we lead an organization. Our decisions affect people who may have little influence over the outcome, and the way we reach those decisions teaches others what is acceptable. When we make an exception for ourselves, we may also be giving everyone around us permission to make exceptions of their own.
So, what can we do about it? I think we can begin by examining how we make decisions, whose interests we consider, and who we invite to challenge our reasoning.
Start with the decisions we control
It is easy to feel concerned about the state of society and equally easy to feel that there is very little we can do to change it. But each of us has influence over a smaller part of that society through our family, our work, and the relationships we maintain.
For a business leader, that influence includes the decisions we make about customers, employees, suppliers, and the communities in which we operate. We decide what information to share, which commitments to honor, and how to respond when doing the right thing becomes inconvenient or expensive.
Consider a customer who has misunderstood an important limitation of your service. They are ready to sign, and the misunderstanding works in your favor. You could tell yourself that the information was available in the proposal and that it was their responsibility to read it carefully. Yet if you know they are making the decision on a mistaken assumption, you have an opportunity to clarify it before accepting their business.
That clarification might delay the sale or cost you the contract. It also gives the customer a fair opportunity to decide and establishes how you expect business to be conducted.
These are the moments in which our values become practical. Most of us can support a principle when it carries no cost. The more revealing decision comes when upholding it requires us to give up an advantage.
Consider the people who are absent
Around a board table, we usually have a clear view of the people participating in the discussion. We hear their concerns, understand their pressures, and can ask questions about what a decision will mean for them.
Others affected by the outcome may have no voice in the room. Employees may carry the workload created by a new commitment. Suppliers may absorb the consequences of delayed payment. Customers may rely on information that we have chosen to present selectively. A community may experience the effects of a decision long after the immediate business benefit has been realized.
We cannot satisfy every interest in every decision, and leadership sometimes requires choices that disappoint people. However, we should be able to explain how we considered those interests and why we believe our decision is defensible.
I find it useful to ask who would want to be part of the discussion if they knew what we were deciding. Their absence should prompt us to consider their perspective rather than make it easier to overlook them.
That is one way to bring our responsibility to the wider community into the practical work of leadership.
Professional ethics give us a foundation
As a Certified Management Consultant, I have an explicit framework for examining these obligations. CMC-Canada’s Code of Professional Conduct identifies responsibilities to the public, clients, the profession, and other members. It requires objective and independent advice, and it prohibits advancing a consultant’s interests at the potential expense of the client or the public. It also places the interests of the client organization overall ahead of the interests of a particular individual or group within it.
These obligations matter because consulting relationships can create competing pressures. The person who hires us may have a preferred outcome, while our analysis points in another direction. We may see an opportunity for additional work, yet know that the client would be better served by a simpler solution. We may be asked to support a decision that benefits an executive but undermines the organization.
Imagine an executive asking a consultant to justify a restructuring that removes people who have challenged that executive’s approach. The assignment may be attractive, the relationship may be valuable, and the requested conclusion may be clear. Nevertheless, the consultant must examine whether the work serves the organization and whether the advice can remain objective.
A professional code provides a foundation for that judgment and a standard against which our conduct can be assessed. We still must recognize the issue, apply the relevant obligations, and be willing to act on them when the result is uncomfortable.
I believe those of us in professions also have an opportunity to help make ethical considerations more visible. We can explain why we are raising a concern, show how we have considered competing interests, and demonstrate that professional judgment includes responsibility for the consequences of our advice.
Culture = Values + Action
Within an organization, shared values can provide a similar foundation for ethical decisions. It is worth a leader’s time to think carefully about what those values mean for how people work together, how they treat customers and suppliers, and how they respond when interests compete. People need a shared understanding of what is expected, especially when the right course of action is inconvenient or comes at a cost.
I express this relationship through a simple formula: Culture = Values + Action. The values describe what we believe is important, while our actions establish how those beliefs are experienced in everyday work. If we say that respect matters, people should be able to see it in how disagreements are handled. If we value honesty, we should support someone who brings forward an uncomfortable truth. If fairness is important, we need to examine whether our decisions apply that principle consistently.
The leader’s role is to help people translate those values into clear expectations and then ensure they are upheld. That includes modeling the behavior ourselves, recognizing it in others, and addressing conduct that falls short, even when the person involved delivers excellent business results. Every exception teaches people something about what the organization actually values.
When values consistently guide action, they become a useful reference point for difficult decisions. People have a clearer understanding of what they can expect from one another and what they will be held accountable for. That is how a statement of values becomes part of the culture.
Give ethical questions room in the discussion
Some choices are straightforward. Others involve legitimate interests that cannot all be satisfied, incomplete information, or consequences that are difficult to predict.
A business may need to reduce costs to remain viable, knowing that employees and their families will be affected. A leader may need to protect confidential information while explaining a decision to people who reasonably want answers. A consultant may need to challenge a client’s assumptions while preserving a relationship in which that advice can be heard.
These situations deserve careful discussion. We make them harder when we treat ethical concerns as an interruption to the real business of reaching a decision.
One practical step is to make room for those concerns before a preferred option becomes settled. Once people have invested time, reputation, and emotion in a proposal, it can be difficult to hear a question that might require them to reconsider it.
I would suggest bringing five questions into the conversation:
- Who benefits from this decision, and who carries the cost?
- Whose interests have we not yet considered?
- What commitments, professional obligations, or other duties apply?
- Would we regard the treatment as fair if we were on the receiving end?
- Could we explain our reasoning openly to the people affected?
These questions will not produce an automatic answer. They can, however, reveal assumptions that need to be tested and consequences that deserve more attention.
Make it possible for people to speak up
The quality of our ethical judgment also depends on what others feel able to tell us. If raising a concern is routinely treated as negativity or disloyalty, people will learn to keep their doubts to themselves.
As leaders, we can make a different response possible. When someone identifies a potential problem, we can ask them to explain it, consider the evidence, and thank them for bringing it forward. We may ultimately reach a different conclusion, but the discussion should leave them confident that a reasonable concern can be heard.
This requires us to watch our own reactions, particularly when we are under pressure. It is easy to invite challenge in principle and then become defensive when someone challenges a decision we care about.
We also need to consider what our targets and rewards encourage. If we expect employees to meet an ambitious sales target, for example, we should be clear about the standards that still apply and attentive to how results are achieved. Otherwise, people may conclude that the stated values matter less than the number at the end of the month.
An ethical concern is useful information. We need to make it possible for that information to reach us.
Invite people who will question your reasoning
There are times when we need a conversation beyond our own organization. People inside the business may be affected by the decision, reluctant to challenge us, or working from the same assumptions that we are trying to examine.
This is one of the reasons I value a trusted peer advisory group. In a Vistage group, a leader can bring a difficult issue to peers who understand the pressures of running a business and can offer perspectives drawn from different experiences.
The value of that discussion depends on a willingness to ask difficult questions. A useful peer might notice whose interests are missing, question whether we are applying a consistent standard, or ask what we would advise another leader facing the same situation.
Sometimes that last question is especially revealing. We can see a decision more clearly when we imagine that someone else is making it.
Peer discussion can help us examine our assumptions, while one-to-one coaching can help us work through the action that follows. We remain accountable for the decision, but we have given ourselves a better opportunity to see it fully before acting.
A Final Thought
If we want to strengthen ethical behaviour in society, our own conduct is a practical place to begin. We can look more carefully at who carries the consequences of our choices, make room for concerns before decisions are settled, and invite people to challenge explanations that seem convincing to us.
For leaders and professionals, this work has a wider effect because others learn from what we do. They notice whether we clarify the misunderstanding, honour the inconvenient commitment, and listen when someone raises a concern. Over time, those choices help establish what people can expect from us and from the organizations we lead.
What decision are you facing today that would benefit from an honest conversation with someone who is willing to challenge your reasoning?
If you would value that kind of conversation as part of your leadership, a Vistage peer advisory group may be worth exploring. You can learn more here or arrange a complimentary 30-minute virtual coffee with me to discuss the decisions you are working through and the support a peer group could provide.
