When facing tough ethical questions, there is no moral compass. The answer lies within

It’s common these days to hear references in ethical situations to using your “moral compass.” It’s an appealing but deceiving metaphor, implying there is some built-in tool that automatically points to true north.
If only it were that simple. Some ethical decisions are clear-cut, black and white, like walking down the street beside a person who without realizing it drops a wallet that you can – and should – return. But many are complex, with competing philosophical, moral and practical interests – and daunting uncertainty. Our instincts can wobble between different directions rather than point to true north.
“Our true moral compass is a deep, complex and fragile aspect of our humanity,” Harvard Business School professor of ethics Joseph Badaracco writes in Your True Moral Compass.
We face it in what he terms “leadership moments” – crucial pivot points for us and our organization. Discussion, analysis and reflection have come to an end. Action is needed. We have to make a final decision – and own the consequences. These crucibles happen at all levels in organizations, not just the top, and the challenge can feel overwhelming.
Prof. Badaracco points to Katharine Graham, who when publisher of The Washington Post, faced the decision of whether to publish an article based on the highly classified Pentagon Papers, a situation dramatized in the movie The Post. Her decision involved a thicket of constitutional, legal and political issues. Publishing would risk the paper’s finances and perhaps lead to legal charges and jail; not publishing violated journalistic credibility. She was new to the job, and could be determining the future of her leadership. The scales seemed evenly balanced. Advisors had differing views, each in itself a complex web of facts, possibilities, responsibilities and practical considerations. “Urging us to follow our moral compass in these situations is little more than a lofty, inspirational sentiment,” Prof. Badaracco declares.
She had to find the correct way – the moral way – within herself. “When we make hard decisions, we learn what is right by deciding what is right, relying on moral wisdom,” Prof. Badaracco says. We explore within ourselves to find this personal moral wisdom. We find out more about ourselves. No compass points out a clear decision. Nothing tells us that the inner guidance emerging is sound, not laced with misdirection like feelings, biases, self-interest or the effects of a bad day.
“Your true moral compass is your way of making sense of the world. It is your personal way of discerning what really matters, what is responsible, and what is pragmatically wise when you face a hard, complex decision. In short, it is the lens through which you define reality,” he writes.
After three years researching such leadership quandaries, he has determined that when we rely on our personal moral wisdom, we are answering four fundamental questions:
The answers to those questions will hold different weights at different times. Other people you respect and who are often in accord with your thinking may evaluate the same factors and come to a different conclusion. “Our true moral compass – our personal moral wisdom – isn’t automatic or objective. It is fallible, delicate, mysterious, and we have to learn to use it well,” he says.
For Ms. Graham, he notes, a crucial moment came when she asked Frederick Beebe, an attorney and one of her closest advisors, who had been arguing against publication, for his personal view on whether to allow it, and he said, “I guess I wouldn’t.” That wavering seemed to leave the door open to where she was inclined to head. A nuance, but a critical one for her.
Moving on to his second question, it can be exceedingly difficult to determine responsibilities and develop priorities between them. There can be colleagues, clients and the broader community to consider. There are also universal responsibilities, certain behaviour considered right or wrong by religions or classic virtues. There is a responsibility to the law. Our roles may come with certain responsibilities that might be different if we held a different job. Do we need to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people or be focused on a certain group, a community most directly affected or close to us? Finally, what is our responsibility to ourselves? It’s difficult to find what Aristotle called “a golden mean” – a middle ground – between those disparate and perhaps contradictory responsibilities.
What will work is his third question but also the final act. Until you act, you are like a painter of sculptor with several images in mind. “Action finalizes and declares,” he says, indicating you are personally defining what matters, what is responsible and what is practical.
What can you live with – the fourth question – hits at how much you care and what ideals and standards really matter to you. If you are uncertain, if the team is divided, Prof. Badaracco notes you will need to be committed and idealistic enough to move ahead, but also pragmatic and realistic enough. “Plans work only if you have the determination to endure, persist and adapt as you confront surprises, resistance and roadblocks,” he notes.
As well as determination, you will need the power to get things done, relative to the power of others to block you. As you determine your ideals – your moral wisdom – whether it emerges shaky or strong, you must also balance it with the reality you confront. It would be nice if there was a handy device to point the way, but life isn’t that simple.
Cannonballs
Harvey Schachter is a Kingston-based writer specializing in management issues. He, along with Sheelagh Whittaker, former CEO of both EDS Canada and Cancom, are the authors of When Harvey Didn’t Meet Sheelagh: Emails on Leadership.