There are issues that are very difficult to call by their name, such as the ethical dilemmas of managerial action. It is not always easy to decide, there are situations that get rough and we would like our windows of opportunity to open in accordance with our way of thinking. We would like to be able to split ourselves in two and be congruent with what we want and the ways to get it. There are circumstances where our choices are not as bright as we would like them to be. Needless to say, these are situations that are part of the leadership package. We are faced with decision-making that does not admit of half measures.

I am referring to those dilemmas that are faced when a person is presented with moments of decision in which the options available to them do not seem to be compatible with personal principles and values in accordance with the results to be achieved. It’s about those moments of truth when the conscience itches and the goals don’t wait. It is, as the German philosopher Max Weber pointed out, the adversity between convictions and consequences.

This dividing line between the two planes, that of what ought to be and that of what is, puts us in a bind and poses dilemmas in our managerial action. This reality marks a separation for us. It is the ethical struggle that settles in our minds and hearts and sows doubt in us, and now what do I do? On the one hand, there are the convictions that adhere primarily to duties, that is, to principles and beliefs freely accepted by each of us. On the other hand, there is the ethics of results, which is based on priorities, on the ends we want to achieve and the results we are required to achieve. The ethical dilemma arises when the two planes are dissociated and do not run in the same direction.

A few years ago, in class with Dr. Carlos Llano, the dilemma of managerial action was posed in the following sense: either we act in accordance with our own convictions or we proceed according to the goal we want to achieve. It made us reflect on the reasons that lead us to tip the scales one way or the other. And it put us in a kind of dark labyrinth in which we began to give answers like someone who is beating blindly. To rescue us, he offered us a stronghold of salvation: clarity is the best friend for resolving the ethical dilemmas of managerial action. The one who knows his whys and hows is like the captain of a ship who takes the helm responsibly despite being in the middle of a storm that does not allow him to see beyond his nose.

The reasons that sustain a corporate decision must be paired with clarity – they must be fully understood – they must be assumed as one’s own and they must fall within the scope of what Dr. Llano called confessable. For a decision to be confessable, it must be transparent and devoid of underlying reasons hidden or ignored by those who should know about them.

Every decision needs a reason, and every reason needs a basis. What motivates us to make a decision has—or should have—the determined purpose of pursuing a goal, of understanding an end. Without knowing the reasons that motivate us to follow one direction or another, we are in the realm of irrationality. Irrationality is expansive. A chain of decisions that have no end fosters a state of absurdity. Decisions that do not make logical sense seem rather like a foolish order and their harmful effect expands and generates stressful work environments due to a degree of nonsense that is not understood. Clarity comes in handy.

This requires a foundation that sustains us. We cannot take managerial action if we do not calculate the consequences or if we forget the values we profess. Dilemmas emerge at the critical moment when a response must be given. And so we can see that there are paths that will leave us comfortable with our choice and others that simply won’t leave us alone. The values, principles, and virtues that we have incorporated into our lives.

When we are presented with an ethical dilemma, it has to be resolved. In the event of any discrepancy between the values we wish to respect and the results to be obtained, the recipe is first clarity and then prudence. We don’t want to get a result by going over our principles and stopping chasing results is not an option. We don’t want to be good directors and bad people. We recognize that we get paid to deliver results. Then? Solve.

We have to rethink the circumstances. Principles are indicative signs, they are the rails we choose to pursue development, both personally, professionally, and corporately. So, our values are not unique and unrepeatable but universal, nor is our situation the only one susceptible to this circumstance. We understand that both dimensions are important and that withdrawing from either of these areas leaves us off the rails of positive managerial action.

To reframe the circumstances, we can use Dr. Llano’s matrix:

image host

The position we adopt in the face of the ethical dilemmas of managerial action brings us face to face with the double parameter that we must address. We don’t want to be in a position of failure, so we have to get away from it. The pragmatic stance will end up unraveling the principles, the romantic one kills the manager who does not give results, it is a fallacy since it slows down the individual; The armistice position is dangerous because it is customary to turn one’s back on principles.

The synthesis position is the one that seeks congruence between the double parameters. In other words, it seeks to remain faithful to the principles that are freely embraced at a personal and corporate level, drawing up a plan that respects the corporate, professional, and individual project of those who exercise the managerial action. This congruence builds prestige. All parties involved know where they stand in that regard, and that builds trust. And yes, another ingredient is strong self-determination.

We will face, no matter what, these ethical dilemmas in our professional practice. Understanding what the possible positions are we should take and the likely outcomes leads us to make better decisions.