A Model of Ethical Decision-Making

These various approaches can be summarized into a basic model of ethical decision making that highlights the following factors:

1. An individual is confronted with an ethical dilemma that is situationally

specific; it occurs within a social system.

2. The individual is motivated to make a decision.

3.The individual considers the dilemma and the situation and applies one of the following sets of criteria:

a. intuitive rules, principles, or duties based on authoritative sources;

b. naturalistic predictions about causes and consequences of actions;

c. a combination of both.

4. The individual makes a decision and acts.

LO 2-3 Click thru No permissions needed. Title: A model of ethical decision-making Explanation: Looks like Figure 2.1 in author's 2nd edition. Better yet: shows person walking and, at various click-thru stages, the following text is highlighted: See sample art for this LO. 1. An individual is confronted with an ethical dilemma that is situationally specific; it occurs within a social system. 2. The individual is motivated to make a decision. 3.The individual considers the dilemma and the situation and applies one of the following sets of criteria: a. intuitive rules, principles, or duties based on authoritative sources; b. naturalistic predictions about causes and consequences of actions; c. a combination of both. 4. The individual makes a decision and acts.

The Potter Box

Another model of ethical decision making was proposed by Ralph Potter of the Harvard Divinity School. He suggested that there are four stages in ethical decision making: (1) defining the situation, (2) identifying values, (3) selecting principles, and (4) choosing loyalties to stakeholders. Potter and others have argued that individuals confronted with an ethical dilemma would make better decisions if they more deliberately considered issues that arise within each of the four areas of what has come to be called the Potter Box.22

LO 2-4 Click thru Permission required. Citation: Ralph B. Potter, "The Logic of Moral Argument," in Toward a Discipline of Social Ethics, ed. Paul Deats (Boston University Press, 1972), pp. 93-114. Title: The Potter Box Explanation: should look like Figure 2.2 in author's 2nd edition. Like this, with arrows pointing to-from every possible combination--horizontally, vertically, diagonally: What is the situation? What are the values? What are the principles? What are the loyalties? See sample art for this LO.

Potter's procedure of breaking down an ethical dilemma into four components has become known as using the "Potter Box." The four quadrants of a box are used to list characteristics of the situation, values of key stakeholders, principles of key stakeholders and loyalties of key stakeholders. One purpose of the Potter Box is to identify a consistent set of values, principles and loyalties that best explains and predicts the ethical behavior of each stakeholder. Another purpose is to identify the overlapping and common values, principles and loyalties among different stakeholders.

Potter developed the technique to deal with strategic arms negotiations during the Cold War. Since then, it has been applied to management-labor relations and to marriage counseling. It is also used in textbooks about media ethics and public relations. ⁱⁱⁱ

To better understand how to use the Potter Box, consider the following example. It is not an example of publishing false or misleading information, which is patently illegal and unethical. It's an example of what some might refer to as "office politics," with a twist. It's an example of a "mundane" ethical problem that public relations managers all too often experience.

Hypothetical case: The wife of the chief executive officer does not like the look of her husband’s picture that appears in a series of new brochures about the company, 50,000 of which have been printed and are being readied for national distribution. She calls the public relations manager, who hears the following request: “Could we do something about his picture? Replace it or something? I know he hates it. But he doesn’t want to say anything. You know, people will think he’s vain. Do us a favor, would you, and don’t distribute the brochures. Could you reprint them with a new picture? I just know he’ll appreciate it. And so will I.” The public relations manager says he’s not sure; that he will need to discuss it with others. It might not be possible, he tells her, but he will see what he can do.

The first set of issues in the Potter Box involves defining the situation. In this case, the corporation has paid for more than 50,000 brochures that are ready for distribution. The boss’s wife (and presumably the boss) wants to reprint them. She says it’s because he doesn’t like the picture. Is there some other reason? What’s her motive? What’s the CEO’s motive? Do you deny the boss’s wife’s request, possibly upsetting the boss? Do you reprint the brochures, absorbing the costs yet again? If you do, do you explain to others the real reason for the change, or do you develop an alternative justification for reprinting the brochures?

Identifying values in this case means recognizing the following: that the public relations manager wants to do a good job; that the wife wants the boss to look good; that the company doesn’t want to pay for things twice; that the brochures are important and merit distribution; and that the short-term loss may be recouped later in additional support from the CEO for other public relations projects. These, in turn, could generate more long-term benefits for the company and the public relations manager. With more analysis, more values could be identified. Going through the Potter Box several times enhances the analysis within each of the four areas.

A number of principles apply to this case. The dilemma is in selecting one or more of these principles over the others. Looking ahead to choosing loyalties may help this selection process. Here are some of the principles involved in this case:

1. A rational organization does not duplicate costs unnecessarily.

2. Spouses should not interfere in official business.

3. A favor for a superior will be returned.

4. Give the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

5. Always look after #1—yourself.

6. Never make the boss look bad.

7. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

8. Never lie.

9. Do not waste the company’s money.

10. When in doubt, don’t do it.

Choosing loyalties in any ethical dilemma always is difficult. In this case, there are a number of loyalties to a variety of stakeholders: the boss, the boss’s wife, the employees, the shareholders, the public relations manager’s family, the manager himself, and his colleagues, including those in his profession.

What would be an ethical decision in this case? There are at least three options: (1) deny the wife’s request, (2) honor her request, or (3) ignore the request and withdraw distribution of the brochures. Assuming the value of the brochures is substantial and that they warrant distribution, the third option is not ethical, nor is it good business sense. To honor her request can be defended on ethical grounds if an egoistic view is taken by the public relations manager that taking care of #1 is his most important job. To deny the wife’s request can be defended on several ethical grounds: not wasting the company’s money and being loyal to the shareholders, employees, and others.

The key to using the Potter Box is to identify consistent sets of values, principles, and loyalties. A person or public holding inconsistent values, principles, and loyalties will experience psychic discomfort and disharmony and will have difficulties rationalizing decisions based on such inconsistencies. Potter argues that relationships and negotiations are enhanced when all parties recognize not only differences, but also similarities between and among the various sets of values, principles, and loyalties used by those involved in the situation. Seib and Fitzpatrick said that the Potter Box “forces one to prioritize both the values and the publics that are most important in a given situation. This model is particularly useful to the public relations professional charged with identifying, establishing, and maintaining relationships with numerous stakeholders and constituents.”23

Elliott's key questions for deconstructing ethical dilemmas and identifying solutions

Public philosopher Deni Elliott of the University of Montana has developed an innovative model for deconstructing ethical situations, problems or dilemmas and identifying ethical solutions. It is based on asking and answering the following questions:

• Who are the moral actors?

• What is this: an ethical situation, problem or dilemma?

• What is morally permitted? Why?

• What is morally prohibited? Why?

• Who might be considered worthy of blame in this situation? What are this person's motives and intentions? How do these factors influence that person's blameworthiness? Is this person in a position or frame of mind to seek forgiveness?

• Who is in a position to grant forgiveness? What should be that person's criteria for forgiveness in this situation for it to be meaningful?

• What would the Ideal Virtuous Person do in this situation?

In the previous case of the CEO's wife asking that the company's new brochure be reprinted with a better picture of her husband, answering Elliott's questions yields the following results:

• The moral agents are the CEO, the CEO's wife and the public relations manager. They are moral agents because they are individuals in this situation who are capable of making decisions that may or may not cause harm or create good.

• This is either an ethical situation or problem. It is definitely not a dilemma. The public relations manager, if he handles it correctly, can resolve it. However, the wife of the CEO and others may have suggestions worthy of consideration. In any event, an ethical solution is possible that is mutually beneficial. Even if the less-than-ideal picture of the CEO is published, no real harm has been caused, especially if new and better pictures are published of the CEO in the future.

• What is morally permitted in this situation is for the corporation's management, including the CEO and the public relations manager, to publish what it thinks best as long as it is legal and ethical. As long as the publication does no harm to innocent people and helps achieve a social good, it's morally permitted--in fact, encouraged--because the corporation has a right to communicate and others benefit from that communication.

• Assuming the corporation meets international standards of best practices in management, what is morally prohibited in this situation is nepotism: showing favoritism to relatives in the workplace. It's not right for the wife of the CEO to intervene into corporate business, especially without the CEO knowing about it or authorizing that it be done for him. It is also morally prohibited for the CEO to foster nepotism. It is assumed in this case that nepotism violates the norms of the culture because it generates difficulties in managing the corporation, primarily because it introduces unpredictability and irrationality into decision-making.

• The wife of the CEO is most blameworthy because she precipitated the incident by requesting of the public relations manager that the CEO's picture be replaced. If the CEO was aware that his wife was doing this, then he, too, would be blameworthy. But, most blameworthy is the CEO's wife. Her motivations: to make her husband look better; to make her husband happy; to make herself useful to her husband; to make herself feel more powerful, getting someone to do something for her. These are complicated motives which do not mitigate against the fact that she asked others to engage in nepotism. Is she in a frame of mind to ask for forgiveness? Not immediately. Possibly she could be put into that frame of mind--especially if a solution to the situation were explained to her in such as way that she would be allowed to "save face."

• Who is in a position to grant forgiveness. Certainly the CEO. But, more importantly, in this case, is that the public relations manager may grant forgiveness--if it is sought by the wife of the CEO. His criteria for granting forgiveness: a better understanding on the part of the CEO's wife that publication of the brochure is the best option for both the corporation and the CEO.

• What would the Ideal Virtuous Person do in this situation? The Ideal Public Relations Manager would meet with the wife of the CEO and discuss the situation and options. The Ideal CEO would appreciate the extra efforts of the public relations manager and support the manager's efforts to clarify the situation with the wife. The Ideal Wife of the CEO would understand quickly what the public relations manager was explaining, ask for forgiveness and offer to get the CEO to pose for additional pictures that can be kept on file for future uses. Even if what is ideal is not experienced, thinking out what the Ideal Virtuous Person would do helps to clarify options.