THE DIMENSION
Considering feasible alternatives before treating a difficult choice as a fixed either-or.
The dimension in context
Considering feasible alternatives before treating a difficult choice as a fixed either-or.
You may look for changes in timing, scope, or process that reduce a conflict.
You may work mainly with the first options presented.
An illustrative work situation
A participant is told they must either meet a deadline by omitting a review or miss an important commitment. The framing presents only two options. A narrower release, a revised scope, or a different review sequence might preserve more of the relevant responsibilities. The first task is to examine whether the dilemma is complete.
Generating alternatives does not guarantee an acceptable solution. Some constraints are real, and an attractive third option may shift the burden to someone else. The useful reflection asks how the options were developed, whose interests they protect, and what new consequences they create.
A small practice to examine
State the responsibilities behind each side of the fictional dilemma. Generate one option that changes scope, one that changes timing, and one that changes the process. Examine the cost and feasibility of each with the appropriate people. If no option resolves the conflict, make the remaining tradeoff explicit rather than hiding it behind a forced choice.
Endless option generation can postpone a decision that already has adequate support.
A question for closer study
What evidence would show that an additional option addresses the ethical conflict rather than relocates it?
Read the example alongside the research
The following editorial passages come from the linked framework chapters. They provide context for the original teaching example above; the example is fictional and is not a reported study finding.
An original example is a team deciding whether to publish an incomplete analysis. The issue may involve timing, accuracy, expectations, and the people who will rely on it. MED can invite the participant to identify affected interests, test assumptions, consider a narrower release, and specify a review trigger. It cannot determine the correct decision without the facts and responsibilities of the situation. Nor should a self-report score replace appropriate specialist advice where the choice involves legal, clinical, safety, or other professional obligations.
Continue: Ethical decision research: noticing, reasoning, acting, and learning →
Criterion choice is a central scientific decision. If MED is intended to help adults reflect on process, a relevant outcome might be whether they identify a missing perspective or distinguish an assumption from a fact in a bounded task. A broad supervisor rating of good character would answer a different question and could contain substantial bias. The research team should specify the intended criterion before seeing the data, explain why it matters, and identify what a favorable or unfavorable result would mean for the proposed interpretation.
Continue: What would count as evidence for ethical-deliberation reflection? →
A process measure and an outcome judgment answer different questions. MED asks whether the participant tends to identify affected people, test assumptions, and revisit consequences. It does not observe the decision itself or establish which option was ethically justified. A participant can carefully follow a process and still miss a fact, misunderstand an obligation, or choose poorly. Another may make a sound routine decision quickly because the relevant considerations are familiar. The questionnaire should not equate length of deliberation with moral superiority.
Continue: Why process habits are different from moral worth →
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
Treviño, Weaver & Reynolds - Behavioral ethics in organizations: a review ↗Jones - Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model ↗Evaluating interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical practice: a review of the literature and reflections on the challenges posed ↗Kish-Gephart, Harrison & Treviño - Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work ↗Cottone & Claus - Ethical decision-making models: a review of the literature ↗Cohen et al. - Moral character in the workplace ↗