This note explores the concept of a "moral compass" for making difficult decisions in leadership roles. It argues that the standard view of a moral compass as a simple, internal guide is inadequate for complex situations. Instead, it proposes that our true moral compass is our personal moral wisdom, which helps us answer four fundamental questions when facing hard choices: What really matters? What is my responsibility? What will work? And what can I live with as a person and professional? Ultimately, we learn what is right by deciding what is right. Our final, elusive moments of decision resemble black boxes. Because we don't know what happens inside them, it becomes especially important to personally answer the four fundamental questions and shape what goes into the black boxes.
Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk was owned by a charitable foundation, and since its founding in the 1920s had focused on producing insulin to treat diabetes. In 2017, however, it released Ozempic, a diabetes treatment with the revolutionary side effect of safe, effective weight loss. As demand in the U.S. reached a fever pitch, Novo faced opportunities and challenges. The case covers the markets in which Novo could expand, the manufacturing shortfalls it faced, the competition that was expected to arise, and the moral issues that came with selling a product that affected so many people worldwide.
In 2023 and 2024, the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice sued Google, Amazon, and Apple claiming antitrust violations. These lawsuits marked a shift in U.S. antitrust enforcement away from the Chicago School and towards the New Brandeis school of antitrust enforcement. The shift aligned U.S. antitrust enforcement policies closer to those being employed in the European Union, China, and India. These lawsuits built upon FTC Chair Lina Khan's belief that big technology firms had amassed excessive market strength and that U.S. anti-monopoly agencies needed to adjust their enforcement approaches to address industry.
As autonomy became a more significant part of modern life - most notably in autonomous vehicles (AVs), such as Teslas - ethical debates about whether and how to impart ethics to machines heated up. Utilitarians pointed out that autonomous vehicles crashed much less often than human-driven cars, making their adoption a net positive in terms of lives saved; deontologists worried about the implications of programming a car to swerve to kill its passengers instead of pedestrians, for example, among other high-stakes "trolley problems." Ethical issues abounded across different levels of automation and across borders. How should AVs be programmed for complex, uncertain, ethically challenging situations? Was there anything innately human about moral reasoning, or could companies imbue AVs with sound ethical frameworks?
In this fictional case, a customer experience manager is torn between loyalty to her family and to her employer after she gets inside information from her cousin suggesting that one of the company's suppliers might not be able to make good on its contractual obligations. If she shares what she's learned with her manager, her company might elect not to renew its contract with the supplier. But passing along the information would mean betraying a promise to her cousin and might put her cousin's job at risk. This fictional case study by Joseph L. Badaracco features expert commentary by Stacey Peck and Mita Mallick.
In this fictional case, a customer experience manager is torn between loyalty to her family and to her employer after she gets inside information from her cousin suggesting that one of the company's suppliers might not be able to make good on its contractual obligations. If she shares what she's learned with her manager, her company might elect not to renew its contract with the supplier. But passing along the information would mean betraying a promise to her cousin and might put her cousin's job at risk. This fictional case study by Joseph L. Badaracco features expert commentary by Stacey Peck and Mita Mallick.
In this fictional case, a customer experience manager is torn between loyalty to her family and to her employer after she gets inside information from her cousin suggesting that one of the company's suppliers might not be able to make good on its contractual obligations. If she shares what she's learned with her manager, her company might elect not to renew its contract with the supplier. But passing along the information would mean betraying a promise to her cousin and might put her cousin's job at risk. This fictional case study by Joseph L. Badaracco features expert commentary by Stacey Peck and Mita Mallick.
A newly appointed hospital CEO must decide how aggressively she should pursue a sexual harassment accusation against a long-time senior hospital executive, who was also a rival for the CEO position.
This note focuses on managers' responsibilities-economic, legal, and ethical-to investors. In capitalist and some socialist economies, these responsibilities traditionally have been grounded in fiduciary duties and are typically part of the common law or statutory law or are incorporated in civil codes. But, as this note will show, fiduciary obligations are deeply intertwined with economic and ethical responsibilities.
The toughest calls managers have to make come in situations when they have worked hard to gather the facts and have done the best analysis they can, but they still don't know what to do. Then judgment--a fusion of thinking, feelings, experience, imagination, and character--becomes critical. The author offers five practical questions to improve your odds of making sound judgments: (1) What are the net, net consequences of all my options? (2) What are my core obligations? (3) What will work in the world as it is? (4) Who are we? (5) What can I live with? All five questions must be answered, according to the author: "Each question is an important voice in the centuries-long conversation about what counts as a sound decision regarding a hard problem with high stakes for other people." If you work through these questions, you'll know that you've approached the problem in the right way--not just as a good manager but as a thoughtful human being.
When we think of human behavior, especially from a moral perspective, we often rely on explanations based on character. We think that good decisions and responsible behavior require people with integrity and strong character, and immoral behavior originates with people with little integrity and weak character. However, important research in recent decades strongly suggests that situational factors often dominate character in ethical decision-making - for leaders and for members of their organizations. This note summarizes the recent research, shows its implications for the basic steps in ethical decision-making, and provides a basis for in-depth discussion of the character-versus-situation question.