This has been too much fun. Let’s take a look at a fresh scenario through the lens of the ETHICAL decision-making model. The scenario below comes to me from a relative, who experienced it firsthand in their workplace.

Scenario

Vincent works for a small business office as one of the lone professionals in the service-oriented business. The rest of the medical staff have certifications needed to perform medical services, but don’t have college degrees. This has resulted in some friction when it comes to pay, leave (vacation, sick days), and work from home policies. The owners, both medical doctors, are reluctant to deal with the friction or take any action on it. Vincent’s main conflicts come from his interactions with Richard, the office manager. Richard appears to resent Vincent’s work, which encompasses some of the aspects Richard was traditionally responsible for. What’s more, Richard immediately jumps to conclusions about Vincent and his motivation for bringing up issues in the workplace.

This has resulted in Vincent needing to document instances where Richard has been less than professional in the workplace. In spite of repeated conversations with the owners, Vincent doesn’t feel supported and thinks Richard is getting away with unprofessional, even hostile, behavior that undermines the sense of belonging and community in a small business.

What should Vincent do?

ETHICAL Response

Here’s the ETHICAL decision-making model, a Perplexity Spaces take on the situation:

Here’s the response formatted in a markdown table where each letter of ETHICAL is explained and applied to the situation:

Conclusion and Recommendation

After applying the ETHICAL decision-making model to Vincent’s workplace conflict, it’s clear that the situation is complex and involves multiple stakeholders with varying interests and perspectives. The ongoing friction between Vincent and Richard, exacerbated by the owners' reluctance to address the issues, has created a challenging work environment that potentially impacts the quality of patient care and the overall success of the medical practice.

The analysis reveals that while Vincent has taken appropriate steps by documenting unprofessional behavior, a more proactive and collaborative approach is necessary to resolve the conflict and improve the workplace atmosphere. The recommended course of action balances the need for addressing the immediate issues with the long-term goal of creating a more harmonious and productive work environment.

Final Recommendation:

Vincent should take the initiative to request a formal meeting with the owners, armed with:

1. Documented instances of unprofessional behavior
2. Specific examples of how the conflict affects workplace efficiency and potentially patient care
3. A proposed plan for improving the situation, including:
   • Clearly defined roles and responsibilities
   • Standardized policies for pay, leave, and work-from-home arrangements
   • Regular team meetings and communication channels
   • Potential engagement of a third-party HR consultant or mediator

By presenting this comprehensive approach, Vincent demonstrates leadership and a commitment to the practice’s success. If the owners remain unresponsive or if the situation does not improve after a reasonable time frame, Vincent should be prepared to explore other employment opportunities that value his professional contributions and provide a more supportive work environment.

This approach gives the current situation the best chance for improvement while also protecting Vincent’s professional interests and well-being in the long term.

I created a Perplexity Spaces area equipped with ETHICAL mode for decision making. Then, I shared a situation that is all too common in schools and organizations. Wow, what a great response from ETHICAL model via Perplexity Spaces.

Scenario

This is the scenario ETHICAL was presented with:

Jane and John are forced to work together, even though John fails to do any planning or work to prepare for upcoming presentations and events. Jane spoke to her boss several times about it but no discernible action has taken place as a result. And before speaking to her boss, Jane spoke directly to John, but he simply apologized and continued to not do anything. Now the boss (who is also the HR Department since there is no HR) has said to staff, “This is a drama free workplace. You have a problem with someone, deal with them directly.” Analyze this situation using ETHICAL model and recommend a course of action for Jane. Also, analyze the boss’s actions for illogical reasoning/behavior.

ETHICAL RESPONSE

Let’s apply the ETHICAL decision-making model to this scenario.

Engage stakeholders: The key parties involved in this situation are:

• Jane: The employee who is diligently preparing for presentations and events
• John: The coworker who consistently fails to contribute to the preparation work
• The boss: The authority figure who has been informed of the issue, has not taken effective action, and also functions as the HR department
• Other team members: Who may be indirectly affected by the situation

Think emotionally and logically: Emotionally:

• Jane likely feels frustrated, overwhelmed, and trapped due to limited options for recourse
• John may feel complacent or possibly anxious about his lack of contribution
• The boss might feel overwhelmed with dual responsibilities as manager and HR, and annoyed by perceived interpersonal conflicts

Logically:

• The team’s performance and work quality are likely suffering due to John’s lack of preparation
• Jane’s workload has increased unfairly, potentially affecting her job satisfaction and productivity
• The boss’s inaction and “drama-free workplace” stance may be detrimental to team dynamics and overall performance
• The lack of an independent HR department removes a potential avenue for conflict resolution
• The boss’s dual role creates a conflict of interest in addressing workplace issues

Harmonize perspectives:

• Jane’s perspective: Seeks a fair distribution of work and accountability, but feels limited in her options
• John’s perspective: May not fully understand the impact of his actions or have underlying issues affecting his performance
• The boss’s perspective: Wants to maintain a harmonious workplace without direct intervention, but may be overwhelmed by dual roles

To integrate these viewpoints, we need to find a solution that addresses the work imbalance while maintaining a professional and collaborative environment, all within the constraints of the organization’s structure.

Investigate options:

1. Jane continues to manage the extra workload while documenting John’s lack of contribution
2. Jane attempts another direct conversation with John, emphasizing the impact on team performance
3. Jane proposes a formal team workflow process to the boss, indirectly addressing the issue
4. Jane seeks external advice from a career counselor or workplace mediator
5. Jane considers looking for employment opportunities elsewhere

Collaborate on recommendations: Based on the analysis, the recommended course of action for Jane is:

1. Document all instances of John’s lack of contribution, including specific dates, tasks, and impacts on the team’s work.
2. Request a formal meeting with the boss to discuss team productivity and workflow, framing it as a concern about overall team performance rather than an interpersonal issue.
3. Propose implementing a project management tool or system that clearly outlines tasks, deadlines, and individual responsibilities for all team members.
4. If the situation doesn’t improve, consider seeking advice from an external career counselor or workplace mediator for strategies to navigate this challenging environment.
5. As a last resort, if the work environment continues to be detrimental to Jane’s well-being and career growth, she may need to consider seeking employment elsewhere.

Authorize decision: While Jane can initiate these actions, the final decision on how to address the situation within the organization ultimately rests with the boss. Their decision should be based on:

• The documented evidence of the work imbalance
• The impact on team performance and project outcomes
• The need to maintain a productive and fair work environment

However, Jane has more agency in deciding her own course of action given the limited organizational structure.

Launch implementation: To execute this decision:

1. Jane should begin documenting John’s lack of contribution immediately
2. Schedule a meeting with the boss within the next week to discuss team productivity
3. Research and propose a project management system that could benefit the entire team
4. Set a timeline for implementing new workflow processes and evaluating their effectiveness
5. If necessary, Jane should allocate time to explore external career advice or job opportunities

Analysis of the boss’s actions:

The boss’s statement, “This is a drama-free workplace. You have a problem with someone, deal with them directly,” is particularly problematic given their dual role as manager and HR:

1. It demonstrates a failure to fulfill both managerial and HR responsibilities
2. It creates a significant conflict of interest, as the boss is both the source of the problem (by not addressing John’s behavior) and the designated problem-solver (as HR)
3. It leaves employees like Jane with no internal recourse for addressing workplace issues
4. It potentially violates labor laws or regulations that require proper channels for employee grievances
5. It risks creating a toxic work environment that could lead to increased turnover and decreased productivity
6. It oversimplifies complex workplace dynamics by labeling them as “drama”
7. It abdicates managerial responsibility to address performance issues
8. It fails to recognize that direct communication has already been attempted without success
9. It potentially creates a culture where legitimate concerns are suppressed
10. It ignores the impact of individual performance on overall team productivity

This situation highlights the challenges of small organizations without dedicated HR departments. The boss’s approach is not only illogical but potentially harmful to the organization’s long-term success. A more appropriate response would involve:

1. Acknowledging the complexity of workplace dynamics
2. Taking an active role in addressing performance issues
3. Implementing clear, fair processes for conflict resolution
4. Considering external HR consultants for complex issues to avoid conflicts of interest
5. Prioritizing the creation of a positive, productive work environment over avoiding “drama”

In conclusion, Jane should focus on documenting the issue, framing it as a team performance concern, and proposing systemic solutions. If these efforts prove ineffective, she may need to seek external advice or consider other employment options.

The boss’s actions reveal significant flaws in the organization’s structure and management approach, which may require broader changes to address effectively.

Ok, so I’m ready to apply ETHICAL decision-making framework to a real life situation. Ready to see ETHICAL in action? Me, too.

Situation

A friend of mine has approached me with a situation and wants my advice. Given my coaching background and training, I know that “Advice is toxic.” So, my goal is to clarify the situation as best as I can, asking questions. However, one possibility that I have encountered with this approach is “getting lost in the weeds.” In other words, you wander around every option so much that every outcome ends up with an equal weight. That just won’t do.

So, here’s an explanation of the decision challenge my colleague is facing:> Jerry, a respected educator, finds himself in a professional dilemma. He has received an invitation to speak at the EDUPRO Conference, an event organized by LEARN, a professional organization dedicated to advancing education in their state. LEARN is affiliated with a larger parent organization, EDUCATE.The invitation reads:

Dear Jerry,

We are reaching out to express our interest in having you as a potential speaker at our upcoming EDUPRO Conference. This year’s theme is ‘Innovating Education for Tomorrow’s Leaders,’ and we are seeking speakers who can inspire and motivate our attendees while sharing insights on the latest trends and best practices in education.

Your experience in the field of education is highly respected, and your passion for helping students learn is evident in your work. We believe you would be an ideal featured speaker, capable of bridging the gap between the needs of education professionals and practical applications within professional learning. We would be honored to have you consider this opportunity." Jerry is tempted by this invitation. He feels that speaking at the conference could be a great opportunity to share his knowledge, network with other professionals, and potentially advance his career. The conference theme aligns well with his expertise, and he believes he could deliver a compelling presentation.

However, there’s a significant complication. Jerry’s boss is opposed to their organization’s involvement with LEARN, the group organizing the event. The reasons for this opposition are unclear to Jerry, but he knows it’s a firmly held stance.Now, Jerry faces a difficult decision:

1. Accept the invitation and speak at the conference, potentially advancing his career but risking conflict with his boss.
2. Decline the invitation to avoid any workplace tension, but miss out on a valuable professional opportunity.
3. Attempt to discuss the matter with his boss to understand the reasons for the opposition and potentially negotiate a compromise.
4. Seek advice from trusted colleagues or mentors on how to navigate this situation.

Jerry is worried about the potential consequences of accepting the invitation, but he’s also reluctant to pass up such a promising opportunity. He needs to carefully weigh the potential benefits against the risks and consider the best course of action for his professional future and current workplace relationships.

What would you advise Jerry to do in this situation?

A Decision Tree

This is really a straightforward problem, right? Or is it? Consider this decision tree:

To be blunt, Jerry’s concern that a discussion with the boss would be problematic given the boss' history with other employees is well-taken. Why put himself at risk in this situation for a small time payout? If the boss has shown himself inflexible in regards to the EDUCATE parent organization, Jerry would have a snowball’s chance in heck to get approval to present.

I can already hear some of you saying, “Jerry should quit!” And, I agree with you. No one should have to work with an employer like that. But let’s give Jerry the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has a mortgage, three or four young kids, and the job is more important than presenting for a one-time payment and the hope of future payoff in prestige and reputation. His good work has gotten him noticed, maybe that will continue into the future.I wonder if ETHICAL can bring some clarity to this decision.

An ETHICAL Decision Process

Let’s use the prompt for an ETHICAL situation. It’s essentially the prompt I shared yesterday plus the situation above:

Complete Prompt

I need to analyze a decision-making situation using the ETHICAL model. Please help me break down the scenario using the following structure:

• Engage stakeholders: Who are the key parties involved or affected by this decision?
• Think emotionally and logically: What are the intuitive feelings and logical considerations about this situation?
• Harmonize perspectives: How can we integrate diverse viewpoints on this issue?
• Investigate options: What are the main alternatives, and how do they compare?
• Collaborate on recommendations: What solutions can we propose together?
• Authorize decision: Who has the final say, and what is their decision based on our analysis?
• Launch implementation: How will we execute this decision and monitor its effects?

Please provide a brief analysis for each step of the ETHICAL model, considering the specific context and challenges of the situation. Conclude with a summary of the recommended course of action and any potential obstacles to implementation.

The situation I need to analyze using the ETHICAL model is as follows: Jerry, a respected educator, finds himself in a professional dilemma. He has received an invitation to speak at the EDUPRO Conference, an event organized by LEARN, a professional organization dedicated to advancing education in their state. LEARN is affiliated with a larger parent organization, EDUCATE.The invitation reads:

“Dear Jerry,

We are reaching out to express our interest in having you as a potential speaker at our upcoming EDUPRO Conference. This year’s theme is ‘Innovating Education for Tomorrow’s Leaders,’ and we are seeking speakers who can inspire and motivate our attendees while sharing insights on the latest trends and best practices in education.Your experience in the field of education is highly respected, and your passion for helping students learn is evident in your work.

We believe you would be an ideal featured speaker, capable of bridging the gap between the needs of education professionals and practical applications within professional learning.We would be honored to have you consider this opportunity.”

Jerry is tempted by this invitation. He feels that speaking at the conference could be a great opportunity to share his knowledge, network with other professionals, and potentially advance his career.

The conference theme aligns well with his expertise, and he believes he could deliver a compelling presentation.However, there’s a significant complication. Jerry’s boss is opposed to their organization’s involvement with LEARN, the group organizing the event. The reasons for this opposition are unclear to Jerry, but he knows it’s a firmly held stance.Now, Jerry faces a difficult decision:

1. Accept the invitation and speak at the conference, potentially advancing his career but risking conflict with his boss.
2. Decline the invitation to avoid any workplace tension, but miss out on a valuable professional opportunity.
3. Attempt to discuss the matter with his boss to understand the reasons for the opposition and potentially negotiate a compromise.
4. Seek advice from trusted colleagues or mentors on how to navigate this situation.

Jerry is worried about the potential consequences of accepting the invitation, but he’s also reluctant to pass up such a promising opportunity. He needs to carefully weigh the potential benefits against the risks and consider the best course of action for his professional future and current workplace relationships.

What would you advise Jerry to do in this situation?

The Results

See results.

So, the recommended course of action is:

Given the firm opposition from Jerry’s boss and the lack of compromise, the recommended course of action is for Jerry to decline the invitation to speak at the EDUPRO Conference. This decision prioritizes maintaining a positive relationship with his current employer while avoiding potential serious consequences to his job.

Potential obstacles in implementing this decision include:

• Jerry’s disappointment and potential frustration with the limitations placed on his professional growth
• The challenge of finding equally valuable opportunities for career advancement within the constraints of his current job- The need to navigate future invitations or opportunities that may conflict with his boss’s preferences

By carefully handling this situation, Jerry can maintain his professional integrity, respect his employer’s position, and focus on finding alternative paths for career growth that align with both his aspirations and his workplace expectations

Ok, so yesterday, I mentioned that I consulted Perplexity.ai to help me understand or develop a decision-making model I could use. I keep wanting to examine my decision-making processes and do my best to improve them.

Introducing ETHICAL

The decision-making framework I am going to try out is ETHICAL. (No, the irony of an AI-developed framework creating something named ETHICAL is not lost on me).

Let’s explore the ETHICAL framework.

ETHICAL

• E - Engage stakeholders
• T - Think emotionally and logically
• H - Harmonize perspectives
• I - Investigate options
• C - Collaborate on recommendations
• A - Authorize decision
• L - Launch implementation

Prompt for ETHICAL

This prompt can be used in the future for different situations:

I need to analyze a decision-making situation using the ETHICAL model. Please help me break down the scenario using the following structure:

Engage stakeholders: Who are the key parties involved or affected by this decision? Think emotionally and logically: What are the intuitive feelings and logical considerations about this situation? Harmonize perspectives: How can we integrate diverse viewpoints on this issue? Investigate options: What are the main alternatives, and how do they compare? Collaborate on recommendations: What solutions can we propose together? Authorize decision: Who has the final say, and what is their decision based on our analysis? Launch implementation: How will we execute this decision and monitor its effects?

Please provide a brief analysis for each step of the ETHICAL model, considering the specific context and challenges of the situation. Conclude with a summary of the recommended course of action and any potential obstacles to implementation.

The situation I need to analyze using the ETHICAL model is as follows: [Describe your specific decision-making scenario here]

A Rubric

I was curious about what a scoring rubric based on ETHICAL might look like. One would use it to evaluate the quality of decision-making processes.

Certainly! I’ll create an ETHICAL scoring rubric based on the model we developed earlier. This rubric can be used to evaluate the quality of decision-making processes using the ETHICAL framework. Here’s a scoring rubric with explanations for each criterion:

ETHICAL Decision-Making Scoring Rubric

A rubric might be helpful to clarify ETHICAL criterion: Here’s the information presented in a markdown table format:

Total Score: ____ / 35

Interpretation:

• 30-35: Excellent decision-making process
• 25-29: Good decision-making process
• 20-24: Adequate decision-making process
• 15-19: Fair decision-making process
• 0-14: Poor decision-making process, needs significant improvement

This rubric provides a structured way to assess the quality of decision-making processes and identify areas for improvement. It can be used to evaluate past decisions or guide future decision-making efforts to ensure a comprehensive and balanced approach. (source: Perplexity)

Isn’t that amazing? What a wonderful thought partner Perplexity makes. I’ll have to run a real life situation through it to see what happens.

One of the challenges I struggle with involves figuring out how to make decisions. You know, you encounter an difficult decision and it’s hard to take all the factors into account. Worse, you have an opinion or emotion that arises when trying to make a decision. Again, I’m back to wishing I hadn’t “dropped” my freshman Philosophy Logic course. I still remember walking out of that first class, fleeing into the sunlight from useless arcane knowledge. How wrong I was.

A Fair, Impartial, and Kind (FIK) Approach

Over the years, I’ve made quite a few decisions. When considering other people, I try to maintain a balanced perspective that is “fair and kind.” That may not be how a decision is perceived, but as a school district administrator, you get a sense of order and over time, are able to intuit the right decision. That’s all well and good, but if you depend on that too much, you may be unable to logically defend or argue a perspective. The water gets muddy when it’s emotion-laden, and you have to parse through your own (and other’s) biases in the situation. Often, “impartial, fair, and kind” leads to the right resolution.

That approach might look like this one (yes, I simply copied the paragraph above and asked Perplexity to make a model of it…kinda cool actually):

Is this the best approach? Probably not. A critique of the model reveals: Based on the search results and the FIK (Fair and Kind Intuition) model presented in the latest diagram, here are some potential concerns in bullet list form:

• Lack of empirical validation: The FIK model appears to be a theoretical construct and may not have been empirically tested or validated in educational settings.
• Oversimplification of complex processes: The model presents decision-making as a linear process, which may not capture the complexity and interconnectedness of real-world educational decision-making.
• Potential conflict between intuition and analysis: The model includes both intuitive judgment and logical analysis, but doesn’t address how to resolve potential conflicts between these approaches.
• Time constraints: The circular nature of the model suggests a thorough process, which may not be feasible in time-sensitive educational situations[1].
• Lack of consideration for organizational context: The model doesn’t explicitly account for the organizational and political realities of educational institutions, which can significantly influence decision-making.
• Potential bias in intuitive judgments: Research suggests that intuitive thinking doesn’t necessarily lead to more moral or fair decisions, which could be a concern for a model emphasizing intuition.
• Absence of stakeholder involvement: The model doesn’t explicitly include steps for involving various stakeholders in the decision-making process, which is often crucial in educational settings.
• Potential for decision paralysis: With so many steps and considerations, there’s a risk that decision-makers might become overwhelmed or overly cautious[1].
• Lack of differentiation between types of decisions: The model appears to apply the same process to all decisions, without accounting for the varying complexity and impact of different educational decisions.
• Potential conflict with existing decision-making cultures: The model’s emphasis on empathy and kindness may conflict with more traditional, rational decision-making approaches often favored in organizational settings.

For me, the big issues I’ve encountered in trying to apply this approach to situations I care deeply about are:

• Potential for decision paralysis
• Lack of differentiation between types of decisions
• Lack of consideration for organizational context
• *Oversimplification of complex processes

So, what might work better?

Logical Decision-Making

How do you move beyond a FIK style to a more logical approach? Having taken a close look at websites and resources on logic, my guess is that it would take me a long time to be able to make any decisions using a “logical” approach.

Of course, it occurs to me, what would happen if I relied on AI to do assist me? Exploring that avenue has been a lot of fun. Decision-making can be grim and have a lot of other “emotional baggage” with it depending on a situation.

After experimenting with some approaches, I’m going to try a few real life situations using these two prompts.

The Two Approaches

The first approach is decision analysis using logical statements and a decision tree. I have found the decision trees AI chatbots generate to be quite helpful. My first attempt involved using a decision tree to help my wife decide whether to attend an event or not. Normally, that would boil down to, “Hey, do you want to go or not?” All that goes out the window when she asks, “Should I feel guilty about not wanting to go?” The type of event also factors in (e.g. birthday party for an old student, a funeral for the spouse of a colleague but not a close friend).

It’s easy to get lose in the weeds, and pretty soon, I don’t know which way is up or down. What do I do? By using a decision tree, the decision is out of my hands in some way, and I am simply figuring out the best approach to solve it, not whether this is morally the right way.

Prompt 1: Decision Analysis Using Logical Statements and Decision Tree

“I need to analyze a decision-making situation. Please help me break it down using the following approach:

1. Create a Mermaid syntax decision tree that visually represents the key decision points and outcomes.

2. Define the main propositions involved in the decision using simple, clear statements.

3. Develop simplified logical statements using propositional logic. Use symbols like V (for the main goal), O (for potential obstacles), P (for the primary action), D (for discussions if needed), and C (for compromise if applicable).

4. Explain the logical statements in plain language, showing how they relate to the decision-making process.

5. Highlight any potential contradictions or conflicts in the logic and suggest ways to resolve them.

6. Provide a brief conclusion that summarizes the logical structure and offers a clear decision-making path, including any steps for conflict resolution.

The situation I need to analyze is as follows: [Describe your specific decision-making scenario here]

That’s cool, right? Some of the benefits this approach has over FIK Model?

This approach offers a more structured and logically rigorous method for decision-making compared to the FIK model. It may be particularly useful for complex decisions that benefit from visual representation and logical analysis. However, it may be less suitable for decisions with significant emotional or ethical components, or in situations where time is limited.

Prompt 2: RAPID Model Analysis for Decision-Making

Here’s the next prompt, which relies on the RAPID model. I had never heard of this model before, so I’m curious to see it in action.

“I need to analyze a decision-making situation using the RAPID model. Please help me break down the scenario using the following structure:

1. Briefly explain the RAPID model (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide).

2. For each component of RAPID, identify the relevant stakeholders or actions in my scenario:

• Recommend: Who is making the recommendation?
• Agree: Who needs to agree with the recommendation?
• Perform: Who will carry out the decision?
• Input: Who should provide input to the decision?
• Decide: Who has the final decision-making authority?

3. Analyze the key factors to consider in this decision, such as:

• Organizational goals
• Potential conflicts or oppositions
• Professional development opportunities
• Team or company reputation
• Long-term consequences

4. Create a simple decision matrix weighing the pros and cons of the main options.

5. Provide a logical conclusion based on the RAPID analysis, highlighting the recommended course of action and any potential challenges in the decision-making process.

6. Suggest next steps for implementing the decision or resolving any conflicts identified in the analysis.

The situation I need to analyze using the RAPID model is as follows: [Describe your specific decision-making scenario here]

The assessment of the RAPID model appears below:

the RAPID model offers a structured, role-based approach to organizational decision-making. It excels in clarifying responsibilities and promoting collaboration but may be less suitable for decisions requiring quick action or heavy reliance on intuition. Compared to FIK, RAPID is more focused on organizational dynamics and less on the individual decision-maker’s thought process.

Showdown

But what happens when all models are compared? Could there be a resulting model that takes the best of all, leaving the worst components behind?

Perplexity suggests ETHICAL (totally made up approach). Let’s take a look at it. Ah, let’s do that in a subsequent blog entry.