Navigating the Rapids of Moral Dilemmas: A Leader’s Guide

Moral dilemmas often force us to navigate moments of tension, where the decisions we make feel both critical and deeply uncertain. These moments test not only our capacity for action but also our ability to remain aligned with our values. What drives us in these moments? How do we balance ambition with honesty and practicality?

I recently experienced a situation that left me feeling internally conflicted. As a project manager, I was tasked with coordinating a significant project that required collaboration between my organization and a partnering one. During a pivotal meeting between senior leaders from both sides, my boss, who was somewhat reluctant about the project, proposed a feasibility study.

Turning to me in front of everyone, including the partnering senior leader, he asked, “Eugene, how long would it take to complete this study?”

It was one of those questions where no answer seemed entirely right. A long timeline might suggest incompetence, while a short one could overburden my team and risk failure. I estimated that we could finish in six weeks, but to provide a buffer, I said, “Two months.”

Immediately, I worried that my answer might sound too long. However, my boss surprised me by asking, “Are you sure that is enough time to do a proper study?” The weight of the question, posed publicly, left me grappling with how to respond. I realized he was signaling that he valued thoroughness and quality over speed. So, I adjusted my answer, adding, “If we want a more thorough study, we could use a bit more time.” The meeting ultimately agreed to three months—a decision that balanced the project’s thoroughness with feasibility.

This experience left me reflecting on the challenges I faced in navigating the pressure of time constraints, the ambivalence of internal conflict, and the tension between my personal values and professional role. These are precisely the challenges Joshua Margolis and Andrew Molinsky discuss in their essay, “Three Practical Challenges of Moral Leadership,” part of Deborah L. Rhode’s edited collection.

---

The Three Challenges: Time, Ambivalence, and Sense of Self

1. Time

Margolis and Molinsky argued that leaders often worked under tight deadlines, leaving little room for reflection. Time constraints frequently forced decisions that prioritized efficiency over fairness or ethical considerations.

Illustration: A manager tasked with implementing layoffs in a single day may have felt pressured to act quickly, even if they wanted more time to prepare and communicate with employees compassionately.

2. Ambivalence

Ambivalence described the emotional conflict leaders felt when their values and priorities clashed. The tension between doing what was necessary and what felt compassionate created significant inner conflict.

Illustration: A manager might have thought, “This decision will help the company, but it will hurt employees and their families.” Ambivalence reflected the difficulty of moral choices that had no perfect solutions.

3. Sense of Self

Leaders often had to reconcile their personal values with their professional obligations. This tension arose when the role they were required to play conflicted with their individual identity.

Illustration: A manager delivering layoffs might have thought, “I am not here as myself; I am here as the company.” This created a disconnect between their values and their actions, leading to inner struggle.

Margolis and Molinsky’s essay demonstrated that these three challenges often overlapped, making leadership decisions particularly complex. They argued that moral leadership required reflection, courage, and a commitment to navigating these tensions with integrity.

---

Reflection

As I reflected on my own internal conflict, I saw how these three challenges played a role.

1. Time was a constant pressure. The immediacy of the situation forced me to respond quickly, leaving little opportunity to fully weigh all the factors involved. On hindsight, I realized that I could have managed this pressure better by buying time. Instead of immediately offering a timeline, I could have said, “Let me review this in detail and get back to you.” This approach would have allowed me to reflect and respond with greater balance.

2. Ambivalence and Sense of Self became deeply intertwined. I struggled with reconciling my drive to deliver fast, high-quality work with the situation’s demand for a more thorough approach. On hindsight, I realized that after the meeting, I could have sought a private conversation with my senior leader. Asking questions like, “Did I read the situation correctly? Was my response aligned with your expectations?” could have helped me gain clarity, validate my instincts, and align my personal values with organizational goals.

These reflections reminded me that leadership is not about having the perfect answer in the moment. Instead, it is about recognizing imperfections, learning from them, and using those insights to navigate future challenges with greater integrity.

---

Here Are My Three Tips for Navigating Moral Dilemmas in Leadership

1. Be Aware of Impulsive Decisions: Avoid the temptation to act hastily under pressure. Pausing briefly allows for thoughtful reflection and avoids critical missteps.

2. Acknowledge Internal Ambivalence: Use conflicting emotions as a guide rather than a distraction. They can help you weigh priorities and make more balanced decisions.

3. Be Clear About What You Stand For: Reflect on your core principles to ensure they guide you in moments of uncertainty. This clarity will act as a compass when dilemmas arise.

---

Conclusion

Moral leadership is like navigating a set of rapids. The relentless pace of organizations, the destabilizing currents of ambivalence, and the sharp twists of conflicting values churn the waters. Leaders who prepare themselves—by pausing to reflect, embracing ambivalence as a guide, and staying anchored to their values—are the ones who navigate these rapids successfully.