Concept of Situational Ethics was popularized by theologian Joseph Fletcher in 1955. Perspective: The most morale action is one that results in most loving outcome.
Look at all words in that sentence with ambiguous meanings: “Most, morale, action, results, loving, outcome.” Six of 11 words in sentence are wide open to interpretation. Fletcher was looking for middle ground between rigid interpretation and having no rules at all. Coming from a theologians perspective.
Since then the term has been expanded light years.
Looking at situational ethics from Relativism perspective. Rules and principles are nothing more than useful guides. They can be set aside for the higher good. Whose rules? Principles? Useful Guides. Whose definition of “higher good.”
Difficulty with situational ethics? Can be interpreted thousands of ways. We all see the world slightly differently.
It all comes down to the words used and how they are interpreted. That’s why politicians embrace situational ethics. It avoids their being pinned down.
Business leaders want issues cleanly stated so options can be easily understood.
In business world, any time we get involved with something that fits situational ethics we are in the deep end of the pool quick. All to often that pool ends up the size of an ocean. Where the heck is the shallow end of the pool? Shore anywhere in sight? How the heck did we get here?
4 Principles
Fletcher relied on 4 working principles to guide moral decision making.
Pragmatism…Acting to achieve loving outcomes.
Relativism…Modifying absolute rules based on situations.
Positivism…Starting with faith in love.
Personalism….Putting people first, not laws.
Fletcher was theologian. He was starting with love as basis. Since 1966 Situational Ethics has been carried to wild extremes. Based on peoples interpretation of words and very concept itself.
How do leaders apply “situational ethics” in business world?
Why, ethically, of course.
Situational ethics comes into play when we must choose between conflicting principles. Weigh in on competing values like honesty and fairness. To determine the most responsible action.
Talked to CEO and asked her how she sorts this out. “I start by defining as many of the words as possible in relation to the business problem. I get those definitions written down. When meeting, we start by agreeing with definitions. Not mine, but the ones group/team can agree with. We can’t come up with “best” decision unless we can agree on basic issues. Situational dilemma’s occur when there is no clear “right or wrong. To me, that means defining words so we can see the degrees of “right or wrong” clearly.”
Historically these dilemma’s were solved by the strongest voice in the room. Technology and AI are forcing us to look at underlying issues, not strongest voice/opinion.
“Every time we get sideways on situational problems it’s because we haven’t agree on basic terms. Then it get’s difficult to tie solution to Contribution Factor or other financial parameters.”
As occurs with many principles. What started off as solution to rather specific situations, like religious convictions, quickly morphs into something much broader. As soon as that happens definitions get broadened and changed. Interpreted and often misinterpreted.
Best solution: Dial situation back. Agree on definition of words being used. Then tackle solutions.
Where do situational ethics run into problems?
Best example is politics. Politicians like to start with their desired solution. Then work back on words to describe their version of situation.
Business leaders start with steps leading to best solution. Goal: solve situation for best possible outcome for greatest number people. Whether employees, customers, or public.
When faced with situational issue or problem. It needs to be presented logically and unemotionally.
3 Steps to resolving.
Step 1. Identify issue or problem without naming people or departments. Objective is to resolve issue, not inflame issue.
Step 2 Define words and terms clearly.
Step 3 Identify at least 3 options to address. Even if they are weak options. Objective is ideas that trigger other ideas or can be modified.
CEO had mentioned Contribution Factor. Asked her how company used it in ethical situations. She indicated they used contribution factor when analyzing how options would affect revenues and profitability. Strengths and weaknesses to each often identified better options. Or tweaks to existing.
Thanks for reading. What issue would you like us to address?
Tom Ferree is the founder of Ferree & Associates and SecureEmploy, organizations focused on helping companies find exceptional talent and helping professionals advance their careers. Since founding Ferree & Associates in 1977, Tom has worked extensively with hospitality companies, executives, and rising leaders across the industry. Through SecureEmploy, he shares practical career strategies, leadership insights, and real-world advice to help professionals grow their careers and help organizations build stronger teams.
