Explore how nonprofits can benefit from Rushworth Kidder’s ethical framework in this insightful blog post. Learn the distinction between "right vs. wrong" and "right vs. right" conflicts and how nonprofits can navigate complex ethical dilemmas. Discover practical examples and the importance of Kidder’s writing in fostering ethical awareness, decision-making, dialogue, and leadership within nonprofit organizations.
Rushworth Kidder was a significant figure in the field of ethics, and his writing on "right vs. wrong" versus "right vs. right" conflicts is particularly influential for nonprofits. Kidder's book, How Good People Make Tough Choices (Revs. ed. 2009), provides a nuanced understanding of ethical dilemmas that move beyond simplistic moral on/off switches, offering a more comprehensive framework for navigating the complex ethical issues that nonprofits often face.
Much of what we call “ethics” is really a matter of “morals.” Right vs. wrong conflicts are straightforward moral temptations, where the choice is between a clearly ethical option and an unethical one. While often featured in traditional ethical training, they are in fact characterized by the presence of clear, universally accepted moral principles. Examples include:
In these cases, the correct ethical choice is usually apparent, as one option aligns with established moral norms and societal laws, while the other clearly violates them. Kidder emphasizes that while these conflicts are important to recognize and address, they do not encompass the full spectrum of ethical decision-making challenges.
Most of the “ethical” issues nonprofits face are mere moral temptations. This doesn’t mean they are easy to resolve in practice, but the analysis is straightforward. Consider the following:
Situation: Jane, a financial officer at a nonprofit focused on providing educational resources to underprivileged children, discovers a significant surplus in the year's budget due to an unexpected grant. Her supervisor suggests using part of this surplus to upgrade the office space, arguing that a more comfortable work environment could enhance staff productivity. But Jane knows the surplus is intended for program expansion and supporting more children.
Moral Temptation: Jane must decide between reallocating funds for office improvements (wrong), which benefits the staff but deviates from the grant's purpose, or ensuring all surplus funds go directly towards expanding educational programs (right), aligning with the nonprofit's mission and the grant's intent.
Situation: Tom, a development officer at a nonprofit supporting environmental conservation, is under pressure to meet fundraising targets. He realizes that by slightly exaggerating the impact of their current projects, he could secure a substantial donation from a wealthy donor who is eager to see quick and visible results.
Moral Temptation: Tom must choose between misleading the donor with inflated success stories (wrong), which might result in immediate funding but damages trust and integrity or presenting an honest assessment of their projects (right), maintaining transparency and ethical standards even if it risks losing the donation.
Situation: Lisa is the Human Resources Manager at a nonprofit organization that provides job training and placement services for individuals facing significant barriers to employment. The nonprofit recently received a generous grant specifically to fund training programs for veterans. During the application process, Lisa comes across an application from John, a highly qualified candidate who is not a veteran but has a compelling story and strong qualifications. Lisa's supervisor suggests bending the rules and including John in the program, arguing that his success story could be a great marketing asset for future funding and visibility of the nonprofit.
Moral Temptation: Lisa is tempted to include John in the program because of the potential benefits his success story could bring to the organization. This decision could improve the nonprofit's visibility and future funding opportunities, which would indirectly benefit many more people in the long run. However, this action would be unjust to the veterans who the grant was intended to help.
Right vs. right conflicts are more complex and represent situations where two or more ethical principles come into conflict with one another. “They are genuine dilemmas precisely because each side is firmly rooted in one of our basic, core values.” Kidder identified these conflicts as central to understanding and resolving ethical issues in a nuanced manner. Common examples (or “models, patterns, or paradigms, to quote Kidder) include:
In these scenarios, there is no clear "wrong" choice; rather, the challenge lies in determining which ethical principle takes precedence. This requires a deeper level of ethical reasoning and reflection, as decision-makers must balance competing values and consider the broader implications of their choices.
Here are examples of each of the paradigm cases of right vs. right conflicts:
Situation: Maria, a communications director at a nonprofit focused on mental health awareness, discovers that the CEO, a close friend, has exaggerated some success metrics in their annual report to make the organization appear more effective to donors.
Conflict: Maria must decide between being truthful and correcting the report (right), upholding the nonprofit's commitment to transparency, or staying loyal to her friend and boss by not revealing the exaggeration (right), which could protect the CEO's reputation and potentially maintain donor trust. (Note that the CEO committed a right vs. wrong conflict in exaggerating the nonprofit’s success.)
Situation: David, a case manager at a nonprofit providing support to homeless individuals, encounters a homeless woman with a severe mental health issue. She refuses to go to a shelter, preferring to stay on the streets. The community has been complaining about the increasing number of homeless people in the area and demanding action.
Conflict: David must choose between respecting the woman's right to autonomy and self-determination (right) and prioritizing the community's safety and well-being by persuading or even compelling her to seek shelter (right).
Situation: Lisa, the executive director of a nonprofit working on climate change advocacy, receives an offer for a large donation from a company known for its environmental controversies. The funds could immediately support a critical campaign and provide resources for immediate impact.
Conflict: Lisa must decide between accepting the donation for the short-term benefit of the campaign (right), which could provide immediate relief and resources, or rejecting the donation to avoid compromising the nonprofit's long-term credibility and values (right), maintaining a principled stance against the company's practices.
Situation: John, a program director at a nonprofit focused on criminal justice reform, discovers that one of his employees, who has been instrumental in their success, was previously involved in a minor criminal offense that was not disclosed during the hiring process. This employee has since shown remarkable dedication and reform.
Conflict: John must choose between upholding justice by taking disciplinary action for the nondisclosure (right), which maintains organizational integrity and fairness, or showing mercy by allowing the employee to stay on due to their demonstrated reform and valuable contributions (right).
Kidder's exploration of these two types of conflicts is important for several reasons:
In practice, Kidder's approach involves several steps:
Kidder's writing on right vs. wrong versus right vs. right conflicts thus provides a crucial framework for understanding and resolving ethical dilemmas for nonprofits, promoting a deeper, more reflective approach to ethics that is essential in both personal and professional contexts.
Risk Alternatives provides training and support for organizations that want to improve their resilience, sustainability, and growth. For more information, email info@riskalts.com or call 608-709-0793.