Strategy & “Doing the Right Thing”
A path along the Pacific Ocean that was closed due to typhoon damage. Was it “right” to take this route? (Photo credit: Zenia Fejerskov Hansen)
A recent conversation had me commiserating with a fellow professional services provider about talking to “business strategists” about their strategy. Our common observation is that the conversation quickly (immediately?) becomes contentious. “I have a strategy! That is what I do.”
The word “strategy” begs for a fight in the same way as does the word “ethics.” Simply bringing it up becomes accusatory: you are challenging my intelligence (i.e. your so-called strategy is obviously missing something big here) or my character (i.e. if you weren’t such a sleazy person, we could avoid this discussion altogether), or maybe both. With a more detached view of these concepts, reasonable people can agree that:
Strategy is about making decisions for which there are consequences: AND
Evaluating such consequences (intended or not) should include considering what people think is “right” in the given context.
Jurassic Park fans will recall the wise words of Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum):
Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
To avoid the unfortunate dynamic above, I have found the concept of “fairness” to be a useful entry point into a discussion about important decisions. Other turns of phase can serve the same purpose, “We all want what is best for…” or agreement that we have to “do the right thing” by offering a somewhat vague common ground upon which we can draw distinctions. There is a meme that does the rounds contrasting “equity” and “equality.” Using the context of peering over a fence to see a baseball game, we see three would-be spectators, all different heights, and three boxes suitable for standing upon. In the first frame (Equality), everyone stands on a box and the shortest of the spectators still can’t see over the fence. The next frame (Equity) shows the shortest person standing on two boxes, while the tallest has no box. All three can see over the fence.
In a more anecdotal discussion of these concepts, we join three people who have just finished a restaurant meal and are deciding how to split the bill, $225 (including tax and a “fair” tip).
Equal (i.e. Everyone coughs up $75) and Equitable (i.e. “Separate check please, and can you divide appetizer three ways? Those two will split the wine. I only had a very small sip.”) continue to be options. We are introduced to a third “fairness” option to account for the fact that one of the diners just got a really big promotion, while another has been out of work for the last few months. The label on this one is “Needs Based.”
Entering into the conversation of who should pay what becomes an excellent microcosm for the strategic discussion of “how do we solve this?” and “how would we explain it to others?”
We can’t sit here all night debating it, AND, just because we arrived at a decision, doesn’t mean everyone is OK with it. If we are planning to go out for dinner again with this same group, we can guarantee that the resolution at this table will be reheated the next time they gather.
I offer what I hope are workable definitions for each of these:
Equal: We only look at the here-and-now, Immediate Context (e.g. In hiring, every candidate does a case study that is evaluated against clear criteria. Best score gets the job.).
Equitable: We take into account what transpired to get you to here. Temporal Context included (e.g. We acknowledge the some candidates have deeper experience with “case study” evaluations. We work to provide other means to objectively evaluate the skills and abilities required for the role.)
Needs-based: We look at you as an individual. Human Context (e.g. We promote a qualified internal candidate to satisfy a requirement for their permanent resident status in the country.)
Note: Each example is nuanced in its ethical explanation. Is it wrong to favour a particular form of preparation? Is it wrong to give opportunities to a wider group of applicants? Is it wrong to give special treatment to someone whose “human context” is more visible to you?
In the not-for-profit world (as well as in the business world), we are serving different constituencies. Those who receive services may be called clients or customers. We may have different language for those who provide resources: funders, donors, volunteers, etc. In this space we have distinguished between Executive and Board leadership groups. We will also have employees. To broaden our impromptu stakeholder map, we may have “community members” who connection to us stems from physical proximity or by shared activities. Recall the jingle, “Who are the people in your neighbourhood?”
It is unrealistic to expect that each of these can be treated “fairly” (and, even if that were possible, perceptions of fairness would vary such that “equal” falls completely off the table). In exploring various options, the particular perceptions, support and objections will surface some important nuances. Rather than being an exercise in rationalizing and mental gymnastics, we can shed a bit more light on what we mean by “right,” both in terms of impacting our cause, but also in terms of how a decision sits with us (and how comfortable we are explaining that to others, as is often a big concern for Board members operating within their community).