Ethics and Crisis Management: (Im)Possible?

Heavily inspired by ideas from the Danish Armed Forces, this article presents the core concept of the so-called ethical stress test – a test that quickly and effectively ensures stronger leadership decisions during crises by providing an ethical foundation.

Ethical considerations can indeed be quite difficult to incorporate when practicing crisis leadership.

It becomes even more challenging when handling situations that require particularly rapid action. In precisely such situations, it might seem irrelevant to integrate ethics into crisis leadership – or, at the very least, it will likely be quite low on the crisis leader's list of priorities.

However, ethics is not irrelevant.

Far from it.

The Challenge of Speed

The dynamic where we risk sidelining ethics is especially evident when managing crises in the public sector. The general trend, and particularly technological advances, have elevated speed to a virtue—or at least to a demand—under the banner:

Deliver the goods! Quickly!

Under such (cross)pressures, it is entirely understandable if a crisis leader prioritizes quick action over ethical consideration. After all, who has time for that when an apartment complex is on fire, a dangerous perpetrator is at large, or a major transport accident has resulted in numerous injuries?

Quick action, not rigid reflection, seems to be the virtue here. While decisiveness is indeed a leadership quality, my question is:

Isn't it precisely in crisis situations that ethics become especially crucial?

Decisiveness and Ethics Can Be Reconciled

In times of crisis and disaster, human lives, welfare, and significant values are at stake.

Managing this responsibility requires a specific crisis ethics; decisions with potentially significant and long-term consequences necessitate moral considerations from the responsible crisis leaders.

Let me emphasize that I recognize the importance of speed and quick action during crises. However, I do not believe this necessarily comes at the expense of ethical reflection. These do not have to be seen as opposing forces; quite the contrary.

Considerations of what is right and wrong, just and fair, wise and unwise are crucial.

Even when chaos is erupting all around you and your crisis team, these considerations might be especially important in such situations.

Why?

Ethics Ensures Trust

If we consistently neglect or disregard ethical considerations, we slowly lose our credibility and reputation. After all, who truly respects a crisis leader who does not reflect on the significance and impact of their decisions, which greatly affect the people experiencing the consequences firsthand?

Thus, one risks the evaporation of citizens' trust in their authority or organization. In the worst case, one's legitimacy erodes in the eyes of the public.

It is through the ethical reflection of our behavior, including during crisis leadership, that we demonstrate our humanity, respect for rules, and consideration of the effects of our decisions.

If we succeed in integrating these elements, citizens maintain their trust in the authority or organization.

Therefore, theory suggests, they are more likely to listen to one's messages, which consequently gain greater impact and potential effect.

In short, and expressed in the starkest terms, ethics save lives and welfare.

Three Quick Questions to Ethically Stress-Test Your Decisions

One thing is, on a principled level, to adhere to the sensible and humane idea of channeling some of your leadership energy into ethical considerations; another thing entirely is to do so during crises, when the pressure from many sides to act (quickly) often feels immense.

Even if you accept the premise that ethics are important, you might rightly ask:

How do you actually navigate ethical complexities while almost everything has descended into chaos (or feels like it), and various stakeholders demand instant responses from you and your team on a myriad of issues?

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No, not at all.

It is possible – and without sacrificing too much speed and agility.

Heavily inspired by the book The Power of Ethical Management by Ken Blanchard and Peale, as well as the publication Military Ethics and Leadership in Practice by the Royal Danish Defence College, I propose an operational crisis ethics model.

My suggestion is to integrate a brief ethical 'stress test' of your decisions into your crisis leadership. Ask yourself these three questions before you act:

Is it legal? Is it appropriate? Can you personally stand by your decision?

Allow me to elaborate on these questions:

Is it legal?

Examine what the frameworks, rules, and guidelines dictate. Are you respecting them?

This includes laws and legislation, as well as strategies, operational plans, action cards, and other guidelines the organization may have.

Adhering to laws and rules is clearly the paramount virtue, but in the context of the specific crisis, this may not always be sufficient when additional ethical considerations come into play.

In brief: Respect relevant rules.

Is it appropriate?

It may be legal and within the framework of your plan. However, you must also ask whether the implementation of the specific leadership decision is appropriate in relation to the task(s) you need to accomplish.

Does it achieve the desired effect in both the short and long term?

Weigh the relevant considerations and then assess whether you are getting closer to your goal(s) by implementing the decision.

In brief: Balance relevant considerations.

Can you personally stand by your decision?

Here, the focus shifts to you as the crisis leader and your own personal morality. It is you as a person who comes to the forefront.

Consider how you will feel about the decision's implementation. Does it seem disproportionate or emotionally off to carry out your decision?

Will those close to you be proud to hear about your decision, and can you, somewhat dramatically put, live with it yourself?

In brief: Are you being true to yourself in your decision?

Rule, Consequence, Person

In summary, one can say that the three questions collectively ensure a focus on:

• the rule basis for your decision,
• its consequence(s),
• you as a person, as a human being.

The philosophical foundation for the three questions is deontological ethics , which focuses on the intention behind the action; utilitarian ethics , which focuses on the utility effect of the action; and virtue ethics , which focuses on the kind of person one wishes to be.

No Guarantees

Of course, the stress test cannot guarantee that you will make the right choices.

The leadership dilemmas inherent in each crisis will have their own unique characteristics.

These dilemmas may lead to answers from the stress test that are not always consistent with one another.

The test may reveal difficult trade-offs where there rarely is one clear path, and you cannot inherently predict the outcomes of your decisions.

?

The Stress Test in Practice

An illustrative example of the stress test in practice comes from a Danish patrol in Afghanistan in 2009, where a sharpshooter has visual contact with a local man:

The shooter observes that the man is digging up an improvised explosive device (to move it). This makes him a legitimate target under the laws of war, according to the first component of the test: Is it legal?

The next component, however, ask the question: Is it appropriate to shoot?

The answer here could also be a yes—otherwise, he may move the explosive device and potentially cause harm to soldiers or civilians elsewhere.

Conversely, it could be argued that shooting might not be appropriate because of the need to maintain positive relations with the local population, as the shot risks hitting a civilian, since a larger group has gathered nearby.

From a military perspective, though, there is an argument for appropriateness.

However, the situation changes when the local man drives away with the grenade, now holding a young local boy on his lap as a shield. The sharp shooter must then decide whether to fire and risk the boy's life.

This development means the shooter poses himself the final question of the test:

Can he stand by his decision to shoot?

In that situation, the answer was that the sharpshooter refrained from opening fire because, fundamentally, he could not live with hitting the boy, even though the attack was both legal and, from a significant security perspective concerning the safety of soldiers and civilians, appropriate

Dilemmas Remain – the Test, though, Adds Authority to Your Decisions

The stress test does not necessarily resolve the specific dilemmas presented by the situation.

As mentioned, the answers to the three questions do not always lead you along a straightforward, frictionless path. The muddy reality often kicks back. The example above also illustrates that the same question can send you in different directions, depending on your focus.

However, the test ensures that you, to some extent and relatively quickly, can consider central aspects of your leadership dilemma.

By reflecting on these ethical considerations, you can explain your choices and decisions with greater weight and moral authority.

In other words, you stand on more solid ground as you move forward.

The Stress Test Can Slow Things Down

I also want to emphasize that at times— especially during crises—it can be wise to slow things down a bit.

Sometimes the urgency we feel in our minds is greater than the actual urgency.

Therefore, it might be beneficial to take a deep breath and think things through once more; choosing not to act (for a period) can be prudent—and this period of (felt) inaction can be used to work through the three questions of the ethical stress test.

This introduces a form of negative capability into your leadership thinking:

taking a moment to pause might give you the overview needed to assess whether changing direction is the wise decision to get your crisis management back on track.

Read more about negative capability during crises here (article currently only available in Danish).

Conversely, the example from Afghanistan also shows that the stress test can be applied relatively quickly if the situation demands it.

The (Almost) Inevitable 'Blame Game' of a Crisis

When a crisis ends, it almost inevitably leads to a more or less intense effort to clarify who the responsible individuals or organizations might be. This could even be a direct consequence of your specific leadership decisions, or at the very least, your decisions may be involved as a factor in this turbulent post-crisis dynamic.

In a modern media society, this often occurs in more or less full public view, which puts more strain on all the involved parties.

If you find yourself caught up in this blame game and your crisis management is subjected to specific criticism, having considered ethics in your leadership approach will, all else being equal, help you stand firmer in this emotionally challenging process.

At the very least, you will have ensured an ethical foundation.

This can provide you with some support as you navigate the ongoing process, given that you have, before making decisions, asked yourself the three questions of the ethical stress test and contemplated them.

Feel free to leave your impressions, input, and experiences in the comments section below.

Literature

Blanchard, Kenneth and Peale, Norman Vincent: The Power of Ethical Management. Heinemann Kingswood. 1988. (especially pages 18-27)

N?rgaard, Katrine, Thorb?jrnsen, Stafan Ring and Holsting, Vilhelm: Milit?r etik og ledelse i praksis . Forsvarsakademiet. 2008. (is?r s. 72-97) [in Danish]

Sj?gren, S?ren: "Etik og moral for soldater i krig – hvad er rigtigt, og hvad er forkert? " 2012 [in Danish]

Note: This is a slightly modified English translation of a Danish article written on August 24th, 2023. Any mistakes or inaccuracies are my own.