The Leadership Dilemma: Choosing Between Values and Survival

As leaders, we are often faced with difficult decisions—ones that may not benefit certain individuals but are necessary for the collective good. These moments test our values, forcing us to navigate the delicate balance between empathy for individuals and responsibility for the group. How do we make such decisions without compromising our principles?

During my recent visit to the Changi Chapel Museum with a friend passing through Singapore, I encountered a powerful exhibit that told the story of British prisoners of war (POWs) interned by the Japanese during World War II. The Japanese, aiming to break the spirits of the POWs, demanded that they sign a letter renouncing their intent to escape. While most of the prisoners refused, knowing they would face harsh punishment and torture, the situation took a significant turn when a senior British POW commander decided to issue an order to his men to sign the documents. His intent was clear: to minimize suffering and save as many lives as possible.

While this decision likely preserved lives, it raised questions about whether values were compromised. Did the commander make the right choice by prioritizing the collective good over individual resistance? It was a leadership dilemma that left me wondering—what would I have done if I were the commander?

Option 1: Uphold the principle of resistance

I could stand firm, refusing to comply with the enemy's demands. This choice would uphold the values of freedom and honor but would likely lead to severe suffering and possible death for many of my men.

Option 2: Negotiate for compliance in exchange for collective good

I could negotiate with the Japanese, offering compliance by ordering the POWs to sign the document but only in exchange for improved treatment or concessions that benefit the entire group. This approach could protect lives while holding the opposing side accountable to some degree.

Option 3: Leave the decision to the individual POWs

I could delegate the choice to each man, allowing them to decide whether to sign or resist. While this would empower individual autonomy, it could weaken the group’s unity and lead to division.

This complex scenario brought to mind Fields Wicker-Miurin’s TED Talk, "Learning from leadership’s missing manual." In her talk, she challenged conventional ideas about leadership, emphasizing how true leadership often emerged in unexpected places. Wicker-Miurin highlighted examples of leaders who, despite operating outside formal power structures, displayed courage, empathy, and a deep sense of purpose in making decisions for the greater good.

For instance, one leader worked tirelessly to preserve his tribe’s cultural heritage, while another was a historian determined to collect and protect artifacts from a key period in his country’s history. These leaders weren’t motivated by power or recognition but by a profound sense of responsibility to their communities. They made difficult decisions that were necessary to ensure the survival and flourishing of their people and culture.

Wicker-Miurin’s examples served as a reminder that leadership is not about following a rigid rulebook, but about adapting to each situation and recognizing what is most important at that moment. It’s about making decisions that reflect both our values and the practical realities we face.

After considering these ideas, my friend—who knew my background as a negotiator—turned to me and said, "As a negotiator, you might have done the same thing." I gave him a wry smile, leaving the thought unspoken. But the remark stayed with me long after we left the museum. While there is no absolute right or wrong in many of these circumstances, it is useful to think ahead about how one would handle such a situation. Preparing mentally for these dilemmas helps ensure that when they arise, we act with clarity and intention.

In times of uncertainty or pressure, it’s easy to lose sight of our values and make decisions that compromise what is truly important. Setting boundaries in advance allows us to make conscious, value-based choices rather than reacting impulsively under pressure. For example, let’s say a leader is negotiating in a situation where they must choose between short-term profits and long-term gains. The leader may decide to draw the line by setting a boundary: they prioritize long-term sustainability over immediate financial gain. By establishing this boundary early on, the leader ensures that decisions are aligned with the organization’s core values, even when short-term incentives seem tempting. This prevents the leader from making compromises that could harm the organization’s reputation or long-term success.

When we set boundaries, we create space to evaluate decisions from a place of clarity, ensuring that our choices reflect both our values and the collective good.

Many of us confine our leadership roles to the structures of organizations or corporations. But what would it take to step beyond these boundaries and play key roles in our personal lives or in causes we are passionate about? While we may never face the moral dilemma of the British POW commander, we will inevitably face difficult decisions in various environments. Honing our ability to make thoughtful, context-driven decisions—without rushing to judgment—is a life skill worth cultivating.

P.S. I’m curious—if you were in the commander’s shoes, what decision would you have made? Discuss below!