Issue Factors – An Overview

In this chapter, we will explore issue factors in more detail, specifically how they influence ethical decision-making and management. To get started, it is good to understand that the higher each of these factors are, the more likely someone is to act ethically. The stronger these issue factors are, the more significant the issue becomes, leading people to feel a greater compulsion to act ethically.

• Agreement on “right” – if there is a generally agreed upon “right” answer, then the person making the the least harm to the fewest people will be more likely to choose what is “right”
• Relationship to those potentially negatively impacted – the closer the decision-maker is to the people who might be impacted by an unethical decision, the more likely they are to act ethically.
• Intensity of the negative impact – the more devastating the negative impact would be on those affected, the more likely someone is to choose the “ethical” action.
• Timing of the negative impact – if the negative impact from a decision will be seen sooner (rather than delayed greatly), then the decision-maker is more likely to take ethical action.
• Likelihood of the negative impact – the higher likelihood that there will actually be a negative impact, the more likely the person will take action to be ethical.
• Number of those negatively impacted – the higher number of people will actually be negative impacted, the more likely the person will take action to be ethical.

Like Personal Factors, Issue Factors are areas over which managers have little to no control. However, like with Personal Factors, managers can equip their employees’ to be more capable by doing ethical training in areas, such as personal values development and application, training on the organizational values (including case studies and simulations so that employees can practice), and as applicable, training in any professional ethics standards in their industry.

These types of trainings would create the groundwork for employees to:

• Feel more confident in know whether there was a company agreement on what is right – in other words, the company’s expectations would be clear;
• Understand the possible intensity, likelihood, and timing of negative impact – case studies and simulation trainings help employees see these before facing them in the real-world
• Identify the number of those negatively impacted – cases and simulations again can help them have “experience” with identifying this prior to need to identify it in their actual role.

Incorporating ethics training into organizational practices won’t guarantee employees will act ethically, but it can equip them with the skills to do so. Thus, it is important for us to understand the impact of the Issue Factors on ethical decision-making, regardless of what managers can do. To this end, in the sections below, each factor is defined and its impact on ethical decision-making described.

An Important Consideration in Knowing How to Analyze a Choice Using the Issue Factors

When looking at an ethical decision and using these factors, we need to decide which alternative we are evaluating. Otherwise, it can get confusing. For example, if Sandra is a CEO of a large manufacturing company and she is facing the choice of outsourcing to the work to another country that has more relaxed labour laws or keeping the goods production in Canada with higher labour law expectations, Sandra would want to decide which choice to test using these factors and who the potential negatively impacted persons might be. That being the case, we will assume that Sandra wants to examine the issue factors based on the choice of outsourcing the goods production. This example is explored in each of the Issue Factors sections below.

Issue Factor – Likelihood of Negative Impact

First, let’s explore the likelihood of negative impact, which focuses on the probability that a decision will harm those affected. Specifically, we are examining how likely the decision will negatively impact people affected by the situation. To understand this, it is good to clarify what “Likelihood of Negative Impact” is and is not.

The Likelihood of Negative impact:

• IS how likely are those impacted to be harmed.
  • High Likelihood of Negative Impact is that they will be harmed (it doesn’t matter how big the harm is; it is just will they be harmed?)
  • If there’s high Likelihood of Negative Impact, then they will be harmed in some way.
  • MEANING,
    • o High Likelihood of Negative Impact = they will be harmed (big or small)
    • o Medium Likelihood of Negative Impact = it is a clear possibility, but not for sure that they will be harmed (big or small harm)
    • o Low probability of harm = they will not be harmed in any way.
• IS NOT about the amount of harm they experience; the amount of harm is Intensity of the Negative Impact (see it below).

In the Sandra example, we would look at how likely the negative impact would affect the workers in the foreign factory (with lax labour laws) as they are the direct stakeholders of this decision. We might also examine how the shareholders, board, and company could be impacted. The following will analyze the Sandra situation with that in mind.

• FACTORY WORKERS ABROAD
  • How likely are those impacted to be harmed?
  • HIGH LIKELIHOOD because they will be expected to work under the strenuous work conditions.
• SHAREHOLDERS, BOARD, and COMPANY
  • How likely are those impacted to be harmed?
  • LOW LIKELIHOOD because they will benefit from the savings of outsourcing. They would only be affected if this somehow became a scandal. This is unlikely to happen though because outsourcing to coutnries with more lax laws is a fairly common practice.
• CONCLUSION – Susan is likely to see this as moderate or somewhat likely when she balances the answers between the two main groups. Therefore, she would not be strongly encourage by this factor to act ethically, which we assume means causing no harm (i.e., not outsourcing).

Issue Factor – Timing of the Negative Impact

Next, we will examine the timing of the negative impact, an important consideration that addresses when the harm will be experienced. When we look at the timing of the negative impact, we are examining how soon will those affect experience the negative impact. This factor investigates how soon the negative consequences of a decision will manifest, influencing the urgency with which a decision-maker may act. In other words, Timing of the Negative Impact:

• IS how soon they will feel the harm
  • High is that they will feel the harm immediately
  • Medium is that they will feel it gradually in the near future
  • Low is that they will feel it some time in the future and it is unclear when they will feel it
• IS NOT about the amount of harm they experience; the amount of harm is Intensity of the Negative Impact (see it below).

In the Sandra example, we would look at how soon the foreign factory workers would be impacted (with lax labour laws) and how soon the other group (the company) would feel a negative impact.

• FACTORY WORKERS ABROAD
  • How soon would the feel the negative impact?
  • HIGH or FAIRLY SOON because they will feel the impact as soon as the decision is made and the job initiates.
• SHAREHOLDERS, BOARD, and COMPANY
  • How soon would the feel the negative impact?
  • LOW or MUCH LATER because they would only be affected if this somehow became a scandal and they were slowly to lose customers over the scandal. When companies make mistakes, the negative impact on customers often takes time to materialize.
• CONCLUSION – Susan is likely to see this as moderate when she balances the answers between the two main groups. Therefore, she would not be strongly encourage by this factor to act ethically.

Issue Factor – Agreement on “Right”

We will discuss the factor of agreement on what is ‘right,’ which reflects the consensus among stakeholders regarding ethical choices. When we look at Agreement on “Right,” we are trying to identify the stakeholders believe this is a clear-cut issue for what what is “right” and what is “wrong” is obvious to all. This factor determines whether there is a shared understanding of the morally correct course of action, influencing the decision-maker’s ethical considerations. In other words, Agreement on “Right”:

• IS whether that group of people would view the situation as morally wrong or right.
  • High Agreement on “Right” means that the issue is black and white – clearly has a right and wrong from everyone’s perspective.
  • If there’s high Agreement on “Right”, everyone clearly agrees that the behavior on what right and wrong are for the situation.
• IS NOT whether they would like the decision or not.
  • They can all believe it is ethically wrong (high Agreement on “Right”) and not like it.
  • Conversely, they can have no idea if it’s right or wrong (low Agreement on “Right”), but all agree that they don’t like it.

Going back to the Susan example, we would look at what the stakeholders as a whole would say.

• FACTORY WORKERS ABROAD
  • How clear-cut is the “right” (vs “wrong”) in this situation?
  • LOW or UNCLEAR because some of the factory workers would say that the labour conditions are just part of life (unavoidable) and have to be accepted for them to maintain their status quo financially. Other workers would argue that their conditions are unethical and clearly unjust. There would not be clear agreement on what the “right” is.
• SHAREHOLDERS, BOARD, and COMPANY
  • How clear-cut is the “right” (vs “wrong”) in this situation?
  • MODERATE or SOMEWHAT because most people in these groups would usually feel that this is just part of doing business and unavoidable. A small group, however, might feel that using a labour force with unfavourable conditions is wrong. So, there is not an agreement for these stakeholders overall on what is “right.”
• CONCLUSION – Susan is likely to see moderate to low agreement on what is “right,” and therefore, is not likely to be influenced to do what is the ethical choice.

Issue Factor – Number of Those Negatively Impacted

As we further dissect the ethical implications of Issue Factors, it is essential to consider the Number of Those Negatively Impacted. This factor highlights the significance of understanding how many individuals will bear the consequences of a decision, thereby influencing the overall ethical responsibility involved. Namely, we are looking at the volume of people affected. The higher the number of those affected, the more likely someone is to act ethically towards those impacted. Specifically, Number of Those Negatively Impacted:

• IS about how many people will be impacted, so if it’s only 30% of people in a small company, the greatness of hard would be low.
  • However, if it was 30% of 1000s of people, then Number of Those Negatively Impacted would be high.
  • So, you’re looking at the overall number of people affected.
• IS NOT the same as Intensity of the Negative Impact (see below for differentiation).

Returning to the Sandra example, we would look at the number of stakeholders impacted negatively. Other categories can be subjective because they rely on qualitative data and analysis. The Number of Those Negatively Impacted is often more objective and less influenced by the person’s role, access to information, and personal bias. Thus, for the Sandra example, we do not need to consider various stakeholders’ opinions.

• NUMBER OF THOSE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED – How many people will be negatively impacted? Is this a significant number?
  • HIGH or LARGE NUMBER because there will be many factory workers, possibly 150-200, who have to endure unfavourable condition. This number is very significant compared when compared to the smaller number of people in Sandra’s company that has only have a total of 100 employees.
• CONCLUSION – The Number of Those Negatively Impacted is high; and therefore, likely to influence Sandra to choose the ethical choose of not outsourcing to a place that has unfavourable working conditions.

Issue Factor – Intensity of the Negative Impact

Now, let’s turn our attention to the intensity of the negative impact, which evaluates the severity of harm that could result from a decision. When we look at the Intensity of the Negative Impact, we are looking at how devastating the impact is to those being negatively impacted. This factor assesses the degree to which individuals may suffer as a consequence of unethical decisions, highlighting the weight of the decision at hand. Meaning, Intensity of the Negative Impact:

• IS how concentrated the effect will be
  • HIGH concentration would be a devastating impact that would be acutely felt by the people affected.
  • LOW concentration would be a small impact and maybe indiscernible impact to the people
• IS NOT about the number of people affected, as that is Number of Those Negatively Impacted (see above for differentiation).

For the example with Sandra, we would look at how intense the impact of poor working conditions would be on the factory workers.

• INTENSITY OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACT – How devastating to the factory workers would it be to have the work outsourced to their factory? The answer to this is harder to gauge. Here are a couple of interpretations.
  • LOW or LITTLE IMPACT – There is no additional negative impact beyond what they are already experiencing.
  • MODERATE or SOME IMPACT – While they may work under these conditions already, any other funding to these factories impacts the workers’ physical and mental health in a moderate way.
• CONCLUSION – Because the interpretation is either low or moderate impact, Sandra is not as likely to do what is ethical.

Issue Factor – Relationship to Those Negatively Impacted

Finally, we will consider the relationship to those potentially negatively impacted, a factor that examines the closeness of the decision-maker to the affected individuals. This factor explores how personal connections can influence ethical decision-making, emphasizing the role of empathy in assessing potential harm. The Relationship to Those Negatively Impacted is all about how close the decision-maker is to those negatively impacted. To clarify, Relationship to Those Negatively Impacted:

• IS about how much they will have to interact with them.
  • There is HIGH Relationship to Those Negatively Impacted, for example, if
    • o The person works or lives around those negatively impacted (seeing them often)
    • o The person has to be the one to handle the impacted persons’ problems (directly manages the impacts from the “wrong” to those impacted)
• IS NOT how much they feel (emotionally) the impact of those negatively impacted.
  • A decision-maker who does not interact with those impacted often never has to face the impacts on those people, so they have LOW Relationship to Those Negatively Impacted (little to no contact).
  • A decision-maker who manages or works indirectly with those impacted, such as deals with complaints reported (not to them directly but through another source), has low to medium Relationship to Those Negatively Impacted.

In the Sandra example, we would look at how much contact or connection Sandra would have with the factory workers.

• RELATIONSHIP TO THOSE THE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED – How close is her relationship to those negatively impacted?
  • LOW or NO RELATIONSHIP – There is no known relationship or anticipated relationship between Sandra and the factory workers.
• CONCLUSION – Because she is not close to the factory workers, she is less likely to consider what is ethical for them.

Considering the Issue Factors Together

The higher the Issue Factors are when considered together, the more likely it is that someone will choose the ethical option, which we are considering as the option with the least harm to the fewest people. If the Issue Factors are all high, even an unethical person is likely to be influenced to make an ethical choice. The strength of the Issue Factors’ influence will be greater in such cases.

If all of the Issue Factors are low, the decision-maker will not be influenced by the Issue Factors as much. In these cases, the decision-maker will be more likely to choose what aligns with another area, such as Personal, Organizational Culture, and Organizational Structure Factors. When the strength of the Issue Factors’ influence is low, individuals at a lower stage of moral development are more likely to make decisions aligned with their limited ethical understanding, often resulting in actions that are considered unethical by most standards. Conversely, individuals at a higher stage of moral development possess a clear understanding of their values and demonstrate a strong commitment to acting in accordance with those values. In such cases, the Issue Factors have little impact on their decision-making processes

The harder influence situations to understand the Issue Factors’ influences are when:

• Each of the factors is around moderate and
• Some factors are high and some factors are low.

Now, in the case of all the factors being moderate, there is a higher likelihood that the person will be moderately influenced since each factor has a consistently “moderate” influence. Thus, an unethical person might feel compelled to act ethically due to others’ expectations. The ethical person would feel perhaps more confident in choosing the ethical choice because generally others would agree with that choice.

In the case where some factors are high and some are low, there is not a clear-cut influence of the issue factors. However, some issue factors do tend to have a larger impact on decision-makers than others. Relationship to Those Negatively Impacted can have a large influence if the person has a close personal connection. Number of Those Negatively Impacted can also have a stronger influence because the sheer numbers make the person feel more responsible for the negative impact on those people. Finally, the Agreement on What is “Right” can make it obvious to the decision-maker what to do if there is high agreement on “right vs wrong” in the situation. While these factors should not be considered alone, they are worth noting as they tend to affect all decision-makers.

How Others View the Issue Factors

One of the most commonly discussed and practical tests for ethics is the “front page text,” which came from the newspaper era. It asked, “What would you do if this were published on the front page of a newspaper everywhere? Would you still see things the same way?” In the digital era, we can see example after example of people who thought they were doing their best to act ethically, but once their actions were public (usually on a video), others question what they did or their motivations. This has made “doing one’s best” in ethical situations a standard that is no longer good enough in realm of public opinion. There’s an expectation that, with access to abundant resources for learning, we should continually improve our ethical understanding. We are expected to be learning and growing on our understanding of what is “best,” not simply from our own definitions but also from others. When considering Issue Factors, there are three other lenses from which we can view the issue. This often helps us see the situation from someone else’s definition of “best” so that we can have a holistic view of the issue and choose better next steps accordingly.

Family and/or Loved Ones

Your family may include biological relatives or chosen family members, but it could also be a group of people you would consider your “loved ones.” Each person defines this differently.

For instance, a hypothetical individual, Susan, might define her family/loved ones as. For Javier, it includes their partner, best friend, and a former roommate. For Asha, it could be a list that combines immediate family, grandparents, and friends. So, while the “who” of family or loved ones is subjective to each person, the role these people play in understanding issue factors is important.

A good way to get that bigger perspective of the issue is to ask, how would my loved ones:

• Identify the issue in this situation? Is it the same or different from my own definition and how?
• For the issue that they identified, what would they say is the:
  • Agreement on “right” – would they see it in the same light as me? If there is a difference, how is it different from my perception of agreement on right?
  • Relationship to those potentially negatively impacted – would they see the relationship between parties as closer, the same, or farther apart than I did?
  • Intensity of the negative impact – would they view the impact as more, less, or the same extent? Do they see it as devastating (or not) in the same way as I do?
  • Timing of the negative impact – do they see the timing in the same way as me? Do they see other ways that the timing could be longer or shorter than I thought, and if so, how?
  • Likelihood of the negative impact – Do they have a sense that there is a higher or lower likelihood of negative impact compared to how I saw it? If there’s a difference, why is it different?
  • Number of those negatively impacted – Do they see the number of those negatively impacted as high, medium, or low? Is that aligned with my assessment?

Then, after considering these things, you may want to adjust your own assessment of these factors. After seeing through your loved ones’ eyes, you might realize that there is another part of the picture you had not captured in your own view.

Workplace

Since this book is focused on organizational decision-making, it is likely that the ethical situations being faced will be in an organizational context. Next, we consider the perspective of the workplace. Getting the perspective of how your workplace would view the issue is important. When considering the workplaces perspective, it is important to identify:

• How do I fit in the workplace? What is my role in terms of responsibility and expectation? What does that mean in terms of who my “workplace is?”
  • For example, a grocery chain top manager would be expected to consider the whole organization and all of its locations, but a front line grocery store employee might only be expected to consider their store’s location.
  • The “how do I fit” question helps you keep in mind the people in your workplace.
• How do these people perceive my ability to influence the situation?
  • The top manager of a grocery chain would be expectation to have a lot of influence (even if that person realistically did not) whereas the expectation of influence overall for the front-line grocery store employee would be less.
  • The workplace’s view on your scope of influence affects how they look at the issue and your role in it.
• Once you have identified how you fit in the organization and the expectation they have for your influence, then you will keep those people’s perspectives in mind and answer the questions about the issue from their collective viewpoint:
  • Agreement on “right” – would they see it in the same light as me? If there is a difference, how is it different from my perception of agreement on right?
  • Relationship to those potentially negatively impacted – would they see the relationship between parties as closer, the same, or farther apart than I did?
  • Intensity of the negative impact – would they view the impact as more, less, or the same extent? Do they see it as devastating (or not) in the same way as I do?
  • Timing of the negative impact – do they see the timing in the same way as me? Do they see other ways that the timing could be longer or shorter than I thought, and if so, how?
  • Likelihood of the negative impact – Do they have a sense that there is a higher or lower likelihood of negative impact compared to how I saw it? If there’s a difference, why is it different?
  • Number of those negatively impacted – Do they see the number of those negatively impacted as high, medium, or low? Is that aligned with my assessment?

After gaining the workplace perspective, you may see that your previous point of view had blind-spots, or perhaps, you knew about the differences, but now you have to decide how important they are to you.

For many people, keeping their job will come before acting ethically because they need to pay bills, make rent or mortgage payments, and buy food. Without a job, they would not feel safe or secure. Even if someone feels willing to risk their job to act ethically, evaluating how others in the workplace see the issue can often make you realize that you missed something or that there are more ethical variations or actions than you realized.

Community

Community is the group of people with whom people feel they are a part. For some, it can be the geographic community in which a person lives, such as a town or neighbourhood. For others, community can be more about the social or cultural relationships they have, such as a diaspora community or even a group of friends. People can also belong to multiple communities. For example, I have my friends who I consider to be my community, my professional colleagues in academia who are my “academic community,” and my expatriate community, which are my friends from all over the world who share the experience of living outside their home community.

In terms of Issue Factors and ethical decision-making, decision-makers would want to consider each of their communities’ perspectives on the Issue Factors as they might have very different views. Thus, if I were the decision-maker, I would consider the following, repeating the process for each community of which I am a part.

• How do I fit within the community? What does that mean in terms of how my community expects me to see a situation?
  • The “how do I fit” question helps you keep in mind the people view my connection and expectations to one another.
  • This question also helps you understand how the dynamics between people can affect their view of a given issue.
• How do these people perceive my ability to influence the situation?
  • If my community sees me as a leader, they will expect more from me. If they see me as casual participant, they may not care as much if we do not see the situation similarly.
• Once you have identified how you fit in the community and the expectation they have for your influence, then you will keep those people’s perspectives in mind and answer the questions about the issue from their collective point of view. :
  • Agreement on “right” – would they see it in the same light as me? If there is a difference, how is it different from my perception of agreement on right?
  • Relationship to those potentially negatively impacted – would they see the relationship between parties as closer, the same, or farther apart than I did?
  • Intensity of the negative impact – would they view the impact as more, less, or the same extent? Do they see it as devastating (or not) in the same way as I do?
  • Timing of the negative impact – do they see the timing in the same way as me? Do they see other ways that the timing could be longer or shorter than I thought, and if so, how?
  • Likelihood of the negative impact – Do they have a sense that there is a higher or lower likelihood of negative impact compared to how I saw it? If there’s a difference, why is it different?
  • Number of those negatively impacted – Do they see the number of those negatively impacted as high, medium, or low? Is that aligned with my assessment?

For most people, it is either their loved ones’ or their community’s opinions about which they care the most. So, a good reality check on whether we have a good perspective on the Issue Factors is to do our version of a community version of the front page test in which we imagine what they would do if they all knew our views. If their answers align, you could feel more empowered. If they do not, then you may want to consider those discrepancies further before taking action.

Ethical Community

Similar to community, ethical community can come in various forms. An ethical community is the community with whom the decision-maker feels most connected ethically or morally. For many people, this is a religious community, be it the community at their local place of worship or the broader community of their faith. For some, it might be a social activist group of which they are a part. For others, it could be a few close friends with whom they closely share values. Ethical community can also be a combination of those groups. Each person has to identify with whom do they feel most aligned in their values and whose ethical or moral perspectives are most important to them.

In terms of Issue Factors and ethical decision-making, decision-makers would want to consider each of their communities’ perspectives on the Issue Factors as they might have very different views. Thus, if I were the decision-maker, I would consider the following, repeating the process for each community of which I am a part.

• How do I fit within the community? What does that mean in terms of how my community expects me to see a situation?
  • The “how do I fit” question helps you keep in mind the people view my connection and expectations to one another.
  • This question also helps you understand how the dynamics between people can affect their view of a given issue.
• How do these people perceive my ability to influence the situation?
  • If my community sees me as a leader, they will expect more from me. If they see me as casual participant, they may not care as much if we do not see the situation similarly.
• Once you have identified how you fit in the community and the expectation they have for your influence, then you will keep those people’s perspectives in mind and answer the questions about the issue from their collective point of view. :
  • Agreement on “right” – would they see it in the same light as me? If there is a difference, how is it different from my perception of agreement on right?
  • Relationship to those potentially negatively impacted – would they see the relationship between parties as closer, the same, or farther apart than I did?
  • Intensity of the negative impact – would they view the impact as more, less, or the same extent? Do they see it as devastating (or not) in the same way as I do?
  • Timing of the negative impact – do they see the timing in the same way as me? Do they see other ways that the timing could be longer or shorter than I thought, and if so, how?
  • Likelihood of the negative impact – Do they have a sense that there is a higher or lower likelihood of negative impact compared to how I saw it? If there’s a difference, why is it different?
  • Number of those negatively impacted – Do they see the number of those negatively impacted as high, medium, or low? Is that aligned with my assessment?

Summary of the Influence of Issue Factors and the Implications for Managers

Managers do not have much control over the issue itself or whom will be negatively impacted by the issue. However, they can help ensure that they take a comprehensive view of the situation by looking at the Issue Factors through the lenses of family/loved ones, workplace, community, and ethical community. Furthermore, they can facilitate their employees in developing an awareness of how the organization sees an issue through leading professional development opportunities for ethics. For example, if training was offered that support employees in identifying the strength of issue factors for realistic cases or in simulations based on the company’s experience, then the employees:

• Could enhance their understanding of the company’s view of important issues,
• Would have the chance to practice viewing the issue through multiple lenses (e.g., workplace),
• Might enhance their sense of empowerment in assessing the issue, and
• Would allow them to have access to greater information on values and ethics that they may not have had access to previously.

While managers cannot change the issue or its impact, they can facilitate employees’ development and practice in analyzing Issue Factors. This can be quite useful in promoting ethical decision-making.

Key Takeaways

References

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278958

Robbins, S. P., Coulter, M., Langton, N., Leach, E., & Kilfoil, M. (2015). Management (11th Canadian ed.). Pearson Canada.