This facilitator’s guide accompanies the DVD ethics case scenario entitled Language Training, produced by Director, Defence Ethics Programme. The DVD presents a filmed, simulated workplace scenario that raises ethical questions and issues. Your role as facilitator is to lead a structured and productive group discussion of the DVD material. This guide is designed to help you by describing a defined, practical, step-by-step ethical decision-making process that you can use in leading that discussion.
This guide provides possible responses to some of the questions raised at each stage of the discussion. The DVD is interactive; it presents a potential outcome for each of the possible options, allowing participants the opportunity to see the results of their decisions and to reflect on the relative ethical merits of each option. This guide also includes checklists of tasks to consider in the pre-session and post-session phases.
The idea behind the DVD ethics scenario, along with this guide, is to help meet one of the prime objectives of the Defence Ethics Programme — to encourage an ongoing dialogue on values and ethics throughout the CF and DND.
The Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have an obligation to respond to the demands by Canadians for ethics and accountability in government. To help meet this obligation the Defence Ethics Programme was put in place. It is a values-based programme whose aim is to foster the practice of ethics in the workplace and in operations such that CF members and DND employees consistently perform their duties to the highest ethical standards.
To help you in presenting this material, the text below uses blue highlight to indicate direct instructions to the facilitator (i.e. practical steps you should take when facilitating a session), to separate these from subject content and reference material.
Start the session by selecting the language from the DVD menu. This will play the opening section of the DVD, an introduction to the four characters involved in the scenario. When this introduction is finished playing, a menu will appear.
From the menu, select Dilemma. This will play the opening act of the scenario.
Next, start the discussion of the case by exploring PERCEPTION, the first stage of the ethical decision-making process.
Lead the group(s) in identifying the answers to these questions: who, what, when, where, why, how. This exercise is meant to review the material presented at the beginning of the film and to help participants get a firmer grasp of what is happening in the situation they have just viewed.
Here are some examples of the facts that should be identified by participants as they respond to the questions:
WHO? Cdr Richard Lambert, Roger, Julie, and Daniel.
WHAT? Roger has just learned that he has the budget this year to send staff on language training. He has to decide who to send. Both Julie and Daniel are interested in language training.
WHEN? He is facing this decision at present and must determine which person to send.
WHERE? This is something that has come up at the office in the course of routine management duties and decisions.
WHY? This is a difficult decision for Roger because he feels the tension between the needs of his staff and his section’s workload.
HOW? He takes his first step to resolve the situation by discussing his concerns with Cdr Richard Lambert and verbalizing the pros and cons of the possible choices.
Continue to lead the discussion based on the Judgement stage of ethical decision making. The Judgement stage has five parts:
The aim of the general assessment stage is to get participants to state the problem in objective terms that make use of the answers provided to the questions in Perception (Stage 1) and in sentences that use only the facts of the situation.
Once participants have stated the problem, they should identify the ethical values that are embedded in the different aspects of the problem. The situation is considered to be ethically problematic only because of the ethical values triggered in each participant’s perception of the situation. At this point, participants are clarifying how these ethical values are interacting and in what way this interaction has contributed to making the situation problematic.
Participants may have to choose between two or more courses of action that are considered right. Or they may have to choose between one course of action that is considered right and another course of action that is considered wrong.
As you progress through the scenario and the discussion, the underlying ethical values are of fundamental importance. The purpose of the discussion session is to develop solutions to the situation by resolving the tension created by the interaction of these values.
In developing a course of action to deal with a situation that is ethically problematic, participants would usually work out a few reasonable options from which to make a choice.
The film provides three reasonable options available to Roger, the manager:
Ask participants to explain how each of the three options addresses the tension created by the interaction of the ethical values that have just been identified.
If participants had worked out the options on their own, as they usually would when doing case studies, they would have justified each option by offering reasons to explain how that option would resolve the problem. These reasons are rooted in some type of ethical reasoning that probably belongs to one of the following dominant ethical traditions:
Types of ethical reasoning:
Describe briefly the six types of ethical reasoning. Then ask participants to choose the type that best describes the reasons they have just given to explain the option they chose to resolve the situation.
The aim of this step is to raise participants’ awareness of types of ethical reasoning that determine what is the right thing to do? by associating everyday reasons with defined types of ethical reasoning.
Here are the various options to resolve the situation, along with the corresponding types of ethical reasoning:
If the process above has been applied well, often the logical choice of the best option is now straightforward or self-evident.
Invite participants to provide reasons that explain why the option they chose is better than the other two options.
Until we move from judgement mode to decision mode, we are still operating in the realm of good or bad intentions. It is only when we move from judgement to decision that we experience the level of commitment that demonstrates our willingness and ability to take action and do the right thing.
At this stage of the ethical decision-making process, participants often experience internal resistance against pursuing a course of action. But in ethical terms, there is helpful and unhelpful resistance — and it is important to distinguish between the two.
Clarify the difference between types of resistance: those that should be overcome, and those that represent legitimate danger signals.
It is important to distinguish between ‘Yeah, but...’ resistance and legitimate second thoughts that represent ethical danger signals triggered by deep-seated values. We all have a basic ethical intuition of what is right and wrong, sometimes referred to as a gut feeling, and at this stage of the decision-making process it is important to pay attention to that intuition — with the understanding that the time available to do this check and act upon it always depends on the urgency of the situation.
Ask participants to answer four questions in relation to the Language Training scenario that will make use of their basic ethical intuition.
If you are not satisfied with the answers to any of these or similar questions, you may wish to consider repeating the stages of the decision-making process or, if practical, delay taking action until you can consult somebody who can help you clarify the right course of action.
However, as we shift from making the 'logical' choice (judgement stage) to committing to take action based on our chosen option (decision stage), we may also experience pressure caused by the potential impact (on our personal life or our career) of the action we are contemplating.
Provide examples of different types of resistance by looking at some statements that characterize the ‘Yeah, but...’ trap:
Continue by inviting participants to think of the avenues available for those who need assistance to overcome their resistance to doing the right thing. These avenues may include:
Within one’s organization:
Within the CAF/DND:
Other organizations:
Inform participants of the name of their Unit Ethics Coordinator.
Lead the participants through a discussion of the Action stage of ethical decision-making. Highlight the fact that a participant’s work is not over just because (s)he has started taking action on the option selected — that it is important to continue to monitor the situation. The situation may change as a result of the action you are taking, or may evolve in unforeseen ways that could require a change in action to be taken. Failure to change course may mean that what originally seemed like the right thing to do could end up producing unwanted and unethical results.
Return to the DVD. The menu shows three options for resolving the situation. Each option presents a different choice made by Roger to resolve the situation, then shows the effects of that decision several months later. The three options are:
On DVD menu, click Send Julie. A short film clip shows Roger’s decision to send Julie to full-time language training, and the outcome of that decision several months later.
On DVD menu, click Send Daniel. A short film clip shows Roger’s decision to send Daniel to full-time language training, and the outcome of that decision several months later.
On DVD menu, click Send both, part-time. A short film clip shows Roger’s decision to send both Julie and Daniel to part-time language training, and the outcome of that decision several months later.
Play the option chosen by the group. After group has viewed the outcome, canvass participants to see if any of them would change their choice based on the outcome viewed. As a result, either:
play the outcome for a different option (if some participants changed their choice)
or
play the outcomes for options not chosen, to show the pros & cons of these options.
Assessment on the relative merits of each option and its outcome:
This is an assessment of the merits and drawbacks of each of the three options and its outcome. You may find it useful for reference in facilitating the discussion of the various options for resolving the situation raised by the DVD scenario.
Option: Send Julie (feedback)
This option represents the right thing to do. Recognizing that Julie truly deserves the training, participants in the role of Roger may be demonstrating care-based reasoning by sending her on six months of full-time language training. Acting as Roger, they give Julie what they believe is beneficial for her as an employee and a person, despite recognizing Roger’s personal interests and the short-term needs of his organization (the need for Julie to be present in the office in order to help get the section through a heavy-workload period).
In choosing to send Julie, participants may also be demonstrating consequence-based reasoning. Acting as Roger, they consider that Julie’s increased language skills and advancement in the organization will benefit the organization as a whole. They are reasoning that in this case the greatest good for the greatest number should trump the lesser immediate good for Roger’s section.
Finally, participants may be demonstrating rules-based reasoning by sending Julie on six months of full-time language training. They consider that Roger should be applying the norm of fairness to his decision in an objective and impartial manner. To the extent that he does, he would recognize that Julie has greater merit than Daniel in this case.
Explain to participants that there are sometimes different ways of deciding ‘the right thing to do.’ For example in this case, the application of three different types of ethical reasoning could all lead to choosing the same option. In other circumstances, each of these types of reasoning could have led to justifying different options.
The DVD outcome for this option shows that Julie succeeded in getting the language levels she needed within the six-month timeframe. She will probably now qualify for the vacant manager position opening soon in Cdr Lambert’s section, a position that interests her. However, if Julie leaves Roger’s section to work in Cdr Lambert’s section, Roger’s section will continue to benefit from her good work because she will be assigned to joint projects between the two sections.
As a result of Roger’s choice, the organization, his section, and Julie all stand to benefit if Julie wins the competition for the manager’s position for which she is now qualified.
Option: Send Daniel (feedback)
Participants demonstrate self-interest based reasoning by sending Daniel on six months of full-time language training instead of Julie. They rationalize this course of action by claiming that although Julie is more deserving, Roger cannot afford to have Julie away from the office because of the high workload. While sending Daniel on language training will provide him with beneficial language skills, participants were probably more affected by Roger’s admission to Cdr Lambert that he could live without Daniel for six months because he wasn’t his biggest go-getter.
However, participants should have taken into consideration Roger’s responsibility to provide training to his staff instead of focusing on the immediate workload of the section. If participants had considered this, they would have decided to send Julie, not Daniel, to full-time language training. Choosing Julie would have allowed her to feel that her hard work was appreciated and was being rewarded. In addition, once she had earned her language level, she would have become an even larger asset to the organization. As it stands now, she will be leaving the organization all together.
Option: Send both, part-time (feedback)
By choosing to send both Julie and Daniel for six months part-time language training, participants are demonstrating care-based reasoning mixed with self-interest based reasoning. Sharing the training opportunity between Julie and Daniel allows both to receive a reasonable amount of language training while retaining some of Julie’s time to deal with the office’s workload. At first glance this option appears fair and reasonable, but participants were aware that both Julie and Daniel had been assessed as requiring six months of full-time language training to reach the next language level. In addition, they knew that Roger believed Julie deserved to go on full-time language training more than Daniel, although Roger also felt he could not afford to have Julie away from the office full-time because of the high workload. Finally, participants knew that Roger admitted he could live without Daniel for six months because he wasn’t his biggest go-getter.
As a result, neither Julie nor Daniel has been successful in attaining the needed language proficiency level.
In this instance, participants should have taken into consideration Roger’s responsibility to provide training to his staff instead of focusing on the immediate workload of the section. If participants had done this, they would have decided to send Julie and not Daniel on language training and it would have been six months full-time, not part-time. Choosing her would have allowed her to feel that her hard work was appreciated and was being rewarded. In addition, once she had earned her language level, she would have become an even larger asset to the organization.
However, as it stands now, Julie will be leaving the organization altogether, and without having attained the desired language level. And Daniel, who Roger assessed as not being a go-getter, did not achieve his language levels and will be staying.
Therefore the participants’ decision to send both Julie and Daniel on part-time language training would have had a very unproductive outcome.