Holding Your Ethical Line: When Voicing Concerns Isn’t Enough

Article two of three. Series: Where You Draw the Line.

In the first article in this series, I explored how easy it can be to miss the moment when a compromise at work starts to feel like you’re crossing an ethical line.

But recognising that ethical line is only the first challenge.

Let’s assume you believe you’ve reached your ethical line. You’ve tested your thinking, considered what’s at stake and decided the issue isn’t simply a decision you dislike, but something far more serious.

So, you decide to speak up. You explain what concerns you and why, and the person on the other side of the table listens. Perhaps they even thank you for raising it and indicate they will look into it.

But then the decision stands, and nothing further happens.

What do you do next?

Do you raise it again? Take it further? Go above the person who made the decision? Use a formal channel? Refuse to participate? Or have you done enough because you made your position clear?

When something matters, speaking up and voicing your concerns is only the first step. The harder question is what you do when that changes nothing.

Equip yourself for complexity with the Paradoxical Leadership framework →

Speaking Up Can Carry a Cost

Challenging a decision, particularly one made by someone more senior, can carry consequences for your career, reputation and working relationships.

Professors James Detert and Amy Edmondson studied what they call implicit voice theories: the largely taken-for-granted beliefs people hold about when speaking up at work is risky or inappropriate.

Their research found that these beliefs can contribute to people remaining silent, even when they believe what they have to say could help the organisation.

And sometimes those concerns are not misplaced.

Professor Ethan Burris found that managers can respond differently depending on the type of input employees provide. People who challenged the status quo could be viewed less favourably than those whose comments were more supportive, with perceptions of loyalty and threat helping to explain the difference.

Now, that research doesn’t mean you should stay silent when something matters. But it does mean you will want to exercise judgement about what’s at stake, how certain you are of your position and what you do next.

Having the confidence to speak up is important, but knowing how to navigate the conversation that follows is just as critical. Learn more about courageous conversations to build practical skills for handling difficult discussions with confidence.

Test Your Assumptions

Once you believe an ethical line has been crossed, it can be easy to become more convinced that your reading of the situation is the right one.

So, it’s important to test your certainty. While you may be right, you may also be missing information, misunderstanding an obligation, lacking context or assuming intent where there is none.

Start by sorting through what you know for sure, what you’re assuming and where there are gaps in knowledge or understanding.

Then consider the potential consequences of the decision: how serious the impact could be, how likely it is to occur and whether it can be reversed.

It can also be helpful to find a credible and trusted person who is sufficiently removed from the situation to challenge your thinking. You want someone who is prepared to ask the question you may not be asking yourself: What if you’re wrong?

Being willing to test your position does not weaken it. If anything, it makes it stronger because you’re separating your concern about the issue from your need to be right about it.

Match Your Response To What’s At Stake

If your concern holds up, the next question is how far to take it.

You’ve already considered the strength of what you know and the potential consequences if the decision proceeds. There is one more factor to add: your responsibility.

What role do you personally play in the decision or its execution? Are you advising, approving, implementing or signing your name to it? Do you hold a professional, regulatory or organisational responsibility that changes what is expected of you?

That matters because not every concern requires the same response.

A serious and potentially irreversible consequence, supported by strong evidence and involving something for which you carry direct responsibility, warrants a different response from a concern based on incomplete information where your responsibility is limited, and the potential consequences are readily reversed.

Your aim is to respond in a way that is proportionate to what’s at stake.

Know What Would Change Your Mind

There is another series of questions worth asking before you escalate too far:

What evidence would cause you to change your view?
If new information emerged, would it alter your position?
If someone independent examined the matter and reached a different conclusion, what would you need to understand before accepting their judgement?
If the potential harm could be reduced or removed, would that change where you draw the line?

Answering these questions isn’t about finding a reason to back down. It’s about making sure you remain open to information that does not support the conclusion you have already reached.

That matters because once the issue becomes a debate about ‘my integrity versus their integrity’, it becomes much harder to assess the situation clearly. You’re no longer just defending your position; you’re defending what that position says about you. And the more personally invested you become, the harder it is to stay open to information that challenges your thinking.

Change The Channel

When the first conversation you have about the matter doesn’t resolve it, the instinct can be to repeat the same argument more forcefully. That’s not usually the best next step.

Sometimes you need to change the channel rather than raise the volume. That might mean speaking with another leader who has the authority to examine the issue, seeking advice from someone independent of the decision, or using the organisation’s established risk, people, governance, compliance or speak-up processes.

If legal, regulatory, safety or professional obligations may be involved, it may also mean seeking appropriately qualified advice.

As you escalate, keep the issue focused on what you know. Document the facts, not your interpretation of someone else’s motives. Record what happened, what you observed, the concern you raised and the response you received.

There is an important difference between saying, “This decision may result in X” and “They don’t care what happens”. The first focuses attention on the issue, while the second assigns intent you may not be in a position to know. That’s important to consider because the further things escalate, the easier it is for the issue to become personal.

Know When The Question Has Changed

Sometimes you can test your assumptions, raise the issue with the appropriate people, use the available channels, and still end up back where you started. The decision stands, and so too does your concern.

When you reach that point, the question you want to answer has changed.

You’re no longer asking, “How do I get them to change this decision?”

You’re asking, “Given the decision has not changed, what am I prepared to do?”

Where This Leaves You

Knowing how far to push requires both courage and judgement. Push too little and professionalism can become an excuse for silence. Push without testing your judgement and conviction can harden into certainty.

Neither serves you well.

And sometimes, even after you have raised the issue thoughtfully and taken it as far as you reasonably can, the decision still stands.

Then the question becomes more personal: what are you prepared to do next?

That’s where this series goes next.

Republished with courtesy from michellegibbings.com.