The Character-Based Decision-Making Model, developed by the Josephson Institute of Ethics and outlined by UC San Diego, offers a clear and compassionate process for making ethical choices. The first step reminds us that “all decisions must take into account and reflect a concern for the interests and well-being of all affected individuals (stakeholders)” (UC San Diego, 2025). This principle, grounded in the Golden Rule to “help when you can, avoid harm when you can” (UC San Diego, 2025), encourages empathy and awareness of impact. I see this reflected in my current internship with a nonprofit organization. Recently, the executive team faced a decision about reallocating funds for the coming year. They ultimately chose to maintain support for direct community programs, even though it meant delaying internal technology upgrades. Their choice demonstrated a deep concern for the people our organization serves and embodied the model’s call to consider the welfare of all stakeholders.

The second step explains that “ethical values and principles always take precedence over nonethical ones” (UC San Diego, 2025). This resonates with me because I often see how tempting it can be to focus on efficiency or recognition rather than fairness and honesty. The model warns that “perceiving the difference between ethical and nonethical values can be difficult” (UC San Diego, 2025), and that rationalization may signal this conflict. I have witnessed our leadership pause during meetings to reflect on whether decisions truly align with the organization’s mission, showing the importance of that self-awareness.

Finally, the model notes that it is “ethically proper to violate an ethical principle only when it is clearly necessary to advance another true ethical principle… to produce the greatest balance of good in the long run” (UC San Diego, 2025). This step has helped me understand that ethical decision-making is rarely simple but always guided by compassion, fairness, and character.

UC San Diego. (2025, October 3). Ethics Awareness. Blink. https://blink.ucsd.edu/finance/accountability/ethics-awareness.html#the-decision-making-model

In Principles of Management, the discussion on group decision-making provides valuable insight into how teams can make better, more thoughtful decisions. The book highlights two common challenges: social loafing, defined as “the tendency of some members to put forth less effort while working within a group” (2015, p. 490), and groupthink, described as “the tendency to avoid critical evaluation of ideas the group favors” (2015, p. 490) Both of these behaviors can seriously undermine a team’s success by limiting creativity, engagement, and honest discussion.

I have experienced these issues firsthand in group settings. For example, when my team had to decide on a topic for a research project, we immediately agreed on the first idea suggested. At the time, this seemed like efficient teamwork, but in reality, it reflected groupthink. We avoided exploring other ideas or questioning the initial suggestion. As a result, our final topic didn’t fully reflect everyone’s interests or strengths, and some members became less motivated to contribute — a subtle form of social loafing.

The book emphasizes that effective teams should work to “encourage a culture of difference where different ideas are valued” (2015, p. 493). I found this point particularly meaningful. Encouraging a culture of difference means creating an environment where team members feel comfortable expressing unique perspectives and where disagreement is seen as a path to better solutions, not conflict. In future group projects, I plan to apply these principles by actively inviting diverse opinions, questioning early assumptions, and making sure everyone’s voice is heard. Reflecting on these ideas helped me understand that successful group decision-making depends on balancing harmony with healthy debate.

Publisher. (2015). Principles of management. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2015. This edition adapted from a work originally produced in 2010 by a publisher who has requested that it not receive attribution. https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.1801

Reading the article “Playing Favorites? Hospital Boards, Donors Get COVID Shots” immediately took me back to my sophomore year of high school in early 2021, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were being rolled out. At that time, I spent a lot of time thinking about the pandemic and how it was affecting everyone I knew. The article reported that some hospitals “gave early vaccine access to wealthy donors, board members, and other influential people,” while many frontline workers and vulnerable patients had to wait (Guth, 1965). Reading that, I felt a strong sense of frustration and unfairness. I remember thinking, even as a teenager, that it didn’t make sense for people to be rewarded for status rather than need.

Being a high school sophomore, I didn’t fully understand all the challenges hospitals faced in distributing vaccines, but I understood fairness. The article described cases in Washington state where hospital staff reportedly had to step aside to make room for donors and board members. Knowing that some healthcare workers were ready and waiting to get their vaccines while others jumped the line felt especially disheartening. I spent hours reflecting on this, thinking about how my own grandparents or other at-risk people might have had to wait longer because of these decisions.

Looking back, this moment was eye-opening. It taught me that even life-saving systems can be influenced by privilege and connections, not just ethics or need. The article made it clear that rules can be bent when power and money are involved, and reading it again made me reflect on how such decisions shape public trust. Experiencing this as a teenager left a lasting impression, helping me recognize inequality and develop empathy for those affected. It reminded me that fairness isn’t always automatic, and questioning these systems is important, even when it feels overwhelming.

Guth, W. D., & Tagiuri, R. (1965). Personal values and corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 43(5), 123–132. https://hbr.org/1965/09/personal-values-and-corporate-strategy

Reading the article “LuLaRoe Was Little More than a Scam, a Washington State Lawsuit Claims” brought back memories from when I was a kid. I remember one of my parents’ close friends selling LuLaRoe when I was in elementary school. Back then, I didn’t really understand business or what was ethical or not. What I did notice was how excited they were about having their own “boutique” and being able to sell clothes in their own way. To me, it just seemed really cool—like a grown-up version of running a lemonade stand, but with bright, colorful leggings. I admired the independence and creativity it seemed to give them, without thinking about any potential problems.

Reading about the lawsuit from Washington State years later gave me a whole new perspective. The article explained that LuLaRoe’s business relied more on recruiting new sellers than on selling products, which is what makes it a pyramid scheme. As the article states, the lawsuit claimed the company “duped consumers into buying large amounts of inventory while promoting unrealistic earnings” (Jones). Many people who joined ended up with inventory they couldn’t sell and made very little money, even though they were promised they could earn a lot. Looking back, I can see that the excitement I felt as a child came from something that wasn’t fair for most people involved.

Thinking about it now, I realize how our personal experiences can shape what we think is okay or exciting. As a kid, I just thought it was fun to see someone run their own business. Now I understand that it’s important to think carefully about opportunities and see if they are really fair and honest. This experience reminds me that things that look exciting on the surface aren’t always what they seem, and it’s important to look deeper before jumping in.

Jones, Charisse. “Lularoe Was Little More than a Scam, a Washington State Lawsuit Claims.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 Jan. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/28/lularoe-pyramid-scheme-duped-consumers-washington-suit-says/2700412002/.

Reading “The Role of Values in Leadership” by Scott Lichtenstein was particularly relevant to the work I’m currently doing in my internship, where I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside the Executive Team. Lately, I’ve been sitting in on meetings that focus on cost model adjustments and how these financial shifts are influencing long-term strategy. These conversations, led by our CEO, have offered a real-world perspective on the concepts Lichtenstein describes—especially regarding the role of a strategic leader.

Referencing Figure 3: Shareholder and Stakeholder Value Chain Model of Contingency Relationships (Lichtenstein, 2012, p. 4), I was struck by how clearly the flow of values, vision, and strategic orientation align with what I’m observing in practice. Our CEO is, without question, the strategic leader of the organization. He consistently roots decision-making in both his personal leadership values and the broader organizational values, and it’s evident how that alignment shapes the company’s direction.

What stands out most is how he uses this values-based leadership approach to move the team forward with clarity and cohesion. He’s not just articulating a vision; he’s embedding it into the strategic goals and creating a shared sense of purpose. That intentional alignment helps the team carry out their work effectively, with a clear understanding of not only what needs to be done, but why it matters.

This experience has deepened my appreciation for how critical it is for leaders to remain grounded in their values while navigating complex strategy discussions. It’s not just about making decisions, but it’s also about leading with purpose.

Lichtenstein, Scott. “The Role of Values in Leadership: How Leaders’ Values Shape Value Creation.” Integral Leadership Review, Jan. 2012

Reflecting on the “Ethical Role of the Manager” by Sandra Maddock and the framework “Ethic of Care”, I think about how decisions within my nonprofit organization that ricochet to other relationships and entities. The Ethic of Care emphasized moral obligations based on the closeness of relationships. Using it, you can better understand the impact of decisions (Waddok 2012).

One specific example from my time with All We Are is the decision between funding an energy upgrade for an established community or installing solar lighting for a new one is an ethical dilemma that requires balancing our responsibilities to both groups. If we prioritize the energy upgrade for the community we’ve already worked with, we deepen our commitment to those with whom we’ve built trust. The Ethic of Care suggests that our responsibilities to long-standing relationships are stronger, meaning we have a moral obligation to ensure the well-being of the community that has already relied on our support (Waddok 2012). This investment not only sustains our impact but also nurtures the trust and partnership we’ve cultivated over time.

On the other hand, funding a solar installation for a new community addresses immediate needs and expands our reach. The Ethic of Care also supports extending care to those who may be in urgent need, even if we don’t yet have a deep relationship with them (Waddok 2012). The decision to enter a new community can foster new connections and increase our organization’s impact, but it risks spreading our resources thin and potentially neglecting those who already depend on us.

Ultimately, the Ethic of Care calls for a balance between nurturing established relationships and addressing new needs (Waddok 2012). A phased or hybrid approach—funding both the energy upgrade and a small-scale solar project—may allow us to care for both communities without sacrificing the depth of our existing relationships or the urgency of expanding our reach.

References

Waddock, Sandra. “Ethical Role of the Manager.” Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society. Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007. 786-91. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 30 Jan. 2012.

Reading “Framework for Ethical Decision Making” by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, I was intrigued by the first section “What is Ethics?”. More specifically, the section describing what ethics is not. When the article talks about how “ethics is not the same thing as following the law”, I began reflecting on regulations that are in place that could come in interference with ethical frameworks. I thought about my experience working with a solar installation nonprofit that works in small-scale development in Uganda to support rural communities lacking access to reliable and affordable power.

Our organization prides itself on its cost model that allows for these rural schools and health centers to afford reliable solar power. Our work would be able to be carried out on a greater scale without the hindrances of licensing exceptions from the ERA for Uganda. This situation connects with what the article discusses later saying that “law may also have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas and may be slow to address new problems” (A Framework for Ethical Decision Making, 2021). While our systems aren’t large enough to need to be licensed, the organization still must go through a licensing exception process that increases the cost of each installation by 150%. I hope that one day through collaboration and awareness, my organization and the ERA can find solutions to the slowed impact. 

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2021, November 8). https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

Reading “Frameworks for Ethical Analysis” from Science Learning Hub, I focused on the autonomy ethical framework and reflected on situations in my personal and professional life where there may be a  significant need for autonomy. One of the most prominent examples that came to mind was from my community engagement work with an international nonprofit organization. This organization installs solar powered lighting at schools and health centers around rural Uganda. The autonomy ethical framework address the following question: “should individuals have the right to choose for themselves, or does one decision count for everyone?” (Frameworks for ethical analysis, 2007). In the context of solar development in rural Uganda, it is important for our organization to ensure that the schools and health centers we work with maintain their own autonomy. Going into each of these communities, we cannot assume that work for one school will be the same work needed for another. 

To follow this ethical framework, the organization conducts needs assessments at each potential site to understand their specific situation and the work that is required to fit their property. For example, one school may have a larger campus or serve a more widespread student population. Our systems need to support different areas of each school. Our technician teams cannot make the decision for the school on which buildings they see as a priority to be powered or what kinds of devices need to be powered. Now, I do think there is a level of knowledge our engineers and technicians bring into these scenarios that can be used to still support the autonomy of the customers. Decisions like the installation of the solar system are put in the trust of the trained technicians. 

Frameworks for ethical analysis. Science Learning Hub. (2007, November 15). https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2146-frameworks-for-ethical-analysis 

Reading “How to Link Personal Values with Team Values” alongside “Personal Values and Performance in Teams: An Individual and Team-Level Analysis” reminded me of a class activity I participated in during one of my very first classes at NC State about three years ago. In my Introduction to Sustainability course, the class was provided with a printed group of dozens of values. We were first tasked to prioritize those values for ourselves. The result of this initial step was entirely unique sets of values across the entire class. Similarly, we each completed the Clifton Strengths Assessment, resulting in completely distinct combinations.

The importance of bringing awareness and consideration to the individuals within a team was tested in these two sources. One publication concluded that personal values do not have an influence on individual performance within a team and would not be considered “significant predictors of peer-evaluated performance” (Glew, 2009, p. 686). Building off of these findings, “How to Link Personal Values with Team Values” details the process of reflecting on personal values and collaborating to agree upon team values that every member can commit to (Jaffe & Scott, 1998, pp. 24-30). This other publication focused more closely on four personal values that were pre-selected and how they connected to performance, whereas the other generated values directly from the team’s own personal values. While they both had different purposes in delivery, a trend remains on the influence of personal values dynamics within a team or organization. From my own reflections and analyses, I am taking away the importance of communicating personal values to create a stronger understanding of team members and foster shared norms, similar to the process I started in my Introduction to Sustainability course.

Glew, D. J. (2009). Personal Values and Performance in Teams: An Individual and Team-Level Analysis. Small Group Research, 40(6), 670–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409346577

Jaffe, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (1998). How to link personal values with team values. Training & Development, 52(3), 24–30

Reading and reflecting on “A Project Team Analysis Using Tuckman’s Model of Small-Group Development”, I was reaffirmed of the significance of a team charter. I have used team charters in a few of my other courses, with each one following various formats, but I have never read a study evaluating the true success of a team charter like this source. In relation to “Tuckman’s Model of Small-Group Development”, the team charter is introduced in the “Norming” stage to provide needed structure to an academic team.

I found it interesting reviewing the structure that was developed for this specific scenario and team charter, as each of my team charters had varying requirements for my different courses. For example, for one of my entrepreneurship courses, my team was expected to put together a team charter with our goals, values, expectations, and communication plan before even receiving our project assignment. This resulted in an extremely broad team charter that wasn’t perfectly applicable to the work we were later assigned. I appreciate how the team charter is introduced in this study at a time when the entire team understands the work that needs to be done and can align the entire document around the project they must complete together. The team charter was more than an understanding of team values and general ideals, but a clarification of the “scope, objectives, deliverables, stakeholders, and the time frames for project completion” (Natvig and Stark, 2016, p. 679). Moving forward, I plan to advocate for the development of team charters around a project, as this publication reaffirmed the effectiveness of a detailed and specific team agreement. I want to include sections like “Key stakeholders”, “Project goals and priorities”, “Deliverables”, “Project risks”, and “Success measures” to ensure the success of my future team environments (Natvig and Stark, 2016, p. 677).

Natvig, D., & Stark, N. L. (2016). A project team analysis using Tuckman’s model of small-group development. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(12), 675–681. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20161114-03