Strategic-Ethical Dilemma Simulation

Document Purpose

This toolkit provides a complete set of resources for facilitating a simulation-based workshop focused on ethical decision-making. It is designed to be a dynamic, hands-on experience that moves beyond theory to build the practical skills and "muscle memory" leaders need to navigate complex, real-world dilemmas with integrity and strategic foresight.

Part 1: Tool Blueprint & Overview

This section outlines the foundational design, philosophy, and components of the toolkit.

1.1. Primary Objective

• To provide a safe, yet challenging, environment for leaders and teams to practice applying ethical frameworks (like CLARIFY) to realistic business dilemmas. The goal is to improve their analytical rigor, surface hidden cognitive biases, and build their confidence in making and communicating difficult, values-aligned decisions under pressure.

1.2. Key Components

• A. The Facilitator's Guide: A comprehensive guide for the person running the simulation workshop. It includes instructions for setup, timing, managing group dynamics, and, most importantly, a detailed guide for leading the post-simulation debrief session where the core learning occurs. (Content detailed in Part 2).

• B. A Library of Simulation Scenarios: A collection of detailed, realistic business dilemmas. Each scenario includes background information, specific character roles with private motivations, and a clear decision point that forces a difficult trade-off between competing values or priorities. (Content detailed in Part 3).

• C. A Participant's Debrief & Reflection Guide: A structured worksheet for participants to use after the simulation. It prompts them to reflect on their team's decision-making process, identify influential biases, and document key personal learnings and commitments. (Content detailed in Part 4).

1.3. Core Concepts of the Toolkit

• 1. Practicing Under Pressure: The simulation is not a simple case study discussion. It is designed to mimic the ambiguity, time pressure, and incomplete information of a real-world dilemma. This forces participants to move beyond intellectual understanding and actually practice using frameworks like CLARIFY when it's difficult, not just when it's easy. The stress of the simulation reveals the gap between our "espoused theory" (what we say we believe) and our "theory-in-use" (how we actually behave under pressure).

• 2. The Debrief is the Main Event: The simulation itself is the catalyst; the debrief is where the learning happens. The Facilitator's Guide will place a heavy emphasis on a structured debrief process that helps participants analyze how they made their decision, not just what they decided. This is where insights about communication breakdowns, power dynamics, and cognitive biases are uncovered. Without a robust debrief, the simulation is just a game; with one, it becomes a powerful tool for individual and team development.

• 3. Building a Shared Language: By working through a dilemma together, teams develop a common language and a shared experience for discussing complex ethical issues. Vague concepts like "integrity" and "transparency" become grounded in the memory of a specific, shared challenge. This makes it easier and more productive to have these conversations when they arise in their day-to-day work. The simulation acts as a team-building exercise for ethical maturity.

Part 2: The Facilitator's Guide

This guide provides the step-by-step instructions for preparing and running a successful simulation workshop.

2.1. Preparation & Setup (Before the Workshop)

• How to Choose the Right Scenario:

• For Senior Leadership: Choose a scenario with high strategic ambiguity and significant reputational risk, like "The Frontier Project."

• For Mid-Level Managers: Choose a scenario that focuses on operational trade-offs and team dynamics, like "The 'Miracle' Product Launch."

• For People Managers: Choose a scenario that involves personnel issues and interpersonal loyalty, like "The Whistleblower's Report."

• Assign Roles: Assign the specific character roles from the scenario to participants in advance. Send them their role descriptions 24 hours before the workshop, with instructions not to share their private motivations with others. This creates a more realistic dynamic.

• Prepare the Room:

• Arrange the room in a U-shape or circle to encourage discussion, not a classroom-style lecture.

• Have a large whiteboard or two flip charts ready for the debrief session.

• Print copies of the Participant's Debrief & Reflection Guide (Part 4) for each person.

2.2. Workshop Flow & Timing (2-Hour Session)

• (0:00-0:10) Introduction & Framing:

• Welcome the group and state the objective: "Today, we're going to use a simulation to practice how we make difficult decisions when our values are in tension. The goal is not to find the one 'right' answer, but to analyze the process of how we get to an answer."

• Set the ground rules: "This is a safe space for debate. Let's challenge ideas respectfully and listen to understand. What happens in the simulation stays in the simulation."

• (0:10-0:20) Scenario Briefing:

• Briefly present the common background information for the chosen scenario to the entire group.

• Remind participants of their assigned roles and that they may have unique information or motivations.

• (0:20-0:50) The Simulation (30 minutes):

• Announce the start of the simulation. State the clear objective: "Your goal as a team is to come to a specific, actionable decision in the next 30 minutes."

• Your Role as Facilitator: Step back. Do not intervene. Your job is to observe and take notes on the team's dynamics. Watch for:

• Who speaks first and most often? Who is quiet?

• How are disagreements handled? Are they constructive or personal?

• Do they use a structured framework (like CLARIFY), or is the discussion unstructured and reactive?

• What cognitive biases seem to be at play (e.g., jumping to conclusions, groupthink, confirmation bias)?

• How do they handle the time pressure? Does the quality of the conversation degrade as the deadline approaches?

• (0:50-1:00) Individual Reflection:

• Stop the simulation. Announce that the decision-making portion is over.

• Hand out the Participant's Debrief & Reflection Guide. Say, "Before we discuss as a group, please take 10 minutes to quietly reflect on the process and answer the questions in this guide."

• (1:00-1:50) The Group Debrief (50 minutes):

• This is the most critical part of the workshop. Use the "Art of the Debrief" guide below to lead a structured discussion.

• (1:50-2:00) Key Takeaways & Close:

• Ask each person to share one key takeaway or one commitment they are making based on the experience.

• Thank the group for their engagement and courage.

2.3. The Art of the Debrief: A Structured Guide

Use this four-step process to guide the group from discussing the specific scenario to generating broader insights about their own team's dynamics.

Step 1: "What Happened?" (The Facts - 10 mins)

• Goal: To establish a shared, objective understanding of the decision-making process.

• Questions:

• "Let's start by just recounting the events. What was the first thing the group discussed?"

• "What were the key turning points in the conversation where the direction seemed to shift?"

• "What was the final decision, and how was it made (e.g., by consensus, by the leader, ran out of time)?"

Step 2: "How Did We Feel?" (The Emotions - 10 mins)

• Goal: To explore the emotional landscape of the simulation, which often dictates behavior.

• Questions:

• "What was the emotional climate in the room during the simulation? Was it tense, collaborative, rushed?"

• "At what point did you feel most engaged or energized? At what point did you feel most frustrated or unheard?"

• "For those who were quieter, what was holding you back from speaking up?"

Step 3: "Why Did It Happen That Way?" (The Analysis - 20 mins)

• Goal: To connect the events and feelings to underlying patterns and cognitive biases.

• Questions:

• "Did we use a structured process or framework to guide our decision, or was it more reactive?"

• "Which stakeholders were most represented in our conversation? Were any stakeholders overlooked?"

• "Did we fall into any decision-making traps? For example, did we anchor on the first suggestion made (anchoring bias)? Did we all quickly agree with the most senior person in the room (groupthink)?"

• "How did the time pressure affect the quality of our conversation and our final decision?"

Step 4: "What Will We Do Differently?" (The Application - 10 mins)

• Goal: To translate the learnings from the simulation into real-world commitments.

• Questions:

• "What is the single most important lesson we can take from this simulation back to our real-world team meetings?"

• "Based on this experience, what is one commitment we can make to each other to improve how we handle difficult decisions in the future?"

• "What's one thing you will personally do differently the next time you're in a high-stakes meeting?"

2.4. Managing Difficult Dynamics: A Facilitator's Guide

• If one person dominates the conversation: "Thank you for that perspective, John. I'd like to create some space for others to weigh in. Sarah, I haven't heard from you yet—what are your thoughts?"

• If the group gets stuck in analysis paralysis: "This is a complex issue with no easy answer. Given that we have 10 minutes left, what is the most responsible decision we can make with the information we have right now?"

• If the conversation becomes personal or tense: "Let's pause for a moment. Let's remember to challenge the ideas, not the people. Can we re-center the conversation on the core principles and stakeholder impacts?"

• If the group rushes to a decision too quickly (groupthink): "That seems like a plausible option. Before we commit, let's spend five minutes playing devil's advocate. What is the single biggest risk of taking this path? What could go wrong?"

Part 3: A Library of Simulation Scenarios

This section contains detailed scenarios for use in the simulation workshop. Each scenario is designed to be a self-contained world, providing enough detail to feel real and enough ambiguity to create a genuine dilemma.

Scenario 1: "The Frontier Project"

Core Tension: Short-Term Revenue vs. Long-Term Integrity & Stakeholder Trust

1. Common Background (To be shared with all participants)

Our company has been given a major opportunity to be the exclusive technology partner for "The Frontier Project," a large-scale infrastructure development in a developing country. This is a high-profile, five-year project that would generate significant revenue and boost our company's international reputation.

The government of the host country is eager to work with us, but they have made it clear that to "facilitate" the final approvals and ensure the project runs smoothly, they require us to partner with a specific local logistics and consulting firm, "Local Motion, Ltd."

Initial due diligence on Local Motion has raised some red flags. While they are a legally registered company, they have a reputation for opaque business practices. More concerningly, the firm is owned by a close relative of the government's Minister of Infrastructure, the very person who will be granting the final approvals. While no one has explicitly asked for a bribe, the implication is clear: hiring Local Motion is a condition of winning the contract.

The final decision meeting is in 30 minutes.

2. Character Roles (To be shared privately with assigned participants)

• Role A: CEO

• Your Goal: To secure the Frontier Project. This project is a cornerstone of your five-year growth strategy. Missing out would be a major blow to revenue forecasts and could disappoint the Board.

• Your Private Motivation: You are under immense pressure from the Board to deliver strong quarterly results. You believe that with careful legal oversight, you can work with Local Motion in a compliant way and that the economic benefits of the project for the local population outweigh the "cost of doing business."

• Role B: Head of Sales

• Your Goal: To close the deal. This is the largest deal of your career, and your team's annual bonuses are heavily dependent on it.

• Your Private Motivation: You've spent a year building relationships to get this deal to the finish line. You see the partnership with Local Motion as a standard, if slightly unsavory, part of international business. You believe that refusing to work with them is naive and will simply result in a competitor winning the contract.

• Role C: General Counsel (Head of Legal)

• Your Goal: To protect the company from legal and regulatory risk.

• Your Private Motivation: You are deeply concerned that any engagement with Local Motion could be perceived as a violation of international anti-corruption laws (like the FCPA or UK Bribery Act), even if no cash is exchanged. The reputational damage from even a hint of scandal could be catastrophic and long-lasting, far outweighing the revenue from the project.

• Role D: Head of ESG & Corporate Responsibility

• Your Goal: To ensure the company's actions align with its stated public values of transparency and ethical conduct.

• Your Private Motivation: You see this as a defining moment for the company's integrity. Agreeing to this partnership, no matter how it's structured, would make a mockery of the company's values. You believe that true leadership means walking away from profitable deals that are ethically compromised. You are the voice of the company's long-term reputation.

3. The Final Decision

The team must decide on one of three options in the next 30 minutes:

• Option 1: Accept the Deal. Agree to the partnership with Local Motion, Ltd., but put in place strict legal and financial oversight to ensure all payments are for legitimate, documented services.

• Option 2: Refuse the Deal. Walk away from the Frontier Project entirely, citing a misalignment with your company's partnership principles.

• Option 3: Propose an Alternative. Go back to the government and state that you cannot work with Local Motion, but propose a list of three other pre-vetted, reputable local firms you would be willing to partner with, knowing this could jeopardize the entire deal.

Facilitator's Inject (Optional, at the 15-minute mark): Announce: "You've just received an email from the Minister of Infrastructure's office. They've heard you are having a final discussion and 'gently' remind you that your main competitor has already expressed a willingness to be flexible on local partnerships. They need your final decision within the next 15 minutes."

Scenario 2: "The Whistleblower's Report"

Core Tension: Loyalty to a Colleague vs. Responsibility to the Truth & Company Integrity

1. Common Background (To be shared with all participants)

A serious, anonymous complaint has been made through the company's ethics hotline. The complaint alleges that a popular and high-performing senior manager, Alex Smith, has been falsifying quality control data for a key product line to meet shipping deadlines. The product is a medical component where quality failure could have serious, though not life-threatening, consequences for patients.

You are the management committee that must decide how to handle this highly sensitive situation. Alex has been with the company for 15 years, is a personal friend to many on the committee, and is widely seen as a potential successor to the current division head. The allegations, if true, would be a major breach of company policy and could trigger a product recall and regulatory investigation.

The committee has 30 minutes to decide on an immediate course of action.

2. Character Roles (To be shared privately with assigned participants)

• Role A: Division Head (Alex's direct manager)

• Your Goal: To resolve this situation with minimal disruption to the business and to Alex's career.

• Your Private Motivation: You have mentored Alex for years and feel a deep sense of loyalty. You believe these are likely exaggerated claims from a disgruntled employee. You want to handle this "internally" and quietly, without launching a formal, disruptive investigation that could tarnish the reputation of a good leader based on an anonymous tip.

• Role B: Head of HR

• Your Goal: To ensure a fair, consistent, and legally defensible process is followed.

• Your Private Motivation: You are concerned about protecting the integrity of the whistleblower process. If the company is seen as burying a serious allegation, it will have a chilling effect, and no one will ever trust the hotline again. You believe a formal, independent investigation is the only way to protect the company and its employees.

• Role C: Head of Operations

• Your Goal: To maintain production stability and avoid a costly product recall if at all possible.

• Your Private Motivation: A full investigation would require shutting down the product line for days, causing massive operational and financial disruption. You are looking for a solution that verifies the product's safety without triggering a full-blown crisis. You suspect the quality issues are minor and are being blown out of proportion.

• Role D: General Counsel (Head of Legal)

• Your Goal: To mitigate the company's legal and regulatory exposure.

• Your Private Motivation: Your primary concern is the potential for regulatory action and lawsuits if the allegations are true and the company is seen as having ignored them. You believe the immediate priority is to understand the legal risk, which requires a swift and thorough investigation, regardless of the operational disruption or personal relationships involved.

3. The Final Decision

The committee must decide on one of three immediate actions in the next 30 minutes:

• Option 1: The Informal Inquiry. Ask the Division Head to have a private, informal conversation with Alex to "get his side of the story" before taking any further action.

• Option 2: The Formal Internal Investigation. Immediately place Alex on paid administrative leave and launch a formal, documented investigation led by HR and Legal, including a forensic audit of the quality control data.

• Option 3: The Quiet Audit. Do not confront Alex directly yet. Instead, authorize a discreet, independent audit of the quality control data for the past six months to see if there is any evidence to support the claims before deciding on the next step.

Facilitator's Inject (Optional, at the 15-minute mark): Announce: "A journalist from a major industry publication has just called your Head of Comms, asking for a comment on an 'anonymous tip' they've received about quality control issues in your medical components division. They are running a story in 24 hours. Your decision now has an external deadline."

Scenario 3: "The 'Miracle' Product Launch"

Core Tension: Speed-to-Market vs. Product Transparency

1. Common Background (To be shared with all participants)

Your team is one week away from launching a highly anticipated new software product, "Phoenix." This is the most important launch of the year, and a major marketing campaign is already scheduled. The company's stock price has risen in anticipation.

During final testing, a significant, intermittent bug was discovered. The bug causes the software to crash, but only under a very specific and rare set of circumstances (it appears in less than 0.1% of test cases). The engineering team believes they can develop a patch, but it will not be ready for at least four weeks, meaning the launch would have to be delayed.

Delaying the launch would be a major public embarrassment, would cost millions in rescheduled marketing, and would likely cause the stock price to fall. Launching on time means knowingly shipping a product with a flaw, however minor it may seem.

The leadership team has 30 minutes to decide how to proceed with the launch.

2. Character Roles (To be shared privately with assigned participants)

• Role A: Head of Product

• Your Goal: To have a successful and well-received product launch.

• Your Private Motivation: You have been working on Phoenix for two years. You are convinced the bug is minor and will be encountered by very few users. You believe the reputational damage of a delayed launch is far greater than the risk of a few users experiencing a rare crash. You want to launch now and release the patch quietly in a few weeks.

• Role B: Head of Marketing

• Your Goal: To execute a blockbuster launch that meets all its targets.

• Your Private Motivation: Your entire annual budget and reputation are tied to this launch. A delay would be a disaster, forcing you to pull expensive ads and explain the failure to the public. You are strongly in favor of launching on time and believe you can "spin" any negative reports as isolated incidents.

• Role C: Head of Engineering

• Your Goal: To ensure the company ships high-quality, reliable software.

• Your Private Motivation: You are uncomfortable signing off on a product with a known crashing bug, no matter how rare. You believe launching on time sets a dangerous precedent that quality is secondary to deadlines. You feel immense pressure from the rest of the team but believe delaying is the only responsible choice from a technical standpoint.

• Role D: Head of Customer Support

• Your Goal: To ensure customers have a positive experience and that your team is prepared for any issues.

• Your Private Motivation: You know that even a "rare" bug can translate into thousands of support tickets for a major launch. Your team is not staffed to handle a surge of complaints about crashes. You are concerned that launching now will overwhelm your team and damage the company's relationship with its earliest and most enthusiastic customers.

3. The Final Decision

The team must decide on one of three options in the next 30 minutes:

• Option 1: Launch On Time, Say Nothing. Proceed with the launch as scheduled. Do not proactively mention the bug, and prepare the support team to handle complaints as they come in. Release the patch as a standard "performance and stability update" in four weeks.

• Option 2: Delay the Launch. Postpone the launch for four weeks until the patch is fully developed and tested. Issue a public statement explaining the delay is to "ensure the product meets our high-quality standards."

• Option 3: Launch On Time, Be Transparent. Proceed with the launch as scheduled, but include a "Known Issues" section in the release notes that transparently describes the rare bug and states that a patch is already in development and will be released shortly.

Facilitator's Inject (Optional, at the 15-minute mark): Announce: "Your lead beta tester, a highly influential industry blogger, has just emailed you. They've discovered the crashing bug and are asking if this is a known issue. They are planning to write their final review in the next few hours. How you respond to them is now part of your decision."

Part 4: A Participant's Debrief & Reflection Guide

This worksheet is for your personal, confidential reflection after the simulation. Please take 10 minutes to answer these questions honestly before the group debrief begins. Your notes will help you contribute to a richer group discussion.

Section 1: The Process (What Happened?)

1. What was our final decision? If we didn't reach one, where did we get stuck?

2. How would you describe our decision-making process? (e.g., Structured and analytical, chaotic and rushed, dominated by one person, collaborative, etc.)

3. Whose voices were heard the most? Whose were heard the least?

Section 2: The Experience (How Did I Feel?)

1. At what point in the simulation did you feel most engaged or influential?

2. At what point did you feel most frustrated, unheard, or uncomfortable? What was happening at that moment?

3. Did you say everything you wanted to say? If not, what held you back?

Section 3: The "Why" (Analysis & Insights)

1. What was the biggest factor that influenced our final decision? (e.g., financial pressure, legal risk, values, the most senior person's opinion, etc.)

2. Did you observe any decision-making "traps" or biases in our discussion? (e.g., Groupthink, confirmation bias, anchoring on the first idea, etc.) If so, what were they?

3. From your perspective, how well did we live up to our company's core values during this process?

Section 4: The Future (Application & Commitment)

1. What is the single most important lesson you learned from this experience?

2. What is one thing our team could do to improve how we make difficult decisions in the future?

3. What is one personal commitment you will make to improve your own contribution to these conversations?