Analysis of the Dilemma

Neither of the two most obvious responses is entirely right or entirely wrong. Each protects something important and sacrifices something important. Beyond these two, I also considered whether another approach could better balance my responsibilities. That became the third option below.

Johnson (2025) presents several ethical perspectives leaders can use to test a decision. Each asks a different question, and they do not always agree. Using more than one keeps me honest. It stops me from picking the one framework that happens to support the answer I already wanted.

The frameworks agree on one thing. Option 2 fails under every lens except a narrow, short-term version of utilitarianism. Accepting the decisions without speaking up is the easiest choice, and it is also the hardest one to defend.

They disagree about Options 1 and 3, and that disagreement matters. Kant's categorical imperative favors Option 1. It asks me to do what is right no matter the cost, and loudly naming an injustice fits that better than raising it quietly. Utilitarianism leans the other way. It judges by results, and open conflict that changes nothing produces worse results than a slower approach that actually gets a review done.

Feminist ethics sits between the two, and I find it the most useful here. Care pulls me toward Option 1. Responsibility asks a harder question: am I using my position in the way most likely to help the people who depend on me? Sometimes the honest answer is that a carefully built case does more for them than a confrontation.

Fairness is not only a value I hold personally. Research links it to how leadership actually works. Alhaidan (2025) found that ethical leadership improved employees' ethical behavior largely through employees' perceptions of organizational justice, and that the effect was stronger when leaders showed a higher moral identity. In other words, how fairly employees believe they are treated is one of the channels through which a leader's ethics reaches them.

The tension I faced also appears in organizations well beyond higher education. Studying flexible work arrangements in small and medium-sized firms, Eng et al. (2025) found that policies that benefit employees can also create coordination challenges for the organization, and concluded that leaders must deliberately balance the two rather than choose one side.

These findings sharpen the case against Option 2. If perceived fairness is the path through which ethical leadership reaches employees, as Alhaidan (2025) found, then staying silent does more than leave a problem in place. It tells my team that their supervisor's ethics stop where the organization's decisions begin. Le et al. (2021) point toward what Option 3 needs to get right. They stress employee participation in decision-making, and they found that employees viewed organizational justice more negatively than managers did. Advocacy that happens entirely behind closed doors risks repeating that gap. My team has to know that their concerns are being raised, even when they cannot be in the room.