Part 3

Proposed Solution

The course of action that best balances advocacy for employees with responsibility to the organization, and how to soften its costs.

The recommended course of action

I would choose Option 3: principled advocacy through legitimate channels. I would advocate for my employees, clearly and with evidence, and I would do it inside the leadership structure I was part of, not against it.

In practice, that means five steps.

Document the problem. Compare each employee's actual workload and duties with their job description and pay level. Write down the additional responsibilities people have taken on and how long they have carried them. Verhoeven and Thøis Madsen (2022) stress that expectations around extra roles should be discussed openly, and that starts with putting them on paper.
Raise it privately with leadership. Bring the case to my supervisor and the leadership team in a one-on-one or leadership meeting, not in front of staff. Frame it as a risk to the organization as much as a fairness issue for the team: overloaded people burn out and leave.
Propose specific remedies. Ask for things leadership can actually say yes to: a review of job descriptions and classifications, a redistribution of workload, formal recognition of the extra responsibilities, and a clear path to promotion for those already doing higher-level work.
Keep my team informed. Tell employees honestly that I have raised their concerns and what I asked for, without criticizing other leaders or promising an outcome I cannot guarantee.
If the answer is no. Support the decision publicly, ask what would need to change for it to be reconsidered, and keep raising it at the next budget or review cycle. Meanwhile, change what is in my own control: how work is assigned on my team, and how I recognize and develop the people who carry the most.

Why this is the best option

Option 3 holds up best across the frameworks on the Analysis page. Utilitarianism supports it because it has the best chance of producing an actual fix. Justice as fairness supports it because it works toward equal opportunity through processes that apply to everyone. Feminist ethics supports it because it uses my position deliberately for the people in my care while protecting the relationships I need in order to help them (Johnson, 2025).

Kant's categorical imperative is the hardest test for this choice. Raising concerns privately can look like holding back the full truth. My answer is that Option 3 does not hide anything. The unfairness is named directly, to the people with the power to fix it, and my team is told that it has been raised. What it avoids is turning the truth into a public fight that makes the fix less likely.

The other options are worse. Option 2 fails every framework except a narrow, short-term version of utilitarianism. It would also mean giving up my own values of fairness, respect, and responsibility. Option 1 acts on those values, but it risks damaging the relationships and influence I would need to get anything changed, and that leaves my employees no better off.

The research points the same way. McClure (2025) argues that many workplace problems in higher education come from organizational structures rather than individuals, and he names fair compensation, clear career paths, and employee voice as ways institutions can better support employees. Those are structural fixes, and structural fixes come through the organization's own processes. Alhaidan (2025) found that employees' sense of fairness is one of the main channels through which ethical leadership reaches them. If my employees see me stand up for them in a way that actually works, that matters for their trust in leadership as a whole, not just in me.

Mitigating the consequences

No option in a true dilemma is free of cost. The question is how the ethical actor reduces harm to each party after choosing.

Likely consequences of the proposed solution and how to reduce them
Stakeholder	Possible negative consequence	How I would mitigate it
Employees I supervised	Change is slow, and they keep carrying the extra load while they wait. They may read private advocacy as no advocacy at all.	Give them regular, honest updates on what I raised and what happened. Rebalance the work I control now, and recognize their extra responsibilities openly.
Other members of leadership	Some may see my advocacy as disloyal or as pressure.	Raise concerns privately, bring evidence rather than complaints, and support final decisions in public.
The organization	A review takes staff time, and changes in pay or classification may cost money.	Frame the request around retention and the cost of burnout and turnover. Propose phased options that fit budget cycles.
Me, as the ethical actor	Frustration if leadership says no, and some risk to my standing with other leaders.	Be clear with myself about what is in my control. Keep a record of what I raised and when. Keep the conversation open for the next cycle.

What success would look like

I would know this approach was working if leadership agreed to review job descriptions and classifications, if workload on my team was more evenly shared, and if employees who took on more had a clear path to promotion or recognition for it. Just as important, I would want the employees I supervised to stay. Their staying, and telling me they felt heard, would show that the advocacy reached them, even if not every request was granted.