Last week, we introduced the idea of “getting a little better every day.” At its core, this decision is about approaching our actions with intention, a habit that keeps us grounded even as we navigate complexity. But when people ask, “What does that look like in action?” the answer often comes down to a practical tool: the Dignity Chart. Based on the classic “quad chart” concept, this chart serves as a structured space for making principled decisions, especially useful in situations that challenge our core values.
The Dignity Chart: A Navigation Map for Principled Decisions
Originally rooted in business and science, the Dignity Chart has been adapted here to prioritize people and principles over simple outcomes. By using it, we can bring our focus back to core principles—human dignity and the common good—while finding practical solutions to real-world problems. The Dignity Chart creates a structured space for thinking, setting expectations, and cultivating freedom, accountability, and even creativity in our decisions.
Why Use the Dignity Chart?
For conscientious people, most decisions align naturally with their values (values or what’s important can change with time/circumstances). But there are moments when conflicting priorities make principled choices (principles never change) anything but easy. This is when the Dignity Chart truly becomes invaluable. It works as a kind of “navigation map,” offering a visual guide to help ensure that both personal integrity and the common good remain central to the decision-making process.
How the Dignity Chart Works: Four Quadrants of Decision-Making
The Dignity Chart divides decision-making into four distinct quadrants, each representing different balances of human dignity and common good:
- Quadrant 1 (Q1): High Dignity / High Common Good
This is the ideal path, where both personal values and collective well-being align. Decisions made in this quadrant respect individual integrity while creating sustainable, trustworthy outcomes. - Quadrant 2 (Q2): High Dignity / Low Common Good
Here, decisions prioritize personal principles, even if they might not immediately serve the broader group. This quadrant can represent standing firm on ethical values that may come at a short-term cost. - Quadrant 3 (Q3): Low Dignity / Low Common Good
Disengagement sits here. Choices in this quadrant fail to benefit either personal dignity or the common good, often leading to avoidance or inertia rather than intentional action. - Quadrant 4 (Q4): Low Dignity / High Common Good
This quadrant prioritizes group success, sometimes at the cost of personal integrity. Decisions here can achieve short-term wins but risk compromising long-term trust and individual values.
When the Dignity Chart Becomes Critical
The Dignity Chart offers clarity when we need it most: in ethical dilemmas, high-stakes decisions, and situations with no obvious solution. By keeping human dignity and the common good in balance, it helps us identify the path that not only works but is also worth taking.
Process in Action: Dora’s Dilemma
To see the Dignity Chart in action, consider the case of Dora Flowers. Dora, a year into her job at Pseudonym Solutions, has been asked to prepare a revised project bid for XYZ Company. Her supervisor, Jacqueline, has requested that she reduce the project timeline estimate from eighteen months to twelve, even though she knows twelve months is unachievable with their current resources. Dora’s discomfort grows as Jacqueline insists that this approach—promising an unrealistic timeline—is common in software consulting. The aim, she says, is to secure the contract, with the expectation that once the project begins, XYZ will likely agree to extensions rather than switch consultants.
This situation puts Dora in a tough spot. Following Jacqueline’s directive would mean compromising her professional integrity and potentially misleading a client. Ignoring her supervisor’s request, however, could damage her relationship with her and jeopardize her standing within the company. Using the Dignity Chart process can help Dora navigate this dilemma with a structured approach. Before you go further, write down a solution to Dora’s dilemma using the decision-making process you use now. Then, read-on and elevate your solution using a Dignity Chart to see how the chart works.
Step 1: Define the Problem
Dora’s Dilemma: Dora is facing pressure to misrepresent a project timeline, which risks client trust and her own sense of professional ethics.
Step 2: Define Principles of Human Dignity and the Common Good
- Human Dignity: For Dora, this means upholding honesty and transparency in her work.
- Common Good: Maintaining the company’s long-term client trust by setting realistic expectations with XYZ, thereby avoiding future conflict or financial loss due to unmet promises.
Step 3: Define Quadrants and Create a Quadrant 1 Solution
Using a Dignity Chart doesn’t just solve a problem (the minimum) so you can move on to the next one, it helps you create Quadrant 1 solutions by lifting your chin up to do what’s possible and creating more goodness, beauty & growth with the solution. To find a Quadrant 1 solution that honors both her integrity and the company’s client relationships, Dora could take one or more of the following actions, but what quadrant would you put them in?
- Propose a Feasible Compromise: Suggest a timeline that’s shorter than eighteen months but still realistic, perhaps fifteen months. This adjustment may give Pseudonym a competitive edge without misleading the client.
- Advocate for Transparency: Present the project complexities and timeline challenges clearly to XYZ. By positioning Pseudonym as a partner that values client collaboration and honesty, Dora could help XYZ make a more informed decision.
- Seek Mediation: If Jacqueline remains unyielding, Dora might consult a trusted colleague or another senior team member. This approach could help her balance her concerns with the company’s goals, especially if Pseudonym values long-term relationships over quick wins.
Step 4: Position the Solution in the Appropriate Quadrant
Do any of the proposed solutions align with Quadrant 1 (High Dignity / High Common Good)? If Dora could do anything she wanted, what else could Dora do to stand for honesty and transparency to both maintain her professional integrity and foster a trustworthy, sustainable client relationship for Pseudonym?
A Candid Look at the Risks
Taking a stand is rarely without risks. Dora’s approach could lead to tension with Jacqueline, or even to the loss of the bid if XYZ selects another consultancy with a more aggressive timeline. The stress of advocating for her principles in a high-stakes scenario could also impact her well-being if support from within the firm is limited. But by choosing this path, Dora prioritizes long-term relationships and her own professional integrity, both essential for sustained success.
A Process Worth Following
While there are no guarantees, the Dignity Chart offers a practical framework for principled decision-making. By balancing human dignity with the common good, it gives individuals a structured path to make ethical choices, even when facing conflicting interests.
The Dignity Chart isn’t just about decisions; it’s about cultivating a process that leads to sustainable growth, trust, and ultimately, an increasingly better version of ourselves every day.
