Leading Without Sliding

Drift doesn’t announce itself. It hides inside urgency, optics, and “just this once.” Character at scale is the discipline of catching the slide before it becomes the standard. 

Read on Medium

The Pressure Test 

The agenda looked ordinary—quarterly targets, customer feedback, operational updates. 

But the conversation that morning was anything but routine. 

Margins were tight, and a senior leader proposed a fix: use generative AI to accelerate client deliverables. It was efficient, defensible, and, in their words, “what everyone else is doing.” 

Heads nodded. The logic was sound. The numbers worked. But something in the tone of the room shifted, an unease that had nothing to do with technology and everything to do with trust. 

One voice finally broke the silence: “If we move forward this way, do we tell our clients how much of the work is now AI-driven?” 

The question landed like a pin drop. 

No one intended to cross a line; they were just moving fast to solve for pressure. 

That’s how it begins: silent, easy, and accelerated by urgency. Ethical erosion rarely starts with bad intent. It starts with bandwidth, competition, and the subtle permission of “just this once.” Scaling doesn’t invent new ethical dilemmas; it accelerates the ones already in play. As the pace of growth surges, character becomes the only system holding things upright.

Why Scaling Tests Character 

The larger an organization grows, the more distance appears between intent and impact. What once felt like direct, values-based decision-making becomes distributed, filtered through layers of goals, metrics, and timelines. That’s where character gets tested: not in the mission statement, but in the handoffs. 

Ethical drift begins as adaptation: a leader trims a process for a deadline, a manager skips a review for efficiency, or a team redefines transparency to match competitors. Each isolated move makes sense, but together, they shift the organization’s values. 

Research from scholars like Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel describes this as ethical fading, where moral dimensions quietly disappear from decision-making under pressure. Linda Treviño and Michael Brown’s work on ethical leadership systems adds that culture isn’t what’s written in values statements; it’s what gets rewarded when trade-offs are on the table. Scaling magnifies these trade-offs. The pace increases, the stakes grow, and suddenly the “how” of decision-making becomes less visible than the “how fast.” At that point, ethics shift from being a belief to being an operational discipline. 

When I work with executive teams under scaling pressure, new investors, expanded markets, technology transitions, etc., the most common challenge isn’t bad judgment. It’s moral bandwidth. The speed of growth outpaces the systems that once ensured reflection and accountability. 

That’s how sliding starts, not with intent to deceive, but with erosion of time to decide well. And that’s how both-siding follows, rationalizing each compromise as balance, context, or competitive parity. As scale increases, so does exposure. What you permit multiplies. That's why ethics that hold under pressure can't rely on character alone; they require design.

The Modern Drift: Sliding and Both-Siding 

It always unfolds in quiet, reasonable steps. 

I call the first step sliding: letting things drift because we’re busy, tired, or chasing a metric. A privacy policy gets postponed “until the next release.” A hiring shortcut becomes “standard practice.” A pricing change slides through without a full conversation about fairness. Each slide feels harmless, even pragmatic. 

Then comes both-siding: the reflex to justify choices by comparison. 

Everyone’s automating. 

Other firms raised rates. 

Competitors are collecting the same data. 

It sounds balanced, but it’s really displacement. Both-siding replaces reflection with rationalization, and soon, teams are benchmarking integrity instead of owning it. 

I’ve watched this play out across industries: leaders adopting AI without clear disclosure, nonprofits framing restricted funding as “flexible” to meet targets, startups overselling traction to keep valuations steady. None of it starts with malice; it starts with pressure and the subtle permission of “we’ll fix it later.” 

Sliding and both-siding are how ethical drift scales. They alter decisions, and they recalibrate what feels normal. Over time, organizations stop noticing the slide altogether. 

Move from awareness to design. 

Leaders have to build feedback loops that catch drift early: dissent channels that are safe to use, post-decision reviews that include ethical reflection, and metrics that reward how choices are made, not only the results they deliver. 

Because when “everyone’s doing it” becomes the reason, ethics have already turned into optics. 

Defining Character at Scale

When leaders talk about “values,” they often mean aspiration, the words on the wall. But character, especially at scale, is architectural, a frame. It’s what holds shape when no one is watching. As organizations grow, character is less about individual conviction and more about consistent systems and ensuring decisions, policies, and behaviors align under pressure.

It’s made up of three parts: 

1. Clarity. Everyone knows what matters most, even when it costs something. The principles aren’t slogans; they’re filters for real choices. 

2. Consistency. What gets rewarded aligns with what’s declared. The meeting room and the metrics speak the same language. 

3. Courage. People can voice tension or dissent without consequence. In complex systems, integrity depends on the freedom to question. 

A colleague in my network recently consulted with me about an experience she observed involving a leadership team preparing for a product launch. While a data-modeling tool performed well, the team discovered potential bias in its training data. Postponing the launch would mean missing a critical milestone with investors.

They paused anyway. 

That pause was structural courage. The company had built in the expectation that ethical questions might slow the pace, and that slowing down was part of doing it right. That’s the difference between value statements and value systems. The former tells people what the organization believes; the latter shows them what it will hold when pressure hits. 

The Architecture of Ethics That Endure 

When the pace of decisions increases, people need rails to guide judgment before the pressure arrives. 

In every organization, three kinds of containers matter most: 

• Decision frameworks. Clear processes for complex choices: who is consulted, what data is reviewed, and how risks are surfaced. Some teams run “ethical pre-mortems,” walking through how a decision could fail people, not just the numbers. 

• Accountability loops. Designated checkpoints where leaders revisit prior calls. These moments keep ethics from being a one-time approval and turn them into a living audit of choices made under strain. 

• Cultural signals. The way leaders respond when tension shows up in the room. How dissent is handled, how recognition is given, and how language is used. Each signal tells people what integrity actually looks like here. 

The Pressure Points: Ethics Under Strain 

The three pressure points that occur most frequently are:

1. Financial compression. 

When budgets tighten or markets shift, leaders start editing values for efficiency. “We’ll revisit that after funding closes.” “It’s temporary.” Ethics bends around quarterly realities until the exceptions outnumber the rules. Use early transparency, naming constraints before they quietly dictate behavior. 

2. Competitive mimicry. 

Speed can blur the line between adaptation and imitation. When leaders benchmark every move against competitors, values become a mirror instead of a compass. Teams adopt practices they’d never choose on principle, justified by market parity. The fix is recalibration: asking whether a practice aligns with identity before it aligns with industry. 

3. People decisions. 

Hiring, firing, promotion, and pay are where organizational ethics are most evident. These are the moments that show what leadership actually values. Under pressure, expedience often overrides fairness, roles are quietly reshuffled, and communication is softened until it borders on avoidance. Consistency and candor are the only stabilizers here. People forgive hard news faster than hidden criteria. 

Leaders who rehearse these moments and build reflection into their cadence give their teams stability grounded in truth. 

Systems That Hold Under Strain 

Embedded in operations ethics is an ongoing practice, rather than a policy.

Three design moves make that possible: 

1. Codify decisions before a crisis. 

Don’t wait for a headline to define your boundaries. Map the questions that matter most to your organization: how you use emerging technology, how you price, how you communicate errors, and agree on what “responsible” looks like in advance. Pre-decided principles save hours of debate and confusion. 

2. Build ethical rehearsals into leadership work. 

Scenario work is leadership development and risk management. Running short simulations—“what would we do if…”—forces reflection while the cost is still low. The exercise normalizes dissent, sharpens instincts, and turns abstract values into practiced responses. 

3. Make transparency operational. 

When outcomes and rationales are logged, reviewed, and discussed openly, integrity becomes visible. Dashboards that track not only metrics but also lessons learned; debriefs that ask “what did we learn ethically” alongside “what did we learn financially.” Visibility builds trust faster than assurances ever will. 

Together, these moves uplift accountability and culture. Teams understand how decisions travel, where to question them, and how to adjust without hiding it. Pressure doesn’t disappear; it becomes data. 

Author Bio 

Ricka’ Berry, MBA, is a strategist, former executive, and founder of genius grace. As a doctoral candidate in leadership and systems design, she assists leaders in aligning their strategy with whole-person leadership, combining 20 years of practical experience with research on how organizations grow, adapt, and endure.