An important part of leadership is making tough decisions. That’s easy enough to understand in the abstract, but harder to execute when you suddenly find yourself in the midst of a tricky dilemma.

This week, we share advice from Kellogg’s Brooke Vuckovic on how to reach ethical decisions in those fraught situations. And we hear from marketing expert Timothy Calkins on the tough calls advertisers need to make before this year’s Super Bowl.

When both sides are right

Many work debates don’t fall neatly into a pattern where one side is clearly right and the other is obviously wrong. In these cases, the leader must make sure values stay centered in the conversation, says Vuckovic.

“What interests me is when there are ethical and moral issues at play,” says Vuckovic, a clinical professor of leadership at the Kellogg School. “These decisions have implications for the values that the organization espouses, on how their clients or their employees are treated, and on how team members view themselves as agents of this organization.”

One strategy she offers is to reframe a debate between two individuals as a more-abstract tension between ideas—for example, short term versus long term or individual rights versus community responsibilities.

“If you start to describe it as a classic dilemma, it tends to cool things off a little bit,” Vuckovic says. “Those involved aren’t portrayed as loyal or disloyal; they’re simply embodying different types of loyalty.”

After the decision, leaders should be conscious of the “moral remainder”—the people who argued for the option that wasn’t chosen. And if time eventually reveals that a mistake was made, it’s critical to own that error, Vuckovic says.

“Those who can zoom out to constructively engage their team in dialog, connect across the organization to reduce their blind spots, and respond with transparency when they miscalculate can steadily build a reputation as leaders who can handle the thorniest of values-based decisions.”

Read more at Kellogg Insight, and hear Vuckovic talk about morally managing layoffs on The Insightful Leader podcast

Avoiding a Super Bowl fumble

Marketers face hard decisions of their own this week as they prepare for the advertising event of the year: the Super Bowl.

At roughly $8 million per 30 seconds of air time, delivering a hit commercial during The Big Game is always a high-stakes endeavor. But in 2026, with American audiences anxious about economic stability and conflicts at home and abroad, advertisers walk an even thinner tightrope, writes Kellogg’s Timothy Calkins.

“The challenge for advertisers this year is simple: What is this moment? How is the country feeling? What are the themes that will resonate broadly?” says Calkins, a clinical professor of marketing. “Remember that more than 100 million people will watch the Super Bowl: liberals, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats.”

While many advertisers will try to steer well clear of controversy, others may go with themes of patriotism and unity that have worked with consumers in the past. But given the current raw emotions, Calkins says that approach could fall flat.

“There is an opportunity to say something relevant and important, but a risk of appearing opportunistic and tone deaf,” Calkins says.

As the clock ticks down to Sunday, Calkins has two pieces of advice for Super Bowl advertisers. First, keep testing.

“Does the spot work in this new environment? Will a silly, funny spot still seem appropriate for such a serious moment? It is a good time to gather feedback from a wide range of people. Revisions might be necessary or even a completely new spot.”

Second, sacrifice the element of surprise and pre-release the ad to gauge public response before the main event.

“If there is a problem, an advertiser wants to figure that out before showing the ad to over 100 million people,” Calkins says. “More time means more options.”

Read more on LinkedIn. And be sure to tune in for the annual Super Bowl Ad Review with Calkins and professor Derek Rucker on February 9.