A long-term vs. short-term dilemma is best resolved through the organization’s communication efforts. Communication is needed for a person to make the most acceptable decision in face of this type of dilemma. Before taking the decision that has a short-term effect, it is important to consult with the people who will be influenced by this decision in order to hear what their opinion is regarding the matter.

Some of the decisions that one makes in the course of doing business might benefit employees in the short-term. However, on the other hand, they might have a long-term negative effect on the company. It takes communication for a central ground to be struck and for the decision maker to make the decision that will leave both parties satisfied.

Through communication, the decision maker will understand the expectations of both parties that will be affected by the decision. The decision maker might be surprised to realize that the concerned parties do not seem to perceive any dilemma in the situation. Additionally, if the right communication strategies are adopted, these people will participate in solving the dilemma and compromises will be struck, thereby paving the way for the best decision.

A good example is a situation whereby as a company’s chief executive officer I felt a strong need to motivate my employees by introducing a welfare program of paying school fees for all employees’ children. Although this decision was going to be of help to the employees, it could easily create financial difficulties in the company. All I need to do was to communicate with my employees, present my idea, its benefits and shortcomings. On their part, the employees felt obliged to give their honest opinions and therefore, the communication strategy easily solved the short-term vs. long-term dilemma.

An individual vs. community dilemma is best resolved through the organization’s compensation efforts. This type of dilemma presents an organization with a dilemma between helping an individual vs. helping many people. Each of the decisions taken will have its advantages and disadvantages. Whatever decision is taken depends on the greatest good that will follow from such a decision although compensation efforts will help the aggrieved side party feel that transgressions were made.

This type of dilemma presents a scenario whereby a major sacrifice may or may not be made if a problem is to be permanently solved. In this case, if the decision maker chooses not to make a sacrifice, he has to be clear on what he should do in order to compensate for a sacrifice not made. For instance, one should ensure that by not making the sacrifice, more benefits are going to be realized and that this is the only way through which a problem can be dealt with permanently.

A good example of this type of dilemma came my way when we were engaging in inter-departmental soccer competition within the company that I used to work for. At some point in the course of a soccer game, an opponent was injured. The injury coincided with an opportunity that came my way whereby a ball had been passed to me in a counteroffensive run, and everyone expected me to strike it into the net and score a winning goal.