We’ve brought together four models for you to consider in your particular ministry unit:

  • The GLOVE Filter (adapted from ERC PLUS filter at ethics.org)
  • Trinity Health Values-Based Decision Making Process (used with permission)
  • Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Values Based Decision Making (used with permission)
  • Wallace & Pekel 10 Step Method of Decision Making (used with permission)
Model Day-to-day decisions Daily operations complex decisions Strategy & Major Administrative or Management Decisions
GLOVE X
Trinity Health X X
Sisters of Charity X
Wallace & Pekel X

The GLOVE Filter
This filter is a tool that can (and should) be used by all staff and volunteers. It provides everyone in your ministry unit with an easy point of reference in their day-to-day decision making and operations.

When making a decision, consider the following four questions before reaching a conclusion.

G = Guidelines, policies & procedures
Is it consistent with my ministry unit’s guidelines, policies and procedures?

L = Legal
Is it acceptable under the applicable laws and regulations?

OV = Organizational Values
Does it respect and model The Salvation Army’s core values?

E = Employee / Self
Does it satisfy my personal definition of right, good & fair?


If at any point in the filter the answer to the question is ‘no’, take the particular situation or decision to your supervisor to discuss it further.

Although this filter is relatively simple and straightforward, it is important that orientation and/or training be provided on the filter and its use. The filter presumes that staff and volunteers understand the ministry unit’s policies and
procedures and the laws and regulations that apply to their job or role. It also presumes that staff and volunteers
know and understand the core values as well as their individual sense of what is right, fair and good.

Graphics of the GLOVE filter can be downloaded for use in your ministry unit. The business card version can be laminated and distributed to all staff and volunteers for their easy reference. It could be printed on the back of staff identification tags for easy reference as well. The 8.5” X 11” version could be included in employee manuals or printed for posting on walls and bulletin boards.

Trinity Health Values-Based Decision Making Process (Trinity Health Website)
This process is intended for use in day-to-day operation when a department, team or individual is met with an issue or situation where:

  • There seems to be no single “best” response.
  • There is a recognized difference of opinion.
  • Those involved don’t feel good about the circumstances or the possible resolution.


Define the issue.
Identify the key facts, stakeholders and other important elements.

Clarify the perspectives.
Share your own perspective and appreciate the perspective of others.

Identify the values.
Name the most important values at stake.

Consider alternatives.
Imagine possible alternatives.

Make a decision.
Choose among the possible alternatives.

Implement the decision.
Identify a process for carrying out the decision.

Evaluate the decision.

Download the Trinity Health Values-Based Decision Making Process worksheet here

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System: Values-Based Decision Making (SCLHS Website)

Assemble the right participants.
Values-based decision making, except for emergent circumstances, calls for participants who represent relevant interests, who possess relevant technical knowledge, who may provide relevant information, and who represent your unit’s mission and ministry functions. Your administrators, managers and board members have responsibility for Salvation Army core values integration, along with your Divisional and Territorial leaders.

Assemble the right facts.
This model of values-based decision making is characterized by its factual basis and accuracy. The facts of any case or situation will determine the appropriate application of the core values. Facts will also determine whether previous decisions in similar circumstances will again be applied, or an exception granted. Assembling the relevant information for a decision is in itself a values-based activity.

Clarify the core values.
Salvation Army core values are made explicit in the decision making process. This occurs in two ways. First, the meanings of the core values are extended to fit the factual situation. Second, a determination is made whether the factual situation dictates any priority among the core values. Values-based decision making is clear on what the core values actually mean in “these circumstances” and on whether “these circumstances” make it more important to promote some core values over others (for example, Respect over Compassion).

Reach a collaborative consensus.
This model of values-based decision making aims at consensus, but not necessarily unanimity, among decision makers. In this model, perfect consensus involves agreement among all decision makers regarding the outcome dictated by the core values. Imperfect consensus involves disagreement over outcome, where all decision makers are satisfied that the core values were properly considered and that the decision making process was appropriate. All decisions require at least imperfect consensus except in emergent circumstances and/or for extraordinary reasons.

Broadcast the values-based decision.
Values-based decisions end with effective and clear communication to affected stakeholders of the decision; the core values rationalization for the decision, and the outcome of the decision making process. Confidential information may be excluded from any communication. Communications must avoid suggesting justifications for the decision that were not actually involved in the decision making.

Wallace & Pekel: 10 Step Method of Decision-Making

  1. What are the known key facts in this situation?
  2. List the major stakeholders (those affected by the situation). What do they value and want as desired outcomes?
  3. List the underlying drivers that are causing or exacerbating this ethical problem.
  4. List, in priority order, the ethical principles and core values that should be upheld in the decision.
  5. List who should have input to or be involved in making the decision.
  6. Brainstorm possible alternatives to resolve the situation. Then test each alternative against the three review-gate criteria listed below. Only alternatives that pass all three review-gates become viable alternatives worthy of further consideration.
    • Prevents or minimizes harm to the above stakeholders.
    • Upholds the ethical principles and core values identified in Step 4.
    • Is a good, workable solution to the entire situation.
    • Next determine the possible consequences of each viable alternative on each major stakeholder.
  7. Select the preferred alternative and build a worst-case scenario (made up of things that could go wrong in implementing your preferred alternative) and determine how it affects each stakeholder.
  8. Add a preventative ethics component to your preferred alternative that deals with the underlying drivers identified in Step 3. The best preventative ethics component for any organization is familiarity with the organization’s values.
  9. Decide and build an action plan that incorporates the best choices you’ve made in all the above-listed steps.
  10. Evaluate your chosen alternative (modified to deal with underlying drivers) against the ethical checklist .

Download the Wallace & Pekel: 10 Step Method of Decision-Making worksheet here