Vertical vs. horizontal morality: Why it matters for the workplace today
Updated: Oct 12
I first heard the concept of vertical and horizontal morality from a student of mine, who had come across a social media post discussing the idea. The framework intrigued me, especially in the context of today’s political and workplace climate, where discussions about morality and governance are inextricably linked to leadership, policy, and culture.
Traditionally, it has been considered a faux pas to bring politics into the workplace. Many leaders have long held the belief that political discussions should be left at the door to maintain professionalism and avoid division. However, in today’s climate, keeping politics and business separate is increasingly difficult—if not impossible. Many organizations find themselves struggling to navigate how to respond, guide their employees, and manage internal policies as political shifts—particularly under the Trump administration—continue to exert pressure on liberal ideals and workplace policies. Understanding vertical and horizontal morality helps shed light on these divides.
Broadly speaking, vertical morality is a framework that prioritizes hierarchy, authority, and structured moral guidance. It often aligns with more conservative viewpoints, emphasizing obedience to established rules, traditions, and institutions. A common example of vertical morality is found in organized religion, where moral authority is derived from a higher power, religious leaders, or sacred texts. Similarly, in the workplace, a company that strictly follows a top-down decision-making approach—where executives dictate policies without employee input—reflects vertical morality. Politically, vertical morality can be seen in governance structures that emphasize loyalty to a singular leader or institution, such as political movements that rally around a single figure like Trump, where morality is defined by adherence to their authority and prescribed values.
In contrast, horizontal morality places emphasis on egalitarianism, collective well-being, and shared responsibility, which tend to align more with liberal perspectives that prioritize social equity and inclusivity. A strong example of horizontal morality can be seen in grassroots social movements, where individuals come together as equals to advocate for change without a single authoritative figure dictating the path forward. In a workplace setting, a company that encourages participatory decision-making—such as implementing employee resource groups (ERGs) or allowing staff to influence corporate social responsibility initiatives—demonstrates horizontal morality. Politically, horizontal morality manifests in policies that prioritize the well-being of the collective, such as universal healthcare, workers’ rights, and community-driven governance, where moral decisions are shaped by the needs and experiences of the people rather than dictated by a singular authority.
These moral orientations influence political affiliations, organizational cultures, and even decision-making within companies. But one key difference that often goes unspoken is how each approach relates to empathy.
Horizontal morality tends to center empathy for individuals and communities, recognizing the humanity in others and shaping policies around shared experiences and social needs. In contrast, vertical morality may frame empathy in more abstract or institutional terms—prioritizing the survival or integrity of the system over the well-being of individuals within it.
This tension surfaced clearly during a February 28 interview between Elon Musk and Joe Rogan. Musk referenced Canadian professor Gad Saad’s idea of "suicidal empathy," suggesting that too much empathy, particularly when directed at individuals, could endanger civilization itself. He said:
The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy. The empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization.
This framing reveals a stark contrast: empathy, long considered a virtue, is now positioned by some as a vulnerability or threat. Yet this view may lose sight of something essential—that civilization is made up of people. Empathy for systems without empathy for individuals can lead to the erosion of rights, care, and protections for those who need them most.
In contrast, Senator Cory Booker offered a deeply humanistic view during his 25+ hour Senate speech, which was a broad critique of the moral direction of the current administration. Speaking about the pain and fear experienced by everyday Americans, he asked, "How can the most powerful people in our land not comfort others...?" and later declared,
You can't lead the people, if you can't love the people.
His words reinforce the belief that empathy is not weakness—it is a moral compass, a leadership imperative, and a civic responsibility.
When we ask what’s right and wrong—and for whom—we must also ask: who are we centering in our empathy? Systems? Or the people they are meant to serve?
This tension is particularly relevant now, in a political climate marked by deep polarization and policy decisions with tangible consequences. For example, the proposed cuts to the Department of Education threaten to eliminate or reduce services that many families rely on—impacting everything from special education programs to student aid. These are part of a broader wave of proposed budget reductions spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a relatively new executive initiative led by Elon Musk, though not a formal agency or department established by Congress, which has been tasked with streamlining government spending across departments.
DOGE’s influence reaches well beyond education, with proposed cuts to healthcare services, Social Security, environmental protection programs, and other essential public services that support everyday Americans. If these cuts are viewed solely through a vertical lens—supporting the decisions because they align with an authoritative figure’s agenda or a belief in shrinking government—then the very real human cost may be overlooked. What happens when policies approved in the name of efficiency disproportionately harm those who rely on those services? For instance, employees pay into Social Security through payroll taxes and reasonably expect support in retirement. Cuts to that system could leave many vulnerable, and ignoring those impacts in favor of blind allegiance to a central authority ignores the interconnectedness of society and the role public programs play in stabilizing our communities.
This raises the critical question: what is right and wrong, and for whom? Whose moral compass sets the course for policies that affect millions? Following one directional morality strictly—without consideration for nuance or the perspectives of others—can have far-reaching consequences. A rigid vertical morality may ignore the needs of marginalized communities in favor of obedience to authority, while an uncompromising horizontal morality may struggle with practical governance or consensus-building in complex institutions. Either extreme, without flexibility, can result in harm.
This is why organizations must be acutely aware of how government policies—especially those driven by a strict vertical framework—can impact their employees. When cuts hit federal services like Social Security, Medicare, or educational access, the ripple effect shows up in employee morale, financial stress, talent retention, and health outcomes. Companies that understand the broader impact of policy decisions can offer stronger support and foster a more responsive, ethical workplace culture.
The challenge organizations face today is how to reconcile these differing moral perspectives in the workplace. Companies are being forced to take positions on social and political issues, whether they want to or not. Employees expect guidance on issues that affect their lives, and businesses must navigate the legal and cultural implications of policy changes that impact their workforce, customers, and industry.
So, how can businesses meet at the intersection of vertical and horizontal morality to serve everyone? The key lies in:
Balancing structure with flexibility: Organizations can respect hierarchical structures while also creating inclusive policies that reflect the diverse moral orientations of their workforce. For example, offering structured decision-making processes while incorporating employee input can help bridge the divide.
Fostering open dialogue: Creating spaces for employees to discuss issues in a way that is productive and not polarizing can help build understanding. A workplace culture that encourages respectful dialogue acknowledges different perspectives without alienation.
Developing policies with both approaches in mind: Policies should be designed to offer guidance while allowing room for adaptability. For instance, a company’s stance on DEI initiatives may be structured within legal and compliance frameworks (a vertical approach) while still fostering an open and inclusive culture (a horizontal approach).
Encouraging ethical leadership: Leaders who can navigate both moral orientations—respecting tradition and authority while fostering collaboration and inclusion—will be best positioned to create policies that resonate across the political spectrum.
Supporting civic engagement and protest rights: As demonstrations and public expressions of dissent increase around the country, organizations can support their employees by making room for civic participation. This includes offering scheduling flexibility, ensuring psychological safety, and publicly acknowledging that advocacy and engagement in democracy are essential expressions of many employees' identities and values.
As businesses continue to operate in a politically charged environment, understanding vertical and horizontal morality can help leaders navigate workplace policies in a way that bridges ideological divides rather than deepening them. In doing so, organizations not only respond more effectively to external pressures but also build internal cultures that are resilient, inclusive, and ethically grounded.
By recognizing that both frameworks offer value—and that flexibility, empathy, and reflection are essential—leaders can shape workplaces that meet the moment while preparing for the future. The goal should not be to force alignment to one moral framework but to create workplaces where employees can coexist, contribute, and thrive regardless of their political or moral orientation.
