What we can learn from Maya Eden, professor of economics at the University of Zurich
– and why coaching is crucial in this regard
We live in an age where decisions are becoming increasingly complex. Almost every political, economic or organisational decision creates winners and losers. Who receives more support? Who bears the costs? Whose future is given greater weight? And above all: what actually constitutes fairness?
This is precisely where the UZH article “Calculating Fair Decisions” comes in. It presents the work of economist Maya Eden, who is conducting research at the University of Zurich into how political decisions can be assessed not only in terms of efficiency but also in terms of fairness. Her central message is as simple as it is uncomfortable. Decisions are never purely technical. Behind every seemingly sober calculation there are always ethical assumptions about what matters, whose interests are given how much weight, and what form of inequality we as a society accept.
The great value of this approach lies in its clarity. Eden shows that fairness should not be left to chance, the spirit of the times, or the loudest political camp. Instead, transparent criteria are needed to openly identify conflicting objectives and assess them in a way that is transparent. This is a highly relevant idea, particularly in a polarised world. Not every decision will make everyone happy. But it can at least be made in such a way that its reasoning is understandable, consistent and accountable.
From a scientific perspective, this idea is deeply rooted in welfare economics. In her paper “Welfare Analysis with Heterogeneous Risk Preferences”, Maya Eden examines how social welfare can be assessed when people have different attitudes to risk. The paper makes it clear that the traditional link between aversion to inequality and individual risk attitudes cannot simply be accepted once these differences between people are taken seriously. In other words: even the question of how we assess ‘good’ or ‘fair’ outcomes is normatively more complex than many standard models assume.
This becomes even clearer in her later work, *The Cross-Sectional Implications of the Social Discount Rate*. In it, Eden demonstrates that the question of how much weight we should give to future generations is closely linked to another question: how we balance the interests of different age groups today. So anyone who claims that political decisions can be “calculated” objectively and neutrally underestimates the extent to which such calculations are shaped by value judgements. Even where models, key figures and mathematical formulas are used, it ultimately comes down to ethical priorities.
And this is precisely where coaching becomes highly relevant.
After all, fair decisions do not arise solely from data, models and key performance indicators. They require people who are capable of dealing with ambivalence, recognising different perspectives and critically reflecting on their own value assumptions. Coaching creates a space for this. It helps managers, decision-makers and teams to avoid rushing to simple solutions, but instead to bring the real areas of tension to light. Efficiency versus fairness. The present versus the future. Self-interest versus the common good.
Coaching works on several levels in this process. Firstly, it encourages self-reflection. Those who make decisions should be able to recognise which personal traits, beliefs or implicit assumptions influence their own judgement. Secondly, coaching enhances the ability to see things from different perspectives. Fair decisions require that not only one’s own viewpoint, but also the interests of others, are taken seriously. Thirdly, coaching supports the ability to cope with complexity. Particularly in leadership roles, there is considerable pressure to make decisions quickly, clearly and confidently. Yet true fairness often first requires a willingness not to suppress uncertainty and conflicting objectives. And fourthly, coaching improves the communicative quality of decisions: people are more likely to accept even difficult decisions when they see that these have been justified in a transparent, comprehensible and respectful manner.
This means that coaching is not the ‘soft counterpart’ to science, but rather its practical complement. Maya Eden’s research provides tools for systematically analysing ethical conflicts in decision-making. Coaching supports the human process of dealing responsibly with precisely these conflicts. Science provides the structure – coaching enables integration.
This is perhaps the most important insight: fair decisions require not only sound models, but also mature individuals. Those in positions of responsibility must be capable of more than simply interpreting figures. They must be able to manage tensions, clarify values, assess consequences and communicate decisions in such a way that they yield not only efficiency but also legitimacy.
At a time when trust in institutions, leadership and political processes is becoming increasingly fragile, this is no minor matter. It is crucial. Perhaps this is precisely what constitutes the true skill of the future: not merely being able to make decisions, but learning to make fair ones.
