Social change is a tangle of ethical puzzles. As we work to build a better world, we find ourselves confronted with human complexity: Different people have different beliefs about what is right; different perspectives offer different understandings; different choices lead to different outcomes.

Tools themselves are ethically neutral. They do not include a hidden check on intentions—or on outcomes. Smart strategy can reduce poverty, or it can concentrate wealth. Insights into human behavior can be used to build agency or manipulate minds. Storytelling can set the stage for justice or for genocide.

Our task is to put these tools to good work. Social change requires strategic flexibility and ethical constancy.

Below are five ethical dilemmas common in social change. Importantly, each dilemma offers an opportunity for strategic insight. We can turn these puzzles to our advantage, using them to reveal what is essentially human in our work.

BELIEFS: KNOW WHAT IS TRUE TO YOU

Every human being has beliefs about what is right. Social change is the work of turning beliefs into verbs. But one dimension of human diversity is diversity of beliefs, and changemakers who acknowledge this are simply more likely to succeed.

One of the most complex ethical puzzles facing the social-change agent is how to reconcile our beliefs with those of others. In a time of stark political polarization, this challenge has become more acute and more urgent.

For instance, I consider myself a political progressive. I believe society can and must tackle inequality and ecological destruction. But I will not succeed in building what I see as a better world if I speak and act as if everyone feels the same way.

TIME: YOU ARE BOTH ANCESTOR AND DESCENDANT

Our responsibility as ancestors is intertwined with our responsibility as descendants. Perhaps the knottiest trade-offs that change agents face are those between the present and the future. We regularly have to decide whether to push a challenge off until later, to tap a resource, and to invest or to save. Many social issues—notably climate change—are issues of generational trade-offs.

The ethics of time have immense practical implications for social-change institutions. For example, in philanthropy, we’ve seen a debate over the question of foundation “perpetuity.” Should foundations manage their endowments so as to forever maintain the real value of their assets? Or should they “spend down” their assets by giving away more money, faster?

There is no single answer for how we should make trade-offs from one generation to the next. Perhaps, though, the most powerful step is to regularly pause and remind yourself: I am both ancestor and descendant.

MONEY: UNDERSTANDING BOTH RESOURCES AND POWER

Quite simply, many people working for social change see money as a moral quandary. They recognize the inequalities of our society—and that the systems of money helped to create those inequalities. But they also know that money enables them to pursue their organization’s mission.

These challenges extend to people’s professional identity. Millions of people around the world are paid to make the world better. That’s a sign of a healthy society. But it also raises ethical dilemmas. Should people expect less—or more—compensation if they’re doing good for the world? How much should a nonprofit pay its executives? Is it okay for an investor to get rich off renewable energy? Should public health officials get a bonus if they drive down infection rates?

To navigate these ethical puzzles, our best hope is honest acknowledgement. Acknowledge the inherent power dynamics between those asking for money and those providing it. Acknowledge the necessity of money to accomplish our important work for social change.

RELATIONSHIPS: ACT WITH OTHERS, NOT UPON THEM

We are individuals in constant interaction with others. But it’s useful to think about the “direction” of the relationship: up, down, and sideways.

“Up” relationships are with those in power. We may think it’s not fair: They might not be smart, good, or representative. But they have power. Our job as social-change agents is to influence their actions.

“Down” relationships are those with less power than we have. Acknowledging this dynamic can help protect against both abuse and guilt freeze, which is when those with power are ashamed of it, and so fail to act at all. The call of social change is to act with justice, not to wallow in guilt.

“Sideways” relationships are the heart of social change. So much of the success in social change is recruiting companions in making a better world. But in social change, relationships that should be sideways can instead be up-and-down. The social entrepreneur employing people just out of prison may aspire to a sideways relationship. If they find themselves in an “up-down” relationship, they might alienate the people they’re supposed to help and miss valuable insights that would bolster their business.

Similarly, money often equates to power. And in social change, those with capital (whether providers of grants, debt, or equity) often find themselves with power. The funder and the funded are on the same team and should be in a sideways relationship, but too often are not.

As the Australian Aboriginal leader Lilla Watson memorably said, “If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time; but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” In an act of beautiful consistency, Watson herself emphasized that she alone does not deserve the credit for this quote; it was created as part of a collective effort.

ORGANIZATIONS: YOU ARE NOT YOUR ORGANIZATION

Many social-change agents spend so much time encased in an organization’s identity, they forget they’re separate from it. This sense of shared identity is understandable, but while people contribute to and bear responsibility for the successes and failures of their organizations, they’re not wholly theirs.

Related to the confusion between self and organization is the confusion between self and job. In work for social impact, this can manifest itself as exhaustion and burnout.

As social-change agents, we walk a fine line because our emotional and ethical investment in our work builds power and effectiveness. That investment creates vulnerability, which engenders trust but also creates the possibility of harm. Social-change agents would be wise to remember the advice of flight attendants everywhere: Put on your own oxygen mask before helping others.

Excerpted with permission from The Toolbox: Strategies for Crafting Social Impact by Jacob Harold.