The WSJ Test: When Guilt Is Trying to Tell You Something
There’s a test I’ve come back to over and over in my career, and I’ve heard versions of it from people I respect across very different industries. It goes something like this:
If you’d be embarrassed to see what you’re doing reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, don’t do it. It doesn’t matter that it’s legal. It doesn’t matter that you can probably get away with it. Don’t do it.
I think about this a lot when I’m building. The legal line and the ethical line are not the same line, and conflating them is one of the easier ways to slowly become someone you wouldn’t have wanted to work for ten years ago. Lawyers will tell you what you can do. The WSJ test asks something harder: what you should do.
But here’s what I’ve been chewing on lately. The WSJ test is really just an external proxy for something we already have internally. Most of the time, when we’re considering an action we’d be mortified to see in print, our body is already telling us. There’s a tightness, a quiet calculation about who might find out, a small voice running scenarios about plausible deniability. That feeling — the one that makes us want to keep something hidden — is almost always the most honest read on the situation we’re going to get.
When we go out of our way to make sure others don’t learn what we’re doing, we already know.
A question I got to ask at SXSW
A few weeks ago at SXSW, Brené Brown and Adam Grant announced their new joint podcast, The Curiosity Shop, and afterwads I had the chance to ask them a question I’d been sitting with for a while.
I wanted to know about the difference between two feelings that often get lumped together: the discomfort of “I did a bad thing” versus the deeper, heavier weight of “I am a bad person.”
Their answer was clarifying. The first one isn’t shame at all. It’s guilt — and it’s a different animal entirely.
Brené’s research, along with that of other shame researchers, draws a sharp line: guilt is adaptive and helpful. It’s holding something we’ve done or failed to do up against our values, and feeling psychological discomfort about the gap. Shame, by contrast, is the painful belief that we are flawed and unworthy of love and belonging — that what we did or didn’t do makes us, at our core, defective.
Put more simply: guilt says “I did something bad.” Shame says “I am bad.”
And the data backs up just how different these two are. Shame is highly correlated with addiction, depression, violence, aggression, bullying, suicide, and eating disorders. Guilt is inversely correlated with those same things. Guilt, it turns out, is a feature, not a bug. It’s one of the mechanisms keeping us aligned with the people we want to be.
Why this matters for builders and leaders
If you’re running a company, this distinction is more than academic.
Shame — the “I am bad” version — is corrosive. It pushes leaders to hide, to deflect, to double down on bad decisions because admitting them would feel like admitting something fundamental about themselves. It’s why scandals so often spiral: the second mistake (the cover-up) is usually shame trying to protect identity. Shame will burn the building down before it lets anyone see the crack in the foundation.
Guilt does the opposite. Guilt is the small, useful tug that says that email crossed a line — apologize, or that’s not how we said we’d treat customers — fix it, or you wouldn’t want this on the front page — don’t do it. Guilt is the WSJ test happening in real time, before any reporter ever picks up the phone.
The trick is to tell them apart in the moment.
A few lessons I’m trying to sit with
1. Treat guilt as a signal, not a sentence. When that uncomfortable tug shows up, the move isn’t to argue it away or rationalize (“technically it’s allowed,” “everyone does it,” “it’s not that bad”). The move is to listen. Guilt is information about the gap between your actions and your values. Closing that gap is almost always cheaper now than later.
2. Don’t let guilt graduate into shame. It’s easy, especially for high-achievers, to take “I did something I’m not proud of” and turn it into “I’m a fraud.” That’s the slide from adaptive to destructive. The healthier move is the harder one: own the behavior specifically, repair what you can, and refuse to globalize it into a verdict on your worth.
3. Watch what you’re hiding. If you’re constructing a story for who might find out — your board, your spouse, your team, your friends or colleagues, a reporter — that’s the alarm. The energy you spend managing the optics is energy your conscience is trying to redirect. Hidden behavior is almost always the behavior most worth examining.
4. Build cultures that allow guilt without weaponizing shame. Teams need to be able to say “I made a mistake” without it becoming “I am a mistake.” The first kind of admission is how organizations learn. The second is how they go quiet, and quiet organizations are where the real WSJ stories get written.
5. Apply the test before you need to. The WSJ test is most useful as a daily filter, not an emergency one. By the time you actually need it — when the reporter is calling — the decisions are usually already made.
The thing I keep coming back to is this: that small, uncomfortable feeling when you’re about to do something you’d rather no one knew about isn’t an obstacle to push through. It’s one of the better tools you have. It’s older than your business, older than the law, older than any test we’ve ever invented to keep ourselves honest.
It’s just trying to keep you off the front page. And more importantly, it’s trying to keep you someone you can still recognize in the mirror.











