Only in very rare circumstances where the obvious answer and their procedural work dont align.

When making an operational decision that affects the direction of the business, morality is almost always a concern -- even at the level of "do our customers benefit from this vs., do we?" etc.

You would also need to control for the degree to which people had a stake in the outcome (ie., virtue signalling).

Since executives have to make decisions where choosing the moral option may impose an economic (or operational) cost, this requires thinking through the actual choice.

Morality for the "rank and file" is just a signalling issue: there's nothing to think through, the answer they are "supposed to choose" is the one they do so, at no cost to them.

Iran's principle strategy is to impose severe economic consequences on the US and its allies, to tip the balance of resolve in their favour. This is easy for them to do, because closing vital shipping lanes and attacking energy infrastructure in the region is done at only the cost of a few drones -- whilst defending this is incredibly expensive. This asymmetry is the only one which is profoundly in Iran's favour, and their best strategy for forcing a diplomatic resolution. This is why they are attacking multiple US allies in the region.

The existence of "experiments" to choose from in the first place is already theory-given. As soon as you've formulated a space of such experiments to explore, almost all your theory work is done.