Defining Moments: Right vs Right - Key Concepts from the Lecture Notes

Page 1

Core theme: Dirty hands and the tension between personal values and professional responsibilities. Thoughtful managers face questions about what they must sacrifice to advance at work and who they become in the process.
Key idea: Many managerial dilemmas are right-versus-right, not right-versus-wrong. An alternative can be morally defensible, but you cannot do both right options simultaneously.
Case study introduction: Rebecca Dennet, a branch manager at a major bank, learns her branch will be shut down in two \text{months} and must keep this confidential due to regulatory filings. Two days later, a coworker pressures her to reveal or hint at the rumor. She is torn between honesty (which would breach confidentiality) and loyalty to a friend (which would violate a direct promise).
Takeaway from the case: Dennet’s problem is not about choosing between a clear right and a clear wrong; it is a choice between two plausible, right actions.
Broader significance: Many managers juggle competing responsibilities: personal standards, customer/ shareholder expectations, job security for themselves and their families, and fairness toward employees. Often these can be balanced, but not always.
Key term introduced: CRUCIBLES OF CHARACTER — situations that test and shape character under pressure. The term also signals that leadership can demand compromises that challenge innocence or purity of motive.
Literary reference: The phrase “dirty hands” comes from Sartre’s play about wartime leadership under moral compromise. It raises the question: Can leaders govern without morally staining their hands?

Short quote (contextual): “There aren’t a lot of jobs around here.”

Contextual note: Rebecca Dennet’s dilemma is presented as a window into the broader problem: leaders with real power face conflicts among competing moral claims, not a simple binary of right and wrong. This sets up the book’s exploration of how managers can think through such conflicts.

Page 2

Reframing the problem: Dennet’s situation illustrates a common managerial conflict—between personal loyalty, confidentiality obligations, and the legitimate needs of stakeholders (customers, shareholders, regulators).
The stakes of right-versus-right decisions: When one must keep a commitment while knowing something others do not, the manager bears responsibility to more than one party. The conflict is intensified by external pressures (e.g., regulatory requirements, job security) and internal pressures (loyalty, honesty).
The broader pattern: Although details differ, similar tensions arise for many managers who try to live up to personal values while meeting stakeholder expectations and maintaining family security.
Core claim reinforced: The issue is not whether one should lie or tell the truth in absolute terms; it’s whether one can reconcile competing duties when both choices are arguably legitimate.
Consequence for managers: If one cannot balance these duties, a form of personal failure may occur—failing to live up to commitments and standards.
Summary framing for later chapters: The book will explore right-versus-right conflicts as defining moments that reveal values, test commitments, and shape character, rather than as mere ethical abstractions.

Page 3

Sartre’s prompt revisited: The veteran party leader in Sartre’s play argues that refusing impurity is naive and that those with power inevitably soil their hands. The line, “Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk,” underscores a hard-hitting view: leadership entails moral compromise.
Key question tied to leadership: Do you think you can govern innocently? The implication is that the naïve hope of pure innocence is unrealistic for those who wield real power.
Connection to business leadership: The question translates into the corporate world: can managers consistently act without moral compromise when they control lives and livelihoods?
Introduction to Barnard (foreshadowing): Barnard will be introduced as another thinker who reframes leadership as a morally demanding, sometimes morally perilous activity.
Core contrast: Sartre presents dirty hands as a persistent risk of power; Barnard will be cited to show a parallel concern from a different sphere (organizational management).

Page 4

Chester Barnard’s life and work: Barnard, a successful corporate leader (president of Bell System in New Jersey) who also wrote The Functions of the Executive, provides a practical, realist view of leadership.
Barnard’s provocative claim: “It seems to me inevitable that the struggle to maintain cooperation among men should as surely destroy some men morally as battle destroys them physically.” This underscores leadership as a morally hazardous enterprise, not merely a pleasant ascent.
Parallel with Sartre: Both thinkers—an American business executive and a French existentialist philosopher—reach a strikingly similar conclusion: positions of leadership impose ethical tests that can erode moral integrity.
Origins of the dilemmas: Leadership responsibilities are not monolithic; they include personal and professional claims that can conflict. Power magnifies these conflicts because it creates obligations to others that may be at odds with one’s own values.
Core idea: The roots of right-versus-right dilemmas lie in the competition among various legitimate claims—professional duties, personal commitments, and moral values—that may be impossible to satisfy simultaneously.

Page 5

Consequences of right-versus-right: When a manager chooses one right action, other right actions are left undone. This creates a sense of letting people down and failing to live up to one’s standards; the loss of innocence can feel real.
The finality of decisions: Right-versus-right choices are often irreversible. Once a decision is made and implemented, there’s no easy revision in life’s permanent record.
Ethical gravity: These conflicts are not just abstract management problems; they are existential choices about life and career and have lasting implications for the person and the organization.
Practical implication: The book argues that good managers must learn to navigate these conflicts in practical, defensible ways, not through inspirational platitudes alone.

Page 6

Beyond inspirational ethics: The book rejects the cycle of corporate sermons that urge everyone to “Do the right thing” without addressing real conflicts.
The core problem: In right-versus-right conflicts, there may be two or more viable courses of action, each carrying a bundle of ethical responsibilities, personal commitments, and external pressures.
Limits of categorization: Problems cannot be neatly boxed into legal, ethical, or management categories; standard solutions fail because these problems cross multiple domains.
Critique of inspirational ethics: High-sounding ideals ignore the messy reality of conflicting duties and the problem of dirty hands; they often leave managers unprepared for hard choices.
The framework’s premise: To make progress, one must confront these issues directly, starting with a clear understanding of what makes right-versus-right problems so difficult.
Three basic characteristics (to be defined and tested in the book): These defining moments reveal values, test commitments, and shape both the individual and the organization.
Structure of the approach: The book will present three detailed case studies (three managers) to illustrate how these definitions work in practice.

Page 7

Practical realism about right-versus-right conflicts: Barnard and Sartre did not view these conflicts as purely intellectual problems. They recognize personal risk: choosing one right thing may mean leaving another right thing undone.
The emotional and ethical stakes: The question Do you think you can govern innocently? is unsettling because experience suggests the answer is not straightforwardly yes.
The defining moment framework in practice: Right-versus-right decisions are not simply about finding the right category or applying the correct moral concept. They must be experienced and reflected upon, often with emotional resonance and memory.
The value of lived experience: The process invites managers to reflect on their own lives, relationships at work and home, and their communities to understand the stakes of their choices.
Empathy and perspective: The approach aims to cultivate an empathic understanding of what is at stake for others who are affected by these decisions.
Restating the framework: Defining moments are not abstract; they are intensely personal and organizational turning points that reveal who we are and who we aspire to become.

Page 8

The Urgent Questions: The book’s guiding prompts include questions such as:
- How do I think about defining moments?
- How do I resolve them in ways I can live with?
Purpose of the framework: To offer practical, reflective tools grounded in moral philosophy to help managers work through difficult conflicts rather than rely on inspirational slogans.
Methodology: The framework is designed to be participatory and introspective. It uses phrases and questions rooted in classic and contemporary moral thought to evoke personal perspective, relationships, and self-assessment.
The role of the opening “dirty hands” discussion: It serves as an entry point to the broader approach—showing that recognizing the difficulty of moral compromise is essential to navigating defining moments.
How the book invites engagement: Readers are urged to meet the questions halfway, using them to examine their own values, commitments, and relationships with colleagues, family, and community.
Concluding idea of this introduction: Right-versus-right decisions are defining moments that reveal, test, and shape character; understanding them helps managers act in ways they can live with and be proud of.
Additional contextual notes: The author emphasizes that this work diverges from purely inspirational ethics by offering a pragmatic framework for handling genuine conflicts of responsibility in leadership.

References and recurring themes

Rebecca Dennet’s case as a representative ethical dilemma in business leadership.
Sartre’s Dirty Hands and the question of innocence in governance.
Chester Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive and the claim that leadership can morally corrode; Barnard’s life illustrates a dual career in management and moral reflection.
The book’s overarching aim: to provide a practical method for thinking through right-versus-right conflicts, not to deliver tidy, one-size-fits-all solutions.
Notable historical references: Sartre’s existentialist critique of purity, Barnard’s organizational realism, and the ongoing tension between personal integrity and organizational demands.

Numerical and factual references (for quick recall)

Dennet’s branch closure timeline: in 2 months; confidentiality until regulatory filings.
Denoted counterfactual scale: “There aren’t a lot of jobs around here” as a constraint on loyalty and disclosure.
Barnard’s timeline and impact: The Functions of the Executive first published in 1938 and remains in print for more than 40 editions.
The book frames the concept of defining moments as a triad of effects: reveal, test, shape.
In-text reference count of managers in the examples: three managers are used to illustrate the framework.