What if it’s not right vs. wrong, but right vs. right?

Last week, I attended a lecture at a conference given by Joseph Badaracco, a professor of ethics at Harvard Business School and the author of several books on business ethics. The main premise of his lecture was that the easy choice is between right and wrong, but the difficult choice is between right and right. He gave a brief overview of utilitarianism, deontology and basic human rights, personal character, and pragmatism, then outlined a choice called “The house of my dreams:”[1]

This choice was outlined as one of a manager maintaining confidentiality as required by a corporation just prior to a lay-off, and the duty to a co-worker who is about to undertake a large home loan and has asked pointblank if there is any reason the manager knows why the co-worker should not undertake this large loan at this time.

As outlined by Professor Badaracco, both choices are ‘the right thing to do.’ The manager had been told by officers in his corporation in confidence about the layoff that would likely affect his co-worker. The manager has a duty as an officer of this corporation to maintain this confidentiality. On the other hand, he had been asked by a co-worker directly if he knew of any reason why the co-worker should not undertake a financial risk right now. There is the duty to his friend and co-worker to tell the truth.

Prior to attending this lecture, I assumed that the choice between right and wrong was the difficult one, but this lecture provided me with a new perspective and new questions. I’ve known many different managers and senior managers in my career, and I know some that would make the first choice (they have made a commitment to the organization and they will not compromise it), and I know a number who would choose the personal over the corporation (tell the co-worker about the lay-off or at least caution him not to take on the financial risk at this time). I even know which one I feel internally is ‘most right.’ But I hadn’t really considered that it actually is a choice between two competing ethical requirements.

I suspect many might recast this as a choice between right and wrong, with wrong being violating a company promise, or with wrong being a violation of a friendship. And the consequences of making one choice over another are great, in both directions. Potentially, you could be fired for letting out information of a layoff before the publication date. However, if you do not tell your friend when asked directly, then you are lying to your friend and run the risk of losing the friend forever, and having others know that you are a liar. How do you weigh this? There were duties to the company and the friend, there was the expectation of the basic human right of being told the truth, and even questions of what one's own character might require (what lines will I not cross and is there one here?).

This is related and is perhaps the same question as my post from last week, wondering if there were situations in which there was no ethical choice. I struggle with how these issues are decided by different people and how I might make these decisions, so I eagerly embrace tools that allow me to make better, more informed decisions, including the aforementioned lecture and the discussions and material we are covering in this class.

Posted by: Corey Jaseph, 09/28/2007

---

[1] Badaracco JL Jr. Defining moments: When managers must choose between right and right. Harvard Business School Press, 1997.