["Journal of Organizational Behavior, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\nThe non‐rationalist view of morality holds that all employees—including “good” apples—are liable to do bad because they are susceptible to moral biases in everyday situational encounters. In contrast, the rationalist or trait view suggests that employees with strong moral character should be resilient against moral biases across situations and over time. Rather than treating these perspectives as competing explanations, we ask a more nuanced question: In which situational encounters and for whom does moral character shape susceptibility to daily moral biases at work? Drawing on research on moral exemplarity, we argue that “good” exists along a continuum from intermediate to exceptional moral character, with only the exceptional consistently exhibiting moral resilience. Integrating moral disengagement theory with the Situational Eight DIAMONDS model, we identify and test a comprehensive set of episodic work situations that may trigger daily within‐person fluctuations in state moral disengagement. Across two pilot studies, work situations characterized by Deception, Adversity/Negativity, and unexpectedly, Mating, positively predicted same‐day moral disengagement. In a 3‐week diary study, daily encounters of these situations triggered daily moral disengagement, which subsequently increased daily instrumental OCBs, reduced genuine OCBs, and heightened incivility among employees low to intermediate (but not exceptional) on trait Honesty–Humility. We also find that exceptional‐character employees exhibited low moral amplitude or volatility in moral disengagement over time. Our discussion highlights the necessity of considering both within‐person fluctuations and between‐person differences in resilience against moral biases at work.\n"]