Kindly see attached for your reference.
Would need this to be done by 12th February 2020
AssessmentBrief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 1 of 11
Module Code: SM0381
Module Title: Applied Business Ethics
Distributed on: Start of Term Hand in Date: TBC
Instructions on Assessment:
“Tomorrow’s business leaders need to be nimble and to incorporate all aspects of good decision making
in an increasingly global and complex business environment. Ethical leadership is vital to the future of
….business. Our world is rapidly changing – and the changes affect every business, every industry and
every country. The future growth and competitiveness of business is at stake. The business world
eagerly awaits tomorrow’s strong and ethical leaders.”
Harold McGraw III
Chairman, Business Roundtable
During this module you have explored the ethical challenges facing businesses. As you prepare to take
your place in the management and leadership of the future you are asked to evidence and reflect upon
the development of your ethical awareness and reasoning and to consider the challenges that may
face you in your workplace.
Requirements
Present the development of your ethical awareness and reasoning through an annotated portfolio of
evidence supported by a 1500 word essay in which you first will identify an ethical dilemma in a business
situation, and then suggest ethical solutions to this dilemma (see specific marking sheets at end).
Portfolio Weighting
Ethical Dilemma Essay (Part A) (1500 words) (50%)
Portfolio of Evidence (Part B) (1500 words) (50%)
Part A: Ethical Dilemma Essay (1,500 words)
Students are to identify and discuss an business-related ethical dilemma. Ideally, this choice should be
relevant to your intended area of future employment. You must demonstrate both an awareness of the
key issues surrounding why it is an ethical dilemma, and then propose solutions to that dilemma. A
suggested format for the essay is:
• Ethical Dilemma Description (300 words)
• Justify why it is an ethical dilemma in a business situation (600 words)
• Ethical solutions proposed by the student to this dilemma (600 words)
Part of the learning experience of this essay is for you as the student picking and developing the dilemma
yourself from either a relevant recent news event, personal professional practice experience (particularly
for students who have been on placement) or similar.
• Students are strongly advised to read the marking criteria sheets (at the end of this document)
very carefully to gain an understanding of exactly what the examiner will be looking for, and
marking against.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 2 of 11
You should not use an ethical dilemma that we have discussed in detail during a class1 or has been
analysed in a textbook or website; this is your ethical dilemma, which you have developed, which ideally
relates to your career aspirations.
1 The “Ethics in the News” items shown at the start of seminars are not deemed to have been discussed in detail.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 3 of 11
Part B: Portfolio of Evidence Contents
The portfolio contents should provide evidence of your diligent engagement with the module activities
including the directed learning opportunities. Your portfolio should be divided into clear sections, with
the appendices clearly marked A, B, and C so that your examiner can easily find and mark your
evidence. A summary of our expectations is provided below:
Appendix A The Ethical Leadership Debate (in Seminar 4) (20% of marks)
A reflective statement of 600 words which describes and critically evaluates the arguments presented
in the debate on Ethical Leadership. Your argument must culminate in your opinion regarding the debate
motion. We expect you to analyse the arguments (for and against) made by the teams on behalf of
their characters in your seminar. We are not asking you to write an essay purely based upon the
character biographies that we supplied for debate preparation.
Appendix B The Seminar Case (in Seminars 1 and 5) (20% of marks)
A reflective statement of 600 words concerning the seminar ethical dilemma case which was discussed
in the Seminars One and Five. Briefly identify the ethical dilemmas in the case, and then select one for
analysis using the normative ethical theories and descriptive frameworks taught on this module.
Appendix C Interpersonal and Team-working skills (10% of marks)
A reflective statement of 300 words showing how your interpersonal and team-working skills were used
in this module.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 4 of 11
Important note about ARNA regulations
The regulations specify that students must complete every assessment component contributing to the
modules on their programme. This applies to all forms of assessment as defined in the module
descriptor. Please note that:
• if any assessment component is not completed, students will be failed in the module even if the
module pass mark has been achieved;
• if the requirements for referral specified in section 5 of ARNA1 are met, a resit opportunity will be
given;
• if unable to complete an assessment component because of extenuating circumstances, students
should follow the procedure described in the Student Guide to Extenuating Circumstances1.
This change was approved by Academic Board on 12 October 2009 in consultation with the Students’
Union. Students should consult their Programme Leader or Guidance Tutor if they have any queries.
Independent advice and support is also available from the Students’ Union Advice & Representation
Centre (su.advice@northumbria.ac.uk) or from a student adviser in Student Services.
1ARNA and the Student Guide to Extenuating Circumstances Affecting Assessed Work are available
from http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/ar/lts/assess/assproc/assdocstud/
Word Count
The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment. The word count does not include
title page, contents page, glossary, tables, figures, illustrations, reference list, bibliography and
appendices.
Summarising and compressing the information in your assignment into the word limit is one of the skills
that students are expected to acquire, and demonstrate as part of the assignment process.
Word limits and penalties for assignments
If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply. However, if the word limit
exceeds the +10% limit, 10% of the mark provisionally awarded to the assignment will be deducted. For
example: if the assignment is worth 70% but is above the word limit by more than 10%, a penalty of 7%
will be imposed, giving a final mark of 63%.
Time limits and penalties for presentations
The time allocated for the presentation must be adhered to. At the end of this time, the presentation will
be stopped and will be marked based on what has been delivered within the time limit.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 5 of 11
Submission of Assessment:
All assignments must be submitted via the Blackboard Elp. Marked assignments will be returned to
students via the Elp also. It is advisable to retain a copy of your assignment for you own records. Your
mark will be returned via Grade Mark on the Elp.
Referencing your work
The APA method of referencing uses the author’s name and the date of the publication. In-text citations
give brief details of the work you are referring to in your text. References are listed at the end of the text
in alphabetical order by the author’s name. The general format of an electronic journal reference in the
APA style is shown below:
Coutu, D. (2009). Why Teams Don’t Work. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 98-105. Retrieved 29th
April 2012 from EBSCO http://searchebscohost.com
Author/s name and initials are listed first, followed by year of publication in brackets. Then there is the
title of article and the journal where the article appears, which is in italics. Then state the volume and
issue number (in brackets) along with the pages where article can be located. Finally add the date the
article was retrieved and then the name of the database, followed by the web address. Wherever
possible use the homepage URL rather than the full and extended web address.
For further information on why it is important to reference accurately go to the Referencing and
Plagiarism topic in Skills Plus available from the Library website:
www.northumbria.ac.uk/skillsplus
You will find other useful help guides on Skills Plus to help you with the skills involved in writing your
assessments and preparing for exams.
For further information on the APA style of referencing see the Concise Rules of APA style and the
APA website http://www.apastyle.org/learn
Plagiarism and Cheating
Your attention is drawn to the University’s stated position on plagiarism. THE WORK OF OTHERS,
WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE ASSIGNMENT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS SOURCE (a full
bibliography and/or a list of references must be submitted as prescribed in the assessment brief).
Please note that this is intended to be an individual piece of work. Action will be taken where a student
is suspected of having cheated or engaged in any dishonest practice. Students are referred to the
University regulations on plagiarism and other forms of academic irregularity. Students must not copy
or collude with one another or present any information that they themselves have not generated.
For further information on Plagiarism, see the Referencing and Plagiarism topic on Skills Plus.
www.northumbria.ac.uk/skillsplus
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 6 of 11
Mapping to Programme Goals and Objectives:
This assessment will contribute directly to the following Undergraduate programme goals and
objectives.
1. Knowledgeable about the theory and practice of international business and management
Objectives:
Students will be able to:
1. Acquire knowledge of functional areas of business and management.
2. Acquire knowledge of specialist areas of business.
X 3. Apply their knowledge to business and management contexts.
4. Conduct contemporary research into business and management.
2. Skilful in the use of professional and managerial techniques and processes
Objectives:
Students will be able to:
1. Provide evidence of self reflection as a means of informing personal development
planning.
2. Demonstrate effective interpersonal communication skills and the ability to work in a
team.
X 3. Demonstrate critical thinking skills.
X 4. Demonstrate problem solving skills.
3. Aware of ethical issues impacting on business and professional practice
Objectives:
Students will be able to:
X 1. Identify an ethical dilemma in a business situation
X
2. Suggest ethical solutions to this dilemma
4. Employable as graduates
Objectives:
Students will be able to:
1. In the context of securing graduate employment demonstrate the skills of self
presentation.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 7 of 11
Assessment Criteria (NBS)
General Assessment Criteria (1 of 1)
Trait 0 – 29 30 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 – 79 80 – 100
Knowledge
and
Understanding
Poor grasp of topic
concepts or of
awareness of what
concepts are.
Minimal awareness
of subject area.
Knowledge is
adequate but limited
and/or superficial.
Sound comprehension
of topic.
Knowledge base is
up-to-date and
relevant, but also
may be broad or
deep.
Knowledge and
understanding is
comprehensive
both as to breadth
and depth.
Exceptional
scholarship for
subject.
Structure
and Alignment
Failure to apply
relevant skills. Work is
inarticulate and/or
incomprehensible.
Communication of
knowledge
frequently
inarticulate and/or
irrelevant.
In the most part,
description/
assertion rather
than argument or
logical reasoning is
used. Insufficient
focus is evident in
work presented.
Reasoning and
argument are generally
relevant but not
necessarily extensive.
Awareness of concepts
and critical appreciation
are apparent, but the
ability to conceptualise,
and/or to apply theory
is slightly limited.
Higher order
critical
appreciation skills
are displayed. A
significant ability to
apply theory,
concepts, ideas
and their inter-
relationship is
illustrated.
A mature ability to
critically appreciate
concepts and their
inter-relationship is
demonstrated.
Clear evidence of
independent
thought.
Presentation of
work is fluent,
focused and
accurate.
Outstanding ability
to apply, in the
right measure, the
skills necessary to
achieve highly
sophisticated and
fluent challenges to
received wisdom.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 8 of 11
SM0381 – Applied Business Ethics – Part A – Essay 50% SM0381 Marking Sheet 1 of 4
3.1 Programme Goal 3: Aware of ethical issues impacting on business and professional practice Objective 1: Identify an ethical dilemma in a business situation
Criteria
0-29%
Standard Not
Met
1
30-39%
Standard Not
Met
2
40 -49%
Meets Standard
1
50-59%
Meets Standard
2
60-69%
Meets Standard
3
70-79%
Exceeds
Standard 1
80-89%
Exceeds
Standard 2
90-100%
Exceeds
Standard 3
3.1 (A)
Student
demonstrates an
understanding of the
relationship between
how the dilemma is
understood and the
options available for
decision-making
Completely
insufficient
understanding of
decision making or
ethics. Is unable to
make a any
connection between
the two concepts.
Application non-
existent.
Insufficient
understanding of
decision making or
ethics. Is unable to
make a coherent
connection between
the two concepts.
Application is weak.
Adequate awareness
of the connection
between the
dilemmas and
appropriate decision
making. Outcomes
are based upon
assumptions.
Good understanding
of the relationship
between the ethical
dilemma and decision
making. A good level
of criticality is
displayed in the
selection and
application of
decisions.
Very good
understanding of the
relationship between
the ethical dilemma
and decision making.
A very good level of
criticality is displayed
in the selection and
application of
decisions.
Excellent
understanding of the
relationship between
the ethical dilemma
and
appropriate
decisions. An
excellent level of
criticality is displayed
in the selection and
application of
decisions.
Outstanding
understanding of the
relationship between
the ethical dilemma
and appropriate
decisions.
Outstanding
criticality is displayed
in the selection and
application of
decisions.
Exemplary
understanding of the
relationship between
the ethical dilemma
and appropriate
decisions. Exemplary
criticality is displayed
in the selection and
application of
decisions.
3.1 (B)
Student
demonstrates an
understanding of the
impact of relevant
contextual factors
(e.g. competitive
conditions, codes of
ethics.)
Completely
insufficient
understanding of the
relationship between
contextual factors
and ethical dilemmas.
Insufficient
understanding of the
relationship between
contextual factors
and ethical dilemmas.
Adequate awareness
of how relevant
contextual factors
impact the dilemma
options. These tend
to be generalised and
omit core
relationships.
Good understanding
of how
the relevant
contextual factors
impact the dilemma
options. Factors have
a good justification
for their
impact
Very good
understanding of how
the relevant
contextual factors
impact the dilemma
options. Factors have
a Very good
justification for their
impact
Excellent
understanding of how
relevant contextual
factors impact the
dilemma options.
Excellent critical
evaluation of factors
in order to justify
their impact.
Outstanding
understanding of how
relevant contextual
factors impact the
dilemma options.
Outstanding critical
evaluation of factors
in order to justify
their impact.
Exemplary
understanding of
how relevant
contextual factors
impact the dilemma
options. Exemplary
critical evaluation of
factors in order to
justify their impact.
3.1 (C)
Student
demonstrates an
understanding of the
stakeholders that are
potentially impacted,
and the moral
intensity experienced
by the decision-
maker(s) dealing
with the business
ethical dilemma.
Completely
insufficient
understanding of the
link between
stakeholders and
their potential
impact. Completely
insufficient
comprehension of
ethical dilemmas and
moral intensity
experienced by
decision-makers.
Insufficient
understanding of
stakeholders and
their potential
impact. Insufficient
comprehension of
ethical dilemmas and
moral intensity
experienced by
decision-makers
Adequate awareness
of stakeholders and
their potential
impact. Link between
ethical dilemmas and
the moral intensity
experienced by
decision-makers is
somewhat vague.
Good understanding
of how stakeholders
are potentially
impacted. Very good
evidence of the
ability to use various
dimensions in order
to make a link
between ethical
dilemmas and the
moral intensity
experienced by
decision-makers.
Very good
understanding of how
stakeholders are
potentially impacted.
Very good evidence
of the ability to use
various dimensions in
order to make a link
between ethical
dilemmas and the
moral intensity
experienced by
decision-makers.
Excellent
understanding of how
stakeholders are
potentially impacted.
There is an excellent
explicit, concise and
informed
understanding of how
ethical dilemmas and
the moral intensity
experienced by
decision-makers are
linked.
Outstanding
understanding of how
stakeholders are
potentially impacted.
There is an
outstanding explicit,
concise and informed
understanding of how
ethical dilemmas and
the moral intensity
experienced by
decision-makers are
linked.
Exemplary
understanding of
how stakeholders are
potentially impacted.
There is an
exemplary explicit,
concise and informed
understanding of
how ethical dilemmas
and the moral
intensity experienced
by decision-makers
are linked.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 9 of 11
SM0381 Marking Sheet 2 of 4
3.2 Programme Goal 3: Aware of ethical issues impacting on business and professional practice Objective 2: Suggest ethical solutions to this dilemma
Performance
Area
0-29%
Standard Not
Met 1
30-39%
Standard Not
Met 2
40 -49%
Meets Standard
1
50-59%
Meets Standard
2
60-69%
Meets Standard
3
70-79%
Exceeds
Standard 1
80-89%
Exceeds
Standard 2
90-100%
Exceeds
Standard 3
3.2 (A)
Student
demonstrates the
ability to make a
recommendation
supported by
appropriate
reasoning.
Completely
insufficient or no
solution is provided.
Completely
insufficient
understanding
between solutions
and normative
standards.
Insufficient solution
is provided that is not
supported by
evidence. Insufficient
understanding
between solutions
and normative
standards.
Adequate solution to
the dilemma.
Adequate supporting
evidence but lack of
understanding
between the solution
and normative
standards.
Good, well-argued
solution to the
dilemma. This is
supported by a good
range of evidence
and understanding of
the relationship
between resolution,
and normative
standards.
Very good, well-
argued solution to
the dilemma. This is
supported by a very
good range of
evidence and
understanding of the
relationship between
resolution, and
normative standards.
Excellent systematic
and analytically
rigorous account of
the solution to the
dilemma. This is
supported by
excellent convincing
evidence, showing an
Outstanding
understanding of the
relationship between
resolution, and
normative standards.
Outstanding
systematic and
analytically rigorous
account of the
solution to the
dilemma. This is
supported by
outstanding
convincing evidence,
showing an
Outstanding
understanding of the
relationship between
resolution, and
normative standards.
Exemplary
systematic and
analytically rigorous
account of the
solution to the
dilemma. This is
supported by
exemplary
convincing evidence,
showing an
Exemplary
understanding of the
relationship between
resolution, and
normative standards.
3.2 (B)
Student
demonstrates an
understanding of the
normative ethical
theories used to
address the
dilemma, and can
apply descriptive
ethical frameworks
in their analysis.
Completely
insufficient
understanding of the
role of normative
ethical theories and
descriptive ethical
frameworks in
decision making.
Insufficient
understanding of the
role of normative
ethical theories and
descriptive ethical
frameworks in
decision making.
Adequate awareness
of some frameworks
and theories. Link to
a dilemma is vague in
places. A judgement
can be made but
lacks sophistication.
Good range of
frameworks and
theories used in
addressing the
dilemma. Good
understanding of the
way in which theories
and frameworks
impact on the
decision.
Very good range of
frameworks and
theories used in
addressing the
dilemma. Very good
understanding of the
way in which theories
and frameworks
impact on the
decision.
Excellent systematic
and analytically
rigorous account of
the solution to the
dilemma. Excellent
evidence, showing an
excellent
understanding of the
relationship between
resolution, and
normative standards.
Outstanding
systematic and
analytically rigorous
account of the
solution to the
dilemma.
Outstanding
evidence, showing an
outstanding
understanding of the
relationship between
resolution, and
normative standards.
Exemplary
systematic and
analytically rigorous
account of the
solution to the
dilemma. Exemplary
evidence, showing an
exemplary
understanding of the
relationship between
resolution, and
normative standards.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 10 of 11
SM0381 – Applied Business Ethics – Part B – Portfolio 50% SM0381 Marking Sheet 3 of 4
Appendix A 20%
Marking Criteria:
Ethical Debate
0-29%
Standard Not
Met 1
30-39%
Standard Not
Met 2
40 -49%
Meets Standard
1
50-59%
Meets Standard
2
60-69%
Meets Standard
3
70-79%
Exceeds
Standard 1
80-89%
Exceeds
Standard 2
90-100%
Exceeds
Standard
3
Identifies and
isolates arguments
and evidence used in
the seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership
can be demonstrated
in shareholder
owned
companies.
Completely
insufficient
understanding of
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar to support
and to oppose the
view that ethical
leadership can be
demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Insufficient
understanding of
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar to support
and to oppose the
view that ethical
leadership can be
demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Adequate awareness
of arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar to support
and to oppose the
view that ethical
leadership can be
demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Good ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Very good ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Excellent ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Outstanding ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Exemplary ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Critically evaluates
the arguments and
evidence to reach a
conclusion drawing
on a range of
sources.
Completely
insufficient
understanding of
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar to support
and to oppose the
view that ethical
leadership can be
demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Insufficient
understanding of
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar to support
and to oppose the
view that ethical
leadership can be
demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Adequate awareness
of arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar to support
and to oppose the
view that ethical
leadership can be
demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Good ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Very good ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Excellent ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Outstanding ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Exemplary ability to
Identify and isolate
arguments and
evidence used in the
seminar both to
support and to
oppose the view that
ethical leadership can
be demonstrated in
shareholder owned
companies.
Assessment Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
Business and Management modules
Page 11 of 11
Appendix B 20% SM0381 Marking Sheet 4 of 4
Marking Criteria:
Ethical Dilemma
0-29%
Standard Not
Met 1
30-39%
Standard Not
Met 2
40 -49%
Meets Standard
1
50-59%
Meets Standard
2
60-69%
Meets Standard
3
70-79%
Exceeds
Standard 1
80-89%
Exceeds
Standard 2
90-100%
Exceeds
Standard 3
Identifies ethical
dilemmas in the
case. Whose
dilemmas were these
and what were their
options?
Completely
insufficient ability to
identify ethical
dilemmas in the case.
Insufficient ability to
identify ethical
dilemmas in the case.
Whose dilemmas
were these and what
were their options?
Adequate awareness
of ethical dilemmas in
the case. Whose
dilemmas were these
and what were their
options?
Good ability to
identify ethical
dilemmas in the case.
Whose dilemmas
were these and what
were their options?
Very good ability to
identify ethical
dilemmas in the case.
Whose dilemmas
were these and what
were their options?
Excellent ability to
identify ethical
dilemmas in the case.
Whose dilemmas
were these and what
were their options?
Outstanding ability to
identify ethical
dilemmas in the case.
Whose dilemmas
were these and what
were their options?
Exemplary ability to
identify ethical
dilemmas in the case.
Whose dilemmas
were these and what
were their options?
Uses normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth.
Completely
insufficient ability to
apply normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth
Insufficient ability to
apply normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth
Adequate ability to
apply normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth
Good ability to apply
normative ethical
theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth.
Very good ability to
apply normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth.
Excellent ability to
apply normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth.
Outstanding ability to
apply normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth.
Exemplary ability to
apply normative
ethical theories (e.g.
Deontology) and
descriptive ethical
frameworks (e.g.
Stages of Moral
Development,
Stakeholder Salience,
Moral Intensity) to
analyse one of the
identified dilemmas
in depth.
Appendix C 10%
Programme Goal 2: Skillful in the use of professional and managerial techniques and processes Objective 2: Demonstrate effective interpersonal communication and the ability to work in a
team
Performance
Area
0-29%
Standard Not
Met 1
30-39%
Standard Not
Met 2
40 -49%
Meets Standard
1
50-59%
Meets Standard
2
60-69%
Meets Standard
3
70-79%
Exceeds
Standard 1
80-89%
Exceeds
Standard 2
90-100%
Exceeds
Standard 3
Student shows the
ability to reflect on
their use of
interpersonal
communication and
team-working skills
in the module.
Completely
insufficient reflection
of the student’s use
of interpersonal
communication and
team-working skills
though examples may
be identified.
Insufficient reflection
of the student’s use
of interpersonal
communication and
team-working skills
though examples may
be identified.
Adequate
Identification of
interpersonal
communication and
team working skills
used in support of
module tasks and
assesses personal
effectiveness using
examples.
Good reflection
which considers
whether the need to
use interpersonal
communication and
to work as a team has
influenced their
understanding of
ethical issues.
Very good reflection
which considers
whether the need to
use interpersonal
communication and
to work as a team has
influenced their
understanding of
ethical issues.
Excellent reflection
which considers
whether the need to
use interpersonal
communication and
to work as a team has
influenced their
understanding of
ethical issues.
Outstanding
reflection which
considers whether
the need to use
interpersonal
communication and
to work as a team has
influenced their
understanding of
ethical issues.
Exemplary reflection
which considers
whether the need to
use interpersonal
communication and
to work as a team has
influenced their
understanding of
ethical issues.
Student Seminar Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
SM0381 Applied Business Ethics
HONG KONG CV PARTNER DELIVERY
Seminar Four: Ethical Leadership Debate
NB:
This must be read in conjunction with the latest SM0381 Assessment Brief (downloaded from Bb)
Seminar Objectives
Students will:
· Develop team working, debating and presenting skills
· Critically appraise the arguments presented in the debate
· Critique the ideas of ethical leadership, virtue and covenant
Debate Motion
“This Business School believes that ethical leadership is impossible in a shareholder focused economy”
Preparation for Seminar
Individually read each of the character profiles and formulate a response to each of the indicative questions posed underneath each outline. Meet as a team before the seminar (physically or virtually). It is
critical
that before the seminar that your team reviews all of the character profiles. Your team will be asked to represent one of the characters in the debate. Please decide in advance who will be your team’s spokesperson. There will be three rounds of debate so your team can nominate one person for all rounds, or have two different spokespersons in rounds one and two. The third round is open discussion, so anyone can be the spokesperson or your team can stay with the single nominee.
This seminar is aiming to develop your verbal communication skills and to build your confidence in debating issues critically and yet professionally. This is another example of the sort of skills which might be examined in an assessment centre day and will certainly be required as you engage in management in your future career.
Take carefully note of the debate motion, the argument is implicitly between the shareholder and stakeholder centric views, although there will be other dissenting voices. Remember that the debate will end with a vote on the motion as stated above.
In preparation for this seminar it is important that you familiarise yourself with ALL of the following four “characters” which will be represented in the debate.
You are to prepare notes for each of the characters viewpoints. There are some guiding questions beneath each profile to get you started.
Your team will be asked to play one of these characters in class.
Remember, these are just character outlines. If your team feels that a profile can be elaborated while maintaining the essential essence of the character this will be allowed in debate by the tutor. However, you must declare that this is a team interpretation during the debate. The tutor may rule against this interpretation if he (she) feels that it is too speculative or misleading to others.
Character Profile (1)
Mike Gustavsson
Mike is a retired lecturer from Malmo, Sweden. For years Mike taught Business Ethics at a well-regarded University for many years, and has been an active member of Greenpeace since 1992. Mike believed for many years that ethical behaviour of corporations is set by the behaviour at the top of the organisation, if you have good people at the top of the company, making good decisions, and using good rules, then the company itself will be ethical. Mike for many years argued that a virtuous set of rules for directors, and effective oversight of these rules, were key to producing good behaviour.
Unfortunately in recent years Mike has become a little disillusioned with this viewpoint. Mike’s daughter Anna graduated from the Stockholm School of Economics in 2005 and has since quickly risen to the role of a hedge fund manager at Alfaraft AB (an international profitable hedge fund). Mike has found himself in fierce arguments with his daughter who, since taking on the job, has changed greatly in his eyes. To him, she has changed from someone who used to care about the environment and social problems, to someone who works tremendously long hours and now seems utterly focused on her next bonus payment. Worse (to Mike), now that Anna is a part of management, Anna seems to be strongly espousing (advocating) is “get-rich-quick” bonus making message to her subordinates.
Mike is aware that Alfaraft AB has a well-written corporate ethics and governance code, and even donates to several local Swedish charities, but now wonders at what kind of company they are. Mike was at first extremely happy that his daughter had a good job, but now he’s worried at the type of business environment which is generated at companies which takes idealistic young graduates fresh out of Business Schools and turns them into bonus seeking executives. Where are these good governance guidelines acted upon, how is the company actually led? Why do young executives seem to “mouth” the words of corporate codes, but not act the actions?
Mike participated in his first Occupy protest on 16th October 2011. The protesters occupied the ground floor of the Alfaraft AB building in Goteberg, Sweden, in protest of their heavy financial investment into major companies who were supplying dubious third world regimes.
Preparation Questions
· What is your analysis of Mike before coming to the class?
· What sort of definition of ‘ethical leadership’ might Mike use?
· In Mike’s eyes, what should the role of codes of conduct and good corporate governance be?
· From Mike’s point of view, what is the importance of ethical leadership?
· Does Mike see a tension between the companies’ shareholders and ethical leadership?
· Do you think Mike believes Ethical Leadership should be taught at Business Schools?
· Does Mike believe that Business Schools can or should create ethical leaders?
· Which normative ethical theory (or theories) do you associate with Mike?
Character Profile (2)
Jan Edwards
Jan is the CEO (Chief Operating Officer) and founder of Clean Solutions Inc., an industrial building maintenance company (largest are major heavy chemicals companies) based in Kansas, Missouri with substantial operations across seven states in the Midwest of the USA. Jan employs a total of 927 people in a business she founded after finishing her Social History degree in 1997 at University of Kentucky. Clean Solutions Inc. has fifty shareholders, mainly local small Kansas investors, and Jan is very proud that these investors have been well rewarded for their initial trust in her.
Jan is an active member of the True Vine Baptist Church, and through this, she has become involved in a programme to provide educational facilities in Guatemala. Given Jan’s success as an entrepreneur and small businesswoman, she often finds herself donating her time to advising Guatemalan small businessmen on how best to manage their businesses to encourage job creation in the local Guatemalan region. With her husband Ken and their four daughters Jan has made five trips to the villages around Petapa in recent years. Jan feels passionately that people gain self-respect, self-reliance and self-motivation through gainful employment, and she sees the act of entrepreneurship, and the creation of new job opportunities, as a powerful step towards helping the Guatemalan people. Jan for many years has ran programme at her workplace to encourage workers at Clean Solutions Inc. to donate their time to helping people more disadvantaged than herself, and she is proud that last year her company donated a total of 1020 working days of time to charitable works, more than one day per employee (the company doesn’t market or advertise this fact).
Jan has become increasingly concerned in recent years at the nature of graduates she is employing out of business schools onto her in-house graduate development programme (the internal management scheme). Many of the graduates seem extremely focused on profitability and working their way up the company ladder rather than on good people management skills, being well-rounded citizens and good, genuine people. Jan feels let down by the educational system, and business schools in particular, who seem to be geared to producing graduates who are merely “meat-for-the-grinder” for larger international companies who are utterly focused on shareholder wealth development. Jan has commented to her Vice-President of HR on a number of occasions that these graduates seem “institutionalised” before they even get to her. Schooled in thinking of the functional areas of a business, on profit, wealth and budgetary systems, and they seem ignore the importance of the first word “good”, in the words “good businessperson”.
Jan’s Vice-President of HR has made it clear to Jan that these new graduate managers are amongst the lowest contributors to the company’s charitable time donation scheme, donating only a quarter of the time, as a grouping, when compared to the whole workforce. Jan sees it as her duty as CEO to change this trend.
Preparation Questions
· Your analysis of Jan before coming to the class
· What sort of definition do you think Jan would use if she was to describe an ethical leader?
· What is the importance to Jan of Codes of Corporate Conduct to how businesses should be run?
· Do you think Jan believes that “ethical leadership” and “being a businessperson” can work together?
· Jan’s charitable time donation costs money; do you see any conflicts of interest?
· Would Jan see any conflicts of interest?
· Which normative ethical theory (or theories) do you associate with Jan?
Character Profile (3)
Mei-Hua Felung
Mei-Hua is a successful Senior Manager at International Pharmaceuticals Company WCP, one of the largest firms in the world (Headquarters Luxemburg for tax reasons). A successful Accountancy graduate of a leading UK business school she was delighted to accept an invitation to come to an Alumni event recently where she was asked to participate in a debate on whether her business school should continue the teaching of ethics and ethical leadership to students.
Mei-Hua feels strongly on this issue. She feels that professionals have had in recent years a very poor and negative image from the press as to their ethical conduct. While she won’t argue that accountancy in particular has deserved some of the bad press it has received, she feels this has gone too far in many cases. Accountancy as a profession has strict codes of conduct and strict rules, and Mei-Hua has always adhered (worked within) these rules, and she believes both she, and her fellow professionals are very ethical and moral people who are being treated unfairly. In her company, for example they have a strict corporate code of conduct, especially on financial issues such as fraud, and she has always been impressed at the way that this code of conduct is reinforced in corporate induction and in the company literature.
Mei-Hua believes that many people are actually unaware of how ethical some companies actually are, or at least, they are highly cynical. The Directors of WCP have an engagement strategy with charities in a number of third world countries, and while they do use this extensively in their marketing literature, Mei-Hua sees no harm in this, after all, it is the shareholders money. Mei-Hua believes that strong ethical codes of conduct and strong codes of professional behaviour lead to a more moral and ethical business, and that profit and wealth generation, as well as those ethics, can work alongside each other.
Mei-Hua is sure at the debate that a recent tax case which was in the news regarding WCP will be mentioned. WCP recently had to come to a large settlement with the US Government’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding a certain scheme, and paid a $7bn out-of-court settlement to prevent the case going to prosecution. As a Senior Manager and Accountant at WCP Mei-Hua has been involved in developing a number of entirely legal (never prosecuted successfully) tax avoidance schemes which have saved the company literally millions in potential tax payments, routing transactions though tax havens such as Hong Kong, Dublin and Singapore. Mei-Hua believes there is nothing wrong with this. It is governments which create the tax rules, not her. She and the other accountants are merely “playing within the rules”; not breaking them.
Preparation Questions
· How do you think Mei-Hua would describe “ethical leadership”?
· Mei-Hua clearly puts a lot of faith in Corporate Codes of Governance and Professional Codes of Ethics. What is underlying her arguments? Do her arguments have merit?
· Mei-Hua does believe that Ethical Leadership and moral business behaviours can work side-by-side with shareholder interests. Are there any problems you can see in her argument?
· Does Mei-Hua working as a tax accountant prevent her from being a moral person?
· Mei-Hua is able to stay within the codes of conduct of the company, and her professional accountancy codes of conduct and the legal parameters (limits) of international tax codes and save the company millions (possibly billions) in tax payments. Should she be praised for this? Is this moral? How does this balance against the codes themselves?
· Mei-Hua is a Senior Manager, is she also an ethical leader setting an example to her sub-ordinates?
Character Profile (4)
Deshi Chen
Deshi was born in the Lincang, in Yunan Provience of China near the border with Laos. The city has a population of nearly 2.3 million and its economy grew last year by 15%. Deshi’s parent’s dream of him working one day for one of the major international companies which have been setting up joint ventures in the city, and Deshi himself desperately wants to gain an education to get a good job. Deshi, who is 20, is concerned that without a good office job he will never be able to provide a stable home environment to start a family, and that he’ll not be attractive to prospective fiancées. Deshi’s parents are the first of their family to have reached a comfortable “middle class” lifestyle, and Deshi’s Dad has worked hard all his life as a factory foreman (frontline supervisor) to provide for his son. Deshi’s grandparents are both uneducated farm workers, and while he and his family provide as much care and support for them as they can, they also serve as a constant reminder to Deshi and his family of their humble beginnings. Deshi has worked hard all his life in his education, and has tried hard to build himself some good business experience doing office gopher work (go-for) in the city during his summer. Deshi’s parents have saved a long time to send him to a western UK-based university Business School to finalise his education, and they hope that Deshi can gain both the language and business knowledge there to get him that all important job in the city.
Deshi has become a little dis-illusioned with one of his courses while at this UK university however; Business Ethics. Simply put, he doesn’t see the point of it, and he doesn’t see why it should be on the curriculum of a business school. In his summer job in the city Deshi often saw the “cut-and-thrust” of modern business, and he can’t remember anyone pondering long philosophical words while there. Deshi can’t see the point in wondering about “ethical leadership”. To Deshi, leadership is about getting things done and creating a profitable, successful business. Deshi can’t see the point of these various “codes of corporate governance” as they seem constraints that get in the way of good business. To him some of these even seem ludicrous (ridiculous), why would someone intentionally sign up to codes which will stop you making money? Anyway, to Deshi anyway, the bottom line is that “everyone knows” that western companies are hypocrites who say one thing and mean another when they operate in China. Profit and market share are what are important, and being a profit making manager is what will take Deshi from being a new graduate starter in an office job at a big company to being a well-paid middle exec.
In short, Deshi is unhappy at the teaching of ethics, and ethical leadership, on his degree course, and would like to express that unhappiness in an upcoming debate he’s been asked to participate in. He’s in danger of failing this Business Ethics course, which, to him, seems to have very little to do with “real business”. If he fails this course, he knows he’ll be endangering his degree as well, which means not only the end of that dream of that that nice safe office job, but especially the dream of being attractive to a prospective fiancée because of that job. Deshi doesn’t see why those dreams should suffer because of this “pointless” ethics course, and would like to see it removed from his programme of study.
Preparation Questions
· Your analysis of Deshi before coming to the class
· Other than, “annoying thing which get in the way”, how do you think Deshi would define “Ethical Leadership”?
· Consider Deshi’s view of the importance of Codes of Corporate Governance. Do his views have any merit? If so, what?
· Deshi clearly seems to believe that there is a conflict between “real business”, the pragmatic business which is done in the “real world” which creates wealth for shareholders, and ethics. Does he have a point? What is that point?
· Deshi clearly feels that Business Ethics is pointless to him, and won’t help him in the “real world of business”. Why does he think that? Do his arguments have any merit?
Debating Rules
· The tutor will indicate who speaks next.
· You can only speak if you are the spokesperson for the team and you are standing up.
· The first round of speaking will be each spokesperson outlining their character’s opinion in the debate to the other teams.
· The second round will be the character’s rights of reply to each other character. The spokesperson for each team will comment in turn on the position stated by the other three characters.
· In the third round, students that were not eligible to speak (but wish to do so now) must raise their hand to get the tutor’s attention. He (she) will invite the student to speak when appropriate. As the student ‘has the floor’ they must stand up to speak.
· The tutor will conduct a vote at the end of the debate (students should vote according to their own opinion – not the character they represented).
After the debate and discussion has been had, the Discussion Moderator (i.e. Tutor) will lead a discussion to summarise the main points and how these relate to the concept of ethical leadership and the shareholder-focused economy, and whether Business Ethics and Leadership should be taught in Business Schools.
Post Seminar Activities
Consult the Assessment Brief for this module and use the notes you have gathered before and during the debate to answer the requisite portfolio appendix for your assignment. The submission date is the same as that announced for the entire SM0381 Assignment.
Directed Reading
Crane A and Matten D (2010) Business Ethics OUP Chapter 5 & 6
Guiding Questions for your post-seminar Notes
We normally provide a structured table of questions to guide a reflective statement after each seminar. As your analysis of the seminar is contributing to your overall assessment, this is not provided this time.
As you carefully consider the requirements of the assessment brief, you might like to ponder the following questions that normally arise out of this seminar. Do not answer them directly in your portfolio, they are just guidance towards the type of notes you might have gathered.
· What was the definition of ‘ethical leadership’ adopted by the participants in the debate?
· What is the role of the directors as envisaged by typical Codes of Corporate Governance and wider society? Be prepared to cite real examples of such codes!
· Are these expectations consistent with the ideas of ethical leadership?
· What are the structures of codes of corporate governance that support the ethical behaviour of directors?
· In whose interest are these structures conceived?
· Do they promote ethical leadership as you understand it?
· What are the ethical tensions within a shareholder company and how may ethical leadership address these?
· What are the challenges in really delivering ethical leadership and how much of this is caused by the profit maximisation that underlies shareholder focus?
SM0381 Assignment (Portfolio Appendix A) Guidance
Make sure that you have read and fully understood the marking criteria as stated in the current issue of the SM0381 assignment brief.
You will be expected to make direct reference to what actually happened in the debate (in terms of the arguments raised). Please use the character names rather than Team A, Team B, etc.
Extensive paraphrasing (or regurgitation) of the provided character profiles will be a complete waste of your word count. You are strongly advised to dedicate as much of your writing to argument analysis as is possible. The marker understands the provided character profiles, and does not need to read them again.
The objective of this portfolio appendix is to build a case “for” or “against” the debate motion using the appropriate normative ethical theory and descriptive ethical frameworks taught on this module (or described in the textbook, Crane & Matten). Make sure that you mention the wording of the debate motion.
Substituting obscure theory (or little-known frameworks) in the total absence of taught content will not be acceptable.
Student Seminar Brief Applied Business Ethics Page | 7
Student Seminar Brief – Level Six Undergraduate
SM0381 Applied Business Ethics
Seminar Five
Team Tasks: Seminar Five
1. Reconsider the ethical dilemmas you identified in Seminar One.
2. Can you find any more in the case?
3. Are you satisfied that your original answers were right?
4. Work through each dilemma that you have identified and …
a. Identify the normative ethical theories that inform the character’s dilemma
b. Identify the descriptive ethical frameworks that can be used to explain the character’s dilemma
5. Team spokespersons will present conclusions to the seminar in plenary session.
6. Make notes of where your peer discussion highlights similarities and differences from your own thinking.
Writing the assignment Portfolio Appendix B (after the seminar)
· Read the SM0381 Assignment Brief carefully.
· Briefly mention all the dilemmas discovered in the case.
· Select one of the dilemmas in the Holiday Case for full ethical analysis using the normative ethical theories and descriptive ethical frameworks taught on this module.
CASE STUDY (REVISITED)
The Case of the Holiday (based on actual events)
This case concerns a young medium sized advertising agency in Germany. It had had grown rapidly in the four years since it was founded and had just opened a new office in the US. The company operates in a highly competitive market in which failure to meet customers’ deadlines incurs substantial penalties. Work is almost exclusively project-based, in a high pressure but largely informal environment where teams predominate and hierarchy is little in evidence. The company pays well, and its employees are highly skilled, overwhelmingly graduates and equally overwhelmingly young with over 35 year-olds a rarity.
Employees work an average of 50 hours a week and when deadlines are tight some arrive as early as 5 a.m. and leave as late as 1 a.m. If there is a personnel ‘problem’ it is that turnover is high. Employees tend either to be dismissed quickly after their unsuitability emerges or leave voluntarily after only two or three years. While there however, involvement and ‘ownership’ of tasks is evident and employees enjoy a culture which emphasizes working hard and playing hard. Much of the employees’ social time is spent, unsurprisingly, with other employees and strong bonds of friendship have developed between staff.
The company is privately owned by its two founders who work from their German Head Office. Employees are not represented by a trade union. Unlike publicly limited and/or government organizations where a variety of stakeholder organizations can be identified and corporate governance may be contested (by shareholders, government, regulatory authorities, consumer associations, trade unions, pressure groups and so on), internal relations here are far clearer and the voices that count are those of management and customers.
The incident that forms the focus for this case concerns an Account Executive, Borries, who was due to go on holiday in a month’s time for two weeks at his girlfriend’s home in Hong Kong. This was an important holiday, especially because Borries only took one week’s holiday throughout the previous year and because his girlfriend Swee Lan would be returning to Germany immediately after the holiday to continue her studies. This was therefore an opportunity for Borries to meet Swee Lan’s parents and to experience her environment for the first time.
About a month before the holiday Borries’s manager called him in for a meeting and told him the news that one of Borries’s clients had to bring forward their product launch as they had heard that a rival was launching in the week that was originally scheduled. The new product launch would be in the middle of Borries’s holiday period. Work would need to be brought forward on the design of advertisements, campaign roll out, viral marketing, web support and so on.
The manager at no point suggested that Borries would face sanctions for taking his holiday, nor was his right to it contested but the manager did emphasize the importance of the client and the high regard they had for Borries’s work. If this launch was a success then they would likely generate further contracts. After a difficult conversation with Swee Lan, who told Borries that her parents would be very upset not to meet him for at least another year, Borries cancelled his holiday. The company reimbursed his costs in full.
It was only then that Borries’s friends from the company found out what had happened. Borries could not believe their reaction. They argued that he was wrong to give up his holiday. His friend Marcus said: “Borries, you are a coward. They had no right to ask you to do this and you were too weak to say no. You have jeopardized your relationship with Swee Lan and let us down. How are any of us going to be able to say no if we are asked to give up our holidays now? You are supposed to be a friend. You have given so much to this company, the least they could do is to get someone else to cover your work.”
Borries replied: ‘I was just trying to do my best. I have been working on that account for a long time so how can I leave it at the end of the project? Don’t you understand I have to balance what is right for the company and the client against what is right for everyone else and in this case giving up my holiday is better than letting down the client. So get off my back.”
Student Seminar Brief Applied Business Ethics Page | 1