business essay

ASSIGNMENTESSAY

BA 300: Ethical Decision-making in Business

Due no later than September 26, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

Please select one of the articles that are linked below:

Greenhouse, S. (2013). “Low Pay at Weight Watchers Stirs Protest as Stars Rake It In.” New York Times, February 26: A1.

Martin, A. (2012) “On Campus, New Deals with Banks.” New York Times, May 31: B1.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/business/on-campus-new-deals-with-banks.html?_r=1

Dinunzio, J. (2012): “Wary of Energy Drinks in Adrenaline Sport.” New York Times, January 8: SP10.

Greenhouse, S. (2010). “A Factory Defies Stereotypes, but Can It Thrive?” New York Times, July 18: BusinessSunday, 1.

Banjo, S. (2007). “Thwock, Gulp, Kaching! Beer Pong Inspires Inventors.” Wall Street Journal, August 29: A1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118834341517511527.html

Note: If the link to the article you have selected does not work for some reason, please contact the reference desk at Love Library for assistance in getting the article through the University’s online collection. You may also try to Google the title of the article to see if that brings it up.

Two model answers from previous terms are found on Blackboard in a pdf file marked “Assignment Essay/ Model Answers.”

Please: (1) identify an ethical question raised by the item and identify a real or imagined person at the subject company that has to resolve the issue. (Your focus should be on the ethical decision-making process that led to a decision that is the focus of the selected item); (2) identify at least two options the real or imagined person at the subject company has to resolve the issue (note: the decision maker should be a businessman or woman
not a government figure and not the company as a whole. For example, if you choose the “Name Blacked Out” article, the decision-maker should not be a doctor or an official with the Food and Drug Administration.); (3) discuss how the ethical question should be resolved using one of the following theories: utilitarianism (greatest net benefit for greatest number); or Rawls’ justice theory (duty to focus on interests of the least advantaged for purpose of obtaining justice); or (Nozick’s Rights Theory (absence of fraud and force); or virtue ethics (whether the decision would reflect well on my character based on the values of my professional peers, the values of ethical role models, and if the decision appeared in the press); or objectivism (a rationally selfish decision that results neither in sacrificing myself to others nor others to myself); or the ethic of care (focus on actions that preserve the web of relationships close to the decision-maker)). You should state a bottom line resolution to the question you address.

You are
strongly encouraged
to review the video segments in Block 3 and the video segment on virtue ethics in Block 4 so that you have some understanding of all of the possible approaches to addressing the ethical dilemma on which you choose to focus.

The most important part of the essay is the solid application of the ethical principle to the facts as you have presented them. Creativity in presenting your ideas in the essay, however, such as the incorporation of believable fictional characters in the context of the situation raised in the item, or describing the imagined ethical analysis of a real person in the item, also will be rewarded. No further reading on the item you select is required. Also,
you need not resolve the ethical question you select (some of the articles present more than one ethical question, but your essay should focus on only one) in the same way as the decision-maker featured in the article.

Please type the essay single-spaced. The essay should be no longer than 350 words. That is plenty of words, give or take 75 or so words, to complete this assignment properly.

In that regard, please do not begin the essay with an introductory paragraph summarizing the article or the points you are about to make in the essay. No matter how long or short such an introductory paragraph may be, it will be a waste of words. I have read all of the articles and, since I will be the only one reading the essay, you may assume knowledge of the article and the topic.

There is no one right format for the essay, but those essays that have earned the highest score in the past generally have fallen into one of three formats: (1) a narrative with dialogue among participants in the decision-making process (the format you chose, which is fine); (2) a skit; (3) an interior monologue where the decision-maker in effect carries on a conversation with himself or herself about the ethical implications of a decision dialogue facing him or her. Each of these formats lends itself to getting inside the head of the decision-maker as the decision-making process is unfolding and that is what I really want.

Before submitting the essay, please review the checklist on the following page to ensure that you have hit all of the requirements for the essay.

ASSIGNMENT ESSAY CHECKLIST

BA 300: Ethical Decision-making in Business

Due no later than Tuesday, September 26, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

Please review this before turning in your essay. It is designed to ensure that you have followed the instructions. You should be able to answer all of these questions “yes” before submitting the essay to me in final. Each of these points is important.

· Have I submitted the essay so that Dan Eaton has received it by e-mail no later than September 26 at 5:00 p.m.?

· Is the essay single-spaced?

· Have I put my name on the essay?

· Have I made sure that my essay does not substantially exceed the 350-word limit (up to around 75 words over is OK)?

· Have I re-watched the video segments in Block 2 and watched the video segments in Block 3 and the “virtue ethics” segment in Block 4 before deciding which ethical decision-making approach to apply to the ethical question I have identified?

· Have I launched right into the ethical question and analysis and resisted the temptation to include an introductory paragraph summarizing or introducing the topic of the selected article?

· Have I framed my essay around the decision-making process of a specific real or imagined businessperson who is resolving an ethical dilemma raised or suggested by the article I have selected?

· Have I made sure that the ethical decision-maker that is the focus of my essay is a private businessperson and not a government figure or employee of a non-profit organization? (Note: a university official is almost always a government or non-profit employee, not a businessperson.)

· Have I identified two or more options for the ethical decision-maker to resolve the dilemma?

· Do I correctly state, develop, and apply the ethical theory that I have my decision-maker using to resolve the ethical question I have raised?

· For example, if I am having the decision-maker use utilitarianism, have I identified the costs and the benefits of the potential ethical decision to at least three stakeholders?

· Have I made sure to state what the decision-maker has decided to do rather than what the decision-maker should do, even if the decision is different from the one the decision-maker actually made according to the article?

· Have I carefully reviewed my essay so that the words “should” and “I believe” are not used, except perhaps in a dialogue among potential decision-makers? (When in doubt, have I reviewed the essay to delete the word “should” and the phrase “I believe”?)

· Have I made sure that my essay is not my personal commentary on the ethical issues raised in the article or simply a summary of the article? (Hint: If your essay begins “In the article _____,” you are off on the wrong foot.)

Model Essay

Link to article:

Bernstein, N. (2011): “Getting Tough on Immigrants To Turn a Profit.” New York Times, September 29: A1.

[Note: Please do not include the link to the article on which you base the paper you will submit. It is included here only for your reference.]

His gaze leaped impatiently from his Rolex to the window and the grey London cityscape below. Nick Buckles, CEO of G4S, has a busy day ahead.

“Ah. Grahame; Debbie – please, come sit” he said to his arriving guests: Grahame Gibson, COO of new markets, and Debbie McGrath, communications director.

Nick doesn’t waste any time: “Debbie, let’s hear it.”

“Nick, it’s this Victoria contract. I can’t support it. I wouldn’t be able to look my daughter in the eye again – let alone sleep at night – if I did. We have standards, Nick, and right now we’re completely missing the mark. After our last death, the public is increasingly wary of us, as are the courts and legislatures of our largest clients, our brand image is in the toilet, and the international press is circling like a shark in the water. I think we should stop bidding our transport services altogether until we can thoroughly investigate the practice and provide sensitivity training for our guards. We’ve messed up. And now it’s our imperative to do the right thing and prevent this from ever happening again.”

Grahame interrupts: “Nick, while I appreciate the tenacity with which Miss McGrath tends to our public perception, she’s left out some key information, not the least of which is the fact that we haven’t killed anybody. We transport hundreds of thousands of people each year; sometimes people just die. In cases where we might have some culpability, we’ve complied with the authorities and we’ve paid their fines; we are operating within their rules. And let’s not forget they hire us, we don’t hold a gun to their head. I’m in agreement that we need to investigate and, sure, even provide “sensitivity training,” but there just isn’t enough time to do that before the Victoria deadline next month.”

Nick is quiet a moment, queries his Rolex again, and then exhales deeply. “Debbie, we’re going to take the contract in Victoria, and here’s why: it is true we’ve made some mistakes in the past, but at the end of the day – like Grahame said – we’ve successfully transported nearly all of our inmates. We complete that task more efficiently than can the governments we serve and we save them and their taxpayers’ money. In addition to that, this no-bid contract is easy profit. By taking it, we not only provide a much needed service to the state of Victoria, but we also make our shareholders forty-five million pounds richer. There will always be a few casualties of war – which we will try to prevent – but the net sum of this contract benefits practically everyone else.”

Link to the article:

Dinunzio, J. (2012): “Wary of Energy Drinks in Adrenaline Sport.” New York Times, January 8: SP10.

Sergey Titov flies to the bottom of the mountain. Snow floats around him, creating a streak of white that appears as light speed to Sergey. As Sergey arrives at the end of the slope he skids to the side of his board and slows himself. He then sits and faces his board upward, exposing his brand new decal with “DRINK WATER” in bold, and begins to unclasp his boots.

Arnold Murphy, a fellow snowboarder and friend of Sergey, slides next to him. Arnold notices the decal and quickly exclaims “Hey man, what the hell are you doing?” Sergey pulls down the part of his balaclava covering his mouth and responds “What are you talking about? I’m just bombing the mountain like always.” Arnold points at the bottom of the board “Dude you’re going to screw us of our sponsorship with that water stuff. What are we going to do if the Rockstar guys see us? Or even worse, the Red Bull reps! You got to take that off.”

Sergey finishes unclasping his boots, picks up his board and looks directly at Arnold. “If the reps don’t like it then I don’t want them to sign me. If I were to take this off I would be selling out. Those energy drinks are awful for you man. If I were to wear their signs I would be showing I support hurting my body. What kind of message would that send to the kids who might look up to me? Let alone other snowboarders?”

Arnold, a little taken back, pauses, then responds “I didn’t realize it meant that much to you. But how are you going to make a living if you don’t try to get sponsored? Just because you ride for the guys doesn’t make you need to drink their stuff. The kids don’t care what you drink. They look up to you because you can shred the mountain. The pros get sponsored by these guys also. They don’t seem to care.”

“That’s where you’re wrong Arnold” states Sergey. “Both Keegan Valaika and Scotty Wittlake are supporting this. Those guys are my idols. They believe they can make a difference by supporting what they value. I am doing this because, like them, I support what I believe in. If I don’t get a sponsorship from Red Bull or Rockstar, so be it. There are plenty of other sponsorships I can get that will allow me to still support ‘Drink Water’.”

Arnold stops to think. “Alright man. I see were your coming from. I won’t bug you about your board anymore. I may not agree with it, but it’s your decision. Let’s just get back to the top of the mountain!”