Business Ethics and Social Responsibility: Using Leeds Model for Values-Based Decision Making

Business Ethics and Social Responsibility: Using Leeds Model for Values-Based Decision Making
Business Ethics and Social Responsibility
INDIVIDUAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT—Cohort C
SUBMISSION AND GRADING

• 150 points are possible.
• Essays must be submitted electronically via Canvas before the start of class on the day the assignment is due.
  • Hard copies will not be accepted and will receive a 0%.
• 10 points will be deducted each day for late papers for up to 5 days. After 5 days, including weekends, a 0% will be entered for your grade.
• The rubric below will be used in assessing your paper.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

• You must read the entire text of the Zappos HBR case.
• Make sure that you are writing on the correct topic, as assigned to your cohort.
  • (NOTE: This is a different topic than your debate case topic.)
• Before submission, please evaluate and revise your paper according to the rubric below.
• TA/Instructor cannot pre-assess papers. They cannot answer questions such as “What should I put in the analysis section?”

FORMAT

• Paper must include section headings.
• Length must be 2-3 pages, single-spaced.
• Font must be Times New Roman 12.
• Margins must be no larger than 1 inch; no smaller than ½ inch.
• Spell-check and proofread the paper before submitting it.
• Points will be deducted for the following:
• failure to follow instructions;
• use of contractions, slang, or inappropriate language;
• typos/spelling errors;
• grammatical errors (e.g. noun/pronoun agreement; incorrect verb tense).

CONTENT

• This paper is an analysis, not a book report or summary.
• Do not include a lengthy recap of the facts. Instead, analyze the facts according to the instructions given below.
• Use the Leeds Model for Values-Based Decision Making for brainstorming and paper design (see APPENDIX A).
• Include the following four sections in your paper. To receive full credit, you must label each of these four sections using a heading (for example, “A. ISSUE”).
• ISSUE [See Step 1 of the Leeds Decision Making Model]
  • Read the entire case study. If you were the CEO of this company at the relevant time period, define—using your own language and ideas—one issue from the case that would cause your values to conflict and for which there is no clearly right or wrong answer. Identify and describe which values are in conflict and how this conflict has created a dilemma for you. A moral dilemma is a clearly-defined either/or alternative for which there is no obvious right or wrong answer.

• ANALYSIS: [See Steps 2 and 3 of the Leeds Decision Making Model]
  • Describe the key stakeholders in the case who are implicated by the dilemma you have identified. Characterize at least two ethical frameworks for addressing this dilemma (for example, utilitarianism & deontology; shareholder & stakeholder theories). Apply those two (or more) ethical frameworks to the issue you defined in Part A (i.e. “A utilitarian would solve this by….”; “A proponent of stakeholder theory would address this dilemma as follows…”). The models you deploy in Part B must reflect the full range of course content introduced up to the point at which you are writing. Students writing later in the course need to include ethical theories introduced later in the course (though they may also draw on models from earlier modules).

• REFLECTION/CONCLUSION: [See Steps 4-6 of the Leeds Decision Making Model]
  • After considering the two (or more) frameworks defined and applied to the issue in Part B, what would you do if you were the CEO of this company and had to resolve the dilemma? How would you justify your decision? How would you communicate your resolution of this dilemma to the key stakeholders of your company? What does your resolution of this dilemma say about your values?
• QUESTION:
  • At the very end of your paper, you must include one question. (Just one sentence long.) In order to formulate the question, imagine that someone disagrees strongly with the conclusion that you reached in your paper. (Perhaps this person has somewhat different values or favors a different ethical framework than the approach you chose). What one question would you ask that person in order to get them to change their stance on the issue? (The question should not be a factual or true/false question: it should be a potential conversation starter.) During the debate, you will have a chance to ask your question to one or both of the debate teams.

 
 
 
APPENDIX A: PAPER BRAINSTORMING ASSISTANCE
 
The Leeds Model for Values-based Decision-Making
 
NOTE: This is a brainstorming document only. You do not need to mention every sub-bullet in your paper. You do need to reflect each of the six steps in your paper, however. Use this to guide you through the paper writing process.
 
Step 1: Defining the Dilemma: The Importance of Brainstorming

1. Recognizing the dimensions of the ethical conflict(s)
   1. Personal values
   2. Interpersonal values

• Professional/organizational/institutional values

1. Societal/cultural values

1. How is there a values conflict?

Step 2: Alternatives for resolving the ethical dilemma

1. Examine the situation in context
   1. Morally relevant facts
   2. Stakeholders
      1. points of views
      2. feelings, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions
   3. Identify salient moral considerations based on:
      1. Ethical theories discussed in class
      2. Conflicting ethical values

Step 3: Determine which, of the above choices for action, may be possible “right” choices

1. Evaluate options for responding to the dilemma based on reference to:
   1. Conflicting ethical values from step 1, applied to the specifics of the situation
   2. Ethical theories from step 2, applied to the specifics of the situation

• Principles
  • g., individual right to informed consent

1. Corporate culture or character

1. Consider the obstacles to choosing the “right” action
   1. What frustrations, challenges, or obstacles might you experience in choosing the “right” action?
   2. Are there any ways to mitigate the consequences (for yourself or others)?

• How might similar situations be averted in the future (trainings, etc.)?

Step 4:  Based on analysis and evaluation, choose one “right” course of action

1. In general, the “right” action should be something that results in more good than harm, upholds fundamental values, and is in accordance with established and agreed-upon standards.
2. Make a decision
   1. What is the best alternative considering all points of view?
   2. What is the justification for your choice?

• How will others whose judgment you respect view your choice?

1. How should the disaffected be addressed?
2. What outcome is expected?

Step 5:  Communicate the decision:

1. To whom? By whom? When?
2. What language or media should be employed?

Step 6:  Reflection

1. What have I learned about my character as a person and as a business leader?
2. What have I learned about my values in relation to the values of the organization?
3. Do the values of the organizational culture need to be strengthened or adjusted?
4. How might the organization better educate others on managing similar ethical dilemmas? Do we need to repair any cultural or interpersonal damage?