Posted: December 24th, 2014

Business ethics

Business ethics

Order Description

there are 2 part in this assignments each part 1500 word ,i will upload files that will help you to understand the mission

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.

Seminar Five
Seminar Objectives
Students will:
•    Stay in the seminar debating teams.
•    See some more news stories that have ethical dimensions.
•    Discuss in teams the same case study that was introduced in Seminar One.
•    Preserve these notes for comparison with their analysis of the same ethical dilemma at the beginning of the module.
•    Take personal journal notes of their revised impressions and feelings about the case.

Preparation for Seminar
NB:  Make sure that you attend the seminar with a print out of the Seminar Brief and The Case Study.
We want you to re-analyse the ethical dilemma case.  This will include the thoughts and ideas of others in your team.  Use the theory and frameworks that you have

encountered during the module (the seminar laminates are your starting point).  This exercise can be contrasted and compared with the notes that you made in Seminar

One.  You will be able to reflect upon working in your seminar teams and how increasing your appreciation of the course content has enabled you to be better prepared

for future ethical dilemmas you might encounter in your career.
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.
Contribution to Portfolio Appendix C
After Seminar Five you will have “before” and “after” journal notes concerning your analysis of this case.  You can compare your ability to analyse in your team (with

the benefit of having learnt and applied this module content), against your lone attempt to do this without any applied business ethics knowledge.  This can help you

to reflect upon team-working in Portfolio Appendix C.
Directed Reading
Crane A and Matten D (2010) Business Ethics OUP        Chapters 1 – 4

SEMINAR FIVE: 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.”

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂