Writer’s choice: FOLLOW INSTRUCTION/RUBRICS. ATTACHED IS THE WORKSHEET TO BE USED

Create an Ethical Decision-Making Framework
Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.

—Margaret Thatcher

Who’s on first?

—Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, The Kate Smith Hour

You might be wondering why a quote from the 1940s comedy team Abbott and Costello appears in a PhD Management course. In 2005, the line was added to the American Film Institute’s list of the most memorable movie quotations. But, that’s not the reason. The analogy of “who’s on first” speaks to a management challenge in which “…the distinction between who is accountable for a decision, who makes the decision and who is involved in a decision can become blurry” (Deloitte, 2012, p. 2).

The relevance of the quote to your course of study may be apparent if you have ever read company reviews submitted by employees to job portal websites. Recent reviews of various companies across different industries included the following comments:

“Confused, overlapping decision making responsibilities.”
“Tons of bureaucracy.”
“Executive management comes across as clueless. Too many silos prevent cooperation and information exchange.”
“Too many vice presidents and no one knows what they do, except praise each other.”
“Management does not understand the perspective of how different departments operate.”
Who exactly is on first?

This week we will take a closer look at the “who” of decision making. A well-structured and understood framework for decision making is essential for timely, quality-driven, high-impact decisions in rapidly changing business environments. Think about your own experiences and consider the following questions:

Do the executive teams at the organizations with which you are familiar have a clearly defined framework for making decisions?
Are the rights and interests of all stakeholder groups taken into consideration?
Who is responsible for making decisions?
How are decision authority and accountability determined?
Who has input into the decision-making process?
What is the nature of the input, and how is such input channeled?
How are decisions communicated?
Taking time to think about the answers to these questions may provide you with a point of reference as you read this week about decision frameworks.

Drawing upon this week’s reading list, you will continue to evolve your decision framework for the informed decision-making course project. The “what” and the “how” of decision making for the management problem or opportunity of your choice will be integrated with the “who.”

Learning Objectives
This week, you will:

Compare and contrast the rights and interests of different stakeholders for potential decision outcomes
Identify the hierarchy of decision makers who own a defined set of decisions
Identify the elements of value for stakeholder rights in the decision-making process
Analyze the decision-making accountability for addressing a management problem or opportunity
Evaluate a proposed ethical decision framework
Skills
You will develop the following skills:

Asks questions about the validity and accuracy of the literature

Learning Resources
Recommended Readings
Document: Activity Sheet: Management Decision Framework Wheel (DOC)

Discussion: Management Decision Framework Wheel
Let’s get started by asking “Who’s on first?”

The Management Decision Wheel is a valuable tool for formalizing a consistent and effective decision-making process. The wheel enables you to take your first step toward bringing together the “what,” “how,” and “who” of the framework for your informed decision-making course project. A well-prepared wheel may also serve as an extended outline for developing the Assignment due at the end of this week.

To prepare for this Discussion, complete the Management Decision Framework Wheel activity sheet. Review the handout for how to conceptualize an ethical decision framework by completing the management decision framework wheel.

Day 3: Initial Post
Attach your completed management decision framework wheel. Evaluate the proposed ethical management decision framework illustrated in your wheel.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: MGMT_8009M_Week4_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Superior Criteria Excellent Criteria Satisfactory Criteria Marginal Criteria Unacceptable Criteria
Element 1a: Initial Post – Management Decision Framework Wheel
4.5 (15%)
Student submits his/her management decision framework wheel and provides a brief but detailed summary (with cited support) for each of the nine elments of the thinking skills that will assist with creating an ethical decision-making enviroment.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student submits his/her management decision framework wheel and provides a brief but detailed summary (with cited support) for each of the nine elments of the thinking skills that will assist with creating an ethical decision-making enviroment. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or missing details.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student submits his/her management decision framework wheel and provides a brief summary (with cited support) for each of the nine elments of the thinking skills that will assist with creating an ethical decision-making enviroment. Some sources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or are not fully developed.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student submits his/her management decision framework wheel, but summaries for each of the nine elements are cursory or incomplete and/or do not have cited support. Few sources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing or lack clarity.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 1b: Initial Post – Evaluation of Framework
4.5 (15%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed evaluation of the proposed ethical management decision framework as illustrated in his/her wheel. Several sources and examples support his/her thinking.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student presents a detailed evaluation of the proposed ethical management decision framework as illustrated in his/her wheel. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or missing details.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student presents an evaluation with some details of the proposed ethical management decision framework as illustrated in his/her wheel. Some sources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or are not fully developed.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete evaluation with vague or missing details of the proposed ethical management decision framework as illustrated in his/her wheel. Few sources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing or lack clarity.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 1c: Discussion Reflection
3 (10%)
By Day 7, student presents a thorough and detailed explanation reflecting on what he/she learned, what surprised him/her about the topic, what he/she still needs to understand about the topic, and what he/she learned from his/her classmates. Several sources and examples support thinking.
2.85 (9.5%)
By Day 7, student presents a detailed explanation reflecting on what he/she learned, what surprised him/her about the topic, what he/she still needs to understand about the topic, and what he/she learned from his/her classmates. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or details missing.
2.55 (8.5%)
By Day 7, student presents an explanation with some details reflecting on what he/she learned, what surprised him/her about the topic, what he/she still needs to understand about the topic, and what he/she learned from his/her classmates. Some sources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or are not fully developed.
2.25 (7.5%)
By Day 7, student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details reflecting on what he/she learned, what surprised him/her about the topic, what he/she still needs to understand about the topic, and what he/she learned from his/her classmates. Few sources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing or lack clarity.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 1d: Scholarly Sources
4.5 (15%)
Student supports his/her statements with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings and two additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications. Citations are relevant, current, and appropriately formatted.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student supports his/her statements with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings and two additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications. Citations are relevant, current, and appropriately formatted; however, one or two statements are missing a citation.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student supports his/her statements with at least two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings and two additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student somewhat supports his/her statements with at least two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings but may be missing additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications, and/or there are several statements missing citations, and/or citations are not relevant or current.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 2: Follow-up Responses to Colleagues and Interaction
4.5 (15%)
Student engages with several peers bringing the discussion to a higher level of inquiry and investigation. Responses are thorough and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student engages with several peers bringing the discussion to a higher level of inquiry and investigation. Responses fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. However, there are one or two minor errors in content of responses.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student engages with at least two peers and helps extend the discussion. Responses somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student engages with at least two peers. Responses are minimal and do not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Responses may lack relevant examples and/or details to support reasoning.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 3: Written Delivery Style and Grammar
4.5 (15%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are no spelling or grammar errors.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are one or two minor errors in spelling or grammar.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student mostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are some errors in spelling or grammar.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student does not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style and/or does not communicate in a cohesive, logical style.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 4: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations)
4.5 (15%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are no APA errors. Citations and references support position and are from relevant peer-reviewed articles published within the last five years.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Citations and references support position and are from relevant peer-reviewed articles published within the last five years. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student mostly adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. At least one citation and reference supports position. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student demonstrates weak and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. No citations or references support opinion and/or several errors in APA format and style are evident.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Name: MGMT_8009M_Week4_Discussion_Rubric