Writer’s choice PLEASE FOLOW INSTRUCTION/RUBRICS. 8 Sources

— Martin Luther King, Jr., Oberlin College Commencement speech, 1965

Get your paper done on time by an expert in your field.

Order Now

If you were to assemble a group of people and ask them the meaning of the word ethics, you would likely receive a variety of responses such as: “abiding by the law,” “doing what I believe to be right,” “following the norms of behavior established by our society,” “complying with my religious beliefs,” and, in some cases, “I really don’t know.” If we accept the notion that ethics is based on established norms of right and wrong that codify expected behaviors with consideration to obligations, fairness, and the rights and interests of others, we can see how ethical dilemmas may arise. What if, however, there is no right or wrong? What if two options for a decision do not equally value the rights and interests of all stakeholder groups? How can executive decisions be made with the greatest concern for and consideration of all stakeholders?

Changes in the external business environment encountered by organizational leaders make it difficult to abide by real ethics. Such forces of change are related to excessive focus on short-term profitability, rapid decision making in the wake of aggressive competition, the rise in salaries of top executives, and global expansion into markets where different norms make ethical dilemmas more complex (Hanson, 2014). Within this period of rapid change, leaders of well-run organizations “must be able to make swift, high quality decisions that support the execution of [the organization’s] overall strategy and meet its financial targets” (Deloitte, 2012, p. 2).

To focus on improved decision making, this week you will identify that which needs to be fixed in the outdated, broken decision-making processes that can hamper organizational performance. As you continue your journey of informed decision making, you will also want to raise your awareness of how managers and leaders can make decisions that are not just high impact and informed, but are also ethical. Ethics is more than following government and industry regulation. Ethics will often necessitate different decision-making choices between several good, legal solutions, not all of which may impact stakeholders equally.

Learning Objectives
This week, you will:

Compare and contrast decision-making processes that can hamper organizational performance
Compare and contrast decision-making processes that can enhance organizational performance
Skills
You will develop the following skills:

Promotes and adheres to the values of honesty, accountability, forthrightness, accuracy, and authenticity
Promotes human and animal rights
Learning Resources
Recommended Readings
Cervone, H. F. (2015). Systematic vs intuitive decision making and the Pareto principle: Effective decision-making for project teams. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 31(3), 108–111. doi:10.1108/OCLC-05- 2015-0005

Doorn, N. (2015). The blind spot in risk ethics: Managing natural hazards. Analysis, 35(3), 354–360. doi:10.1111/risa.12293

Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205–221. doi:10.1007/BF02074820

Gobble, M. M. (2017). News and analysis of the global innovation scene. Research Technology Management, 60(6), 2–9. doi:10.1080/08956308.2017.1373042

Godos-Díez, J., Fernández-Gago, R., & Cabeza-García, L. (2015). Business education and idealism as determinants of stakeholder orientation. Journal Of Business Ethics, 131(2), 439-452. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2289-2

Hambrick, D. C., & Lovelace, J. B. (2018). The role of executive symbolism in advancing new strategic themes in organizations: a social influence. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 110–131. doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0190

Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007

Jayaraman, L. L., & Min, B. K. (1993). Business ethics — A developmental perspective: The evolution of the free and mature corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(9), 665–675. doi:10.1007/BF00881380

Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204. doi:10.1023/A:1006083612239

Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 252–275. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0486

Ramesh, V., & Kodali, R. (2012). A decision framework for maximising lean manufacturing performance. International Journal of Production Research, 50(8), 2234–2251. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.564665

Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8

Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0932

Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business: Reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 311– 323. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0910-1

Discussion: Elements of an Ethical Decision Framework
Drawing upon this week’s reading list and your supplemental discovery of additional articles, you will engage in classroom discussion of flawed decision-making practices. You will address ways to overcome flawed practices and the support needed for getting decision making “done right” in the C-Suite.

Day 3: Initial Post
Post an initial response in which you do the following:

Compare and contrast from the literature, outdated, broken decision-making processes that can hamper organizational performance.
Identify what practices are associated with an optimal ethical decision framework.

Making Connections
Rarely does a day go by without some form of news report on yet another corporate ethics scandal. These occurrences are explicit variations of working outside the boundaries of the law. More pervasive may be types of management decisions you do not read about daily but which you have personally experienced or heard about from others, examples of which you may have shared this week in the Discussion. As noted this week, these types of workplace decisions may bump up against ethical dimensions affecting competing values among the stakeholders of the organization. The rights and interests among stakeholder groups affected by such decisions may not be easily prioritized. Such decisions often involve making choices among a number of optimal and perfectly legal solutions that will impact stakeholders differently and not always equally. “Yet many executive teams have not established a clear decision-making framework with defined decision-making rights that translate throughout the enterprise” (Deloitte, 2002, p.2).

Understanding ethical decision-making practices is critical as you move forward with the informed decision-making course project. You wrap up Week 3 with much to think about in terms of “how” decisions should not be made and how to make the “right” decision. Organizational leaders must establish clear accountability for decision making and establish thoughtful value-driven approaches that exhibit good judgment. In Week 4, you will continue our journey and deepen your understanding of linkages of “what” and “how,” by focusing on the “who” of informed decision making.

Rubric Detail

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

Name: MGMT_8009M_Week3_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Superior Criteria Excellent Criteria Satisfactory Criteria Marginal Criteria Unacceptable Criteria
Element 1a: Initial Post – Hampered Organizational Performance
4.5 (15%)
Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis that compares and contrasts from the literature outdated, broken decision-making processes that can hamper organizational performance. Several sources and examples support thinking.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student provides a detailed analysis that compares and contrasts from the literature outdated, broken decision-making processes that can hamper organizational performance. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or missing details.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student provides an analysis with some details that compares and contrasts from the literature outdated, broken decision-making processes that can hamper organizational performance. Some sources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or are not fully developed.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student provides a cursory or incomplete analysis that compares and contrasts from the literature outdated, broken decision-making processes that can hamper organizational performance. Few sources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing or lack clarity.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 1b: Initial Post – Optimal Framework
4.5 (15%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed analysis identifying what practices are associated with an optimal ethical decision framework. Several sources and examples support thinking.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student presents a detailed analysis identifying what practices are associated with an optimal ethical decision framework. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or missing details.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student presents an analysis with some details identifying what practices are associated with an optimal ethical decision framework. 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 analysis with vague or missing details identifying what practices are associated with an optimal ethical decision framework. 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_Week3_Discussion_Rubric