< Cover sheet>
CQUniversity
School of Business and Law
Unit name MGMT20134 Business Ethics and Sustainability
Assignment 1: Reflective Journal- Case analysis of (name of the two nominated cases)
Submitted by: (Your name and Student Id)
For consideration by: Dr Grace Henderson Unit Coordinator and Facilitator MGMT20134
Date Submitted: 4th January, 2022.
Declaration: I declare that the work submitted is my own………..
Introduction (start on a new page) – You need to briefly state the purpose of this assignment and what you’ll include in this assignment 100-150 words (5-10% of the required word length).
This paper primarily considers the decisions taken by myself, in two specific cases completed in class. I will review the decisions and classify them according to ethical theories. I will analyse the rationales I used at the time against theories and concepts, and reflect on my ethical preferences using a number of diagnostic tools. I will draw conclusions about my approach to ethics and how I may improve decision making. Lastly, I will reconder my decisions and determine whether I would make the same choices or change them in the light of newly acquired knowledge and skills in ethics.
The following paragraph is the body of your reflective journal (see examples of how to write a reflective journal below).
Analysis and Reflection Case 1: Hedge Constructions.
In Hedge Constructions, I ranked David no. 1 as he had the most ethical behaviour in the case because he showed his ethical values such as integrity, honesty and fairness, which are identified by Farrell Fraedrich and Farrell (2018) as key values in Business Ethics. Considering my justification, I did not consider any aspects of the impact on the business or policy but rather the quality of the person as someone to look up to. I now understand that this is consistent with virtue ethics which focuses on character (Ferrell et al. 2015; McDonald, 2015; Buchholz, 1999). I recognise that I was not concerned with a focus on outcome which can be described as utilitarianism (Velasquez et al., 2020; Ferrell et al., 2018) and a concern for process or deontology (Hinman, 2015, Ferrell et al.,2015). Reviewing my diagnostics, I note that I score 65 on relationships in the values questionnaire and very low 22 on materialism. The results of the diagnostic tools also support my decision that I have got 90 for social value from the Value questionnaire (appendix 3) – explain what is meant by this score. Refer to the MCI results (highest, the second highest, etc., then an ethical theory.) MCI – highest in A. Acting consistently with principles, = deontology. ….. and the Moral Compass result of …. confirm this preference. This might also suggest that I operate from level 3 of Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development model which suggests people at this level are concerned with relationships and being part of the team or identifying with society (French and Granose, 1996; Farrell et al.,2018). Looking at the result of the Rosen Pharmaceutical, Majestic Hotels and AAA airlines cases, I made similar decisions emphasising relationships and people of character rather than maters of process or outcome. Whilst these are positives to this it may means that I do not pay enough attention to these other aspects ethical decision making. According to Velasquez et al., 2020, effective decision making requires consideration of various perspectives………. ….
Analysis and Reflection Case 2: Hedge Constructions.
Moreover, when Jim reported Frank’s behaviour (having dinner with Shelly), I believe he did the right thing and I believed he was focused primarily on the reputation of the business. This against suggests I was using a virtue-based perspective in assessing his behaviour (Ferrell et al., 2015; Buchholz, 1996) However, upon reflection, Jim appears to have drawn a conclusion about Frank having donner with Shelly with no confirming evidence. This might be considering as a violation of theory rights to privacy from a deontological perspective (Hinman, 2020, Donaldson and Werhane, 1990) and is clearly inconsistent with Velasquez et al., (2020) argument that fact must be obtained in order to make an informed decision. Jim’s conclusion that Frank used his relationship with Shelly was effectively a guess or an example of moral luck. Irrespective of whether his was right or not, this is an example of poor ethical decision making (Carroll, Buchholz and Brown, 2018). Refer to additional case(s) that have similar issues and discuss whether you made the same decisions and why. Use ethical theories with reference to analyse and support. Refer to results of your diagnostics, use other sources such as your upbringing, culture, etc to explain your preferences. Your reasons = you can refer to the results of the diagnostic tools and ethical theories that can be applied to you + your reflections (opinions, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, reactions).
Conclusion
The last paragraph is your conclusion. 100-150 words (5-10% of the required word length).
In considering these cases I realise that I predominately use virtue approaches to decision making with some appeal to utilitarianism. This is an incomplete approach to quality ethical consideration, and I clearly am not analysing the ethical context nor considering the broader implications of my decisions. I understand this is a high-risk approach and I by only using one ethical approach, I might expose both myself and organisations to risk by not considering………. If I were to reconsider these two cases I would
You can have many paragraphs for the body of the reflective journal.
References – start on a new page.
Appendices – start on a new page.
Appendix 1: Hedge Constructions
< Attach the last page of the completed case study – the page that has my signature and your answers.>
Appendix 2: Individual vs Society and Covid 19
< Attach the last page of the completed case study – the page that has my signature and your answers.>
Appendix 3: Value Questionnaire
< Attach the last page of the completed diagnostic tool – the page that has my signature and your results.>
Appendix 4: MCI
< Attach the last page of the completed diagnostic tool – the page that has my signature and your results.>
*** NOTE: you can add more appendices here for additional diagnostic tools and cases – see also the marking criteria.