Business Administration paper| Finance – Management

Business Administration paper | Finance – Management

Describe a situation in your work or personal life, either experienced or witnessed, in which someone faced a moral dilemma and a decision or action of moral gravity was made or taken. Once you have described the situation, please discuss your answers to the following questions:

· What stakeholders were affected by the decision or action? (Be sure to justify and explain why they are stakeholders, and be sure to include all relevant stakeholders, even ones that might jump out at you in the beginning.)

· What would have been considered the “right” outcome? What would have been considered “wrong”? Why? (I should be reading about value frameworks, ethics, etc. here.)

· To what ethical principle or principles was the person (or persons) who made the decision or took the action possibly adhering? Do these match yours today? Why/why not? (Again, I should be reading about value frameworks, ethics, etc. here.)

· What biases might have prevented the person (or persons) from making the best decision or taking the proper action?

· If there’s an organization (company, institution, employer) in the situation, what might that organization have done to prevent and/or remedy the situation and ensure an ethical result?

(I didn’t give this assignment a descriptive title because I know you will be able to give it a better one once you’ve written it)

You may choose to write this to me or to any audience you specify (advice to a friend, for example). You may write this in the third person or the first person – whichever feels more right to you. This is your story, so you need to tell it in a way that makes sense to you and so that your discussion is clear to your reader.

The Analysis Paper 2 Rubric is attached here for your reference. Remember to make liberal use of resources and include a reference section for the things you refer to. As always, formatting is your choice and length itself is irrelevant; just be sure to check the prompt above and the rubric to be sure you’ve got the job done.

Happy writing! I look forward to reading what you’ve chosen to write about and how these moral dilemmas turned out …

BA 3102: Business, Society and Ethics Rubric for Moral Dilemma Analysis #2

Criteria

Unsatisfactory = 1,2 / Satisfactory = 3,4 / Excellent = 5

Level 1 =

4 pts.

Level 2 =

8 pts.

Level 3 =

12 pts.

Level 4 =

16 pts.

Level 5 =

20 pts.

Total

Identifies Stakeholders

Identification of relevant stakeholders is sparse or missing.

Identifies some of the relevant stakeholders in a given problem/case. Some important stakeholders are missing.

Identifies most of the relevant stakeholders in a given problem/case. Most important stakeholders are identified.

Completely identifies all immediately relevant stakeholders; misses some relevant but tangential stakeholders.

Completely and thoughtfully identifies all relevant and important stakeholders in a given problem/case.

Identifies Issues

Identification of ethical /social concerns is sparse or missing.

Identifies some of the ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case. Explanation of the issues and/or some important points are missing.

Identifies most of the ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case but does not fully explain and/or justify their inclusion.

Identifies most of the ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case. Most significant points are identified, explained, and/or justified.

Completely and thoughtfully identifies all ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case. These are fully and thoroughly explained and justified.

Supports Arguments

Inconsistent or lacking in articulation of why identified stakeholders are relevant to the problem.

Some important points are missing and/or support for inclusion of stakeholders lacks substantial explanation.

Able to support inclusion of stakeholders with adequate explanation and few logical fallacies.

Able to support inclusion of stakeholders with adequate explanation but does not fully capture all stakeholder interests at hand.

Able to support inclusion of stakeholders with a substantial amount of explanation and no logical fallacies.

Integrates Course Concepts

Very few course concepts integrated.

Mentions some course concepts, however, with some inaccuracies and/or little explanation.

Integrates some course concepts into the analysis but does not explain or apply them thoroughly.

Integrates course concepts fairly well, with some explanation and/or application to the case.

Integrates course concepts consistently and accurately.

Structure & Language

Errors are so numerous that they greatly obscure meaning.

Errors are so numerous that they obscure meaning.

Occasional errors in writing, but they don’t represent a major distraction.

Writing is free or almost free of errors.

Writing is organized, clear, and free or almost free of errors.

Total Score

(Possible 100)

Order from us and get better grades. We are the service you have been looking for.