Washington State University, Vancouver 
Management 587: Seminar in Business Ethics – Fall 2007

Professor Jerry Goodstein

 

Course Description and Goals
In this seminar we will examine the management of stakeholder relationships (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, publics) from a normative perspective, evaluate the effects of publics (including governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, communities, and the public at large) on organizational strategy, and apply a formal process to identify and address ethical conflicts between firms and stakeholders, paying particular attention to private sector-public sector interactions. This includes:

·        Identifying and evaluating the importance of resources provided by public stakeholders.

·        Evaluating the role of the “moral manager” in making public and private sector decisions including resolving tradeoffs among stakeholders.

·        Evaluating the social contract between the firm and public stakeholders and evaluating how this social contract should guide decision making.

·        Applying a formal ethical framework that incorporates personal values and broader utilitarian, rights/duties, and justice considerations into making decisions.

A variety of teaching methods will be used to facilitate achieving these goals including class case discussions, small group discussions, mini-lectures, and film/video. 

 

At the end of MgtOp 587, students should be able to (LG=learning goal):

This objective will be assessed primarily by:

Theories and Analytical Tools:

Covered

in classes:

LG1

Identify and evaluate the importance of resources provided by public stakeholders.

 

Individual case analyses and discussions that incorporate public stakeholders

Ethics Exploration papers

 

Stakeholder Model

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

10/9,10/16, 10/23,10/30, 11/5, 11/12, 11/27, 12/4

LG2

Evaluate the role of the “moral manager” in making public and private sector decisions including resolving tradeoffs among stakeholders.

 

Individual case analyses and group discussions

Ethics mini-cases

 

Stakeholder Model

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

 

8/28, 9/11, 9/18, 9/25

LG3

Evaluate the social contract between the firm and public stakeholders and evaluating how this social contract should guide decision making.

 

Individual case analyses and group discussions

Ethics Exploration Papers

Stakeholder Model

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

10/9, 10/16, 10/23,10/30, 11/27,12/4

LG4

Apply a formal ethical framework that incorporates personal values and broader utilitarian, rights/duties, and justice considerations into making decisions.

 

Individual case analyses and group discussions

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

8/28, 9/11, 9/18, 9/25, 10/23, 12/4

 

Course Requirements

Cases (50%)
For each of the two assigned cases (denoted with asterisk) you are required to prepare a case analysis (ten pages maximum, double-space with 12 point type and 1” margins) with a supporting ethics matrix (this will be discussed in class). Each case analysis will include sections devoted to: (1) defining the ethical issues in the case; (2) analyzing the case using the frameworks/readings assigned in the course; (3) providing recommendations; and (4) discussing the broad implications of the case. The ethics matrix will provide you with a means to help organize your ethical analyses, while allowing me to gain an overview of the critical considerations you have taken into account in preparing your case analyses. I will be going over the case analyses in greater depth on August 27 and September 10. Cases that do not follow the guidelines outlined above will not be accepted for credit.


It is expected that whenever possible, you will be present in class to turn in and discuss your case analyses. If for some reason you cannot make class, please let me know in advance and make plans to have the case turned in before the beginning of class either by another student, via fax, etc. Cases will not be accepted after the beginning of the class when the case is due.

Student Ethics Mini-Case (10%)
An important way to integrate your workplace ethics experiences is through ethics mini-cases. These mini-cases should be one-page and single-spaced. I will hand out a sample case study to you in class. This should give you a good sense of how to present the information in the case and lead up to the central ethical dilemma. If at all possible, I would like you to draw on your experience (direct or indirect) in the workplace. You do not have to identify the company or use real names if you are uncomfortable in revealing this information.

Try to select a case that you believe others will identify with either because they have faced similar situations or may face a similar situation in the future. The cases can address issues similar to those discussed in class or raise important issues/dilemmas we may not have been able to discuss. Consider cases where there is a real ethical dilemma and where the class has to struggle with some tough ethical issues and make a recommendation on taking action in the case. 

The cases will be due on the dates outlined in the syllabus (please make copies for everyone in discussion group) and each of you will be assigned one of the dates specified in the syllabus. After students have read the mini-case in class, the group should discuss how they would resolve the ethical dilemma. I’ll then ask you to share with them the decision you made and the justification for your decision. In addition to turning in your one-page case, you will be responsible for a three-five page (double-space with 1” margins) write-up that includes the central ethical issues brought out in the case, what you learned from this particular dilemma and how (if at all) the experience influenced your character, and what lessons you can pass on to others who might face similar situations.

Ethics Exploration Paper (20%)
Given the diverse backgrounds and interests of people in the class, I'd like to give you an opportunity to explore an ethics topic of interest to you. It might be an area you are thinking about for a masters thesis paper (e.g. the ethics of fundraising) or a topic area relevant to your profession (e.g. ethical issues associated with managed care; the ethics of intellectual property). The paper may also take the form of an inquiry highlighted by recent events (e.g., the corporate governance scandals).                         

I will ask you to structure the paper in the following way: (1) an introduction that summarizes the focus for the paper and highlights its importance and relevance; (2) a section of the paper that elaborates the various arguments and ethical issues associated with the topic area you have chosen; (3) a narrative that presents where you stand with respect to a particular issue, drawing on material presented in section 2; and (4) a conclusion that outlines a number of practical implications and recommendations that follows from your discussion in sections 1-3.


The paper should be approximately ten pages in length (double-space, 12 point type, 1” margins), not including references and any supporting materials. I will evaluate the paper based on, (1) the depth of research you have undertaken, as evidenced in the narrative and in your references (http://www.scu.edu/ethics; http://libnet.colorado.edu/Bell/; http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index.cfm) (2) the organization (e.g. logic and consistency) of the arguments you present in the paper, (3) the clarity of the writing, and (4) the strength of your implications/recommendations (e.g. feasibility of implementation). 


The paper will be handed in on your assigned date. At that time I'll ask you to share an oral summary (5-10 minutes) of your paper with members of your group and then ask you to engage your group members in a discussion of your paper.

Class Participation (20%)
Since this course is designed as a seminar, you are strongly encouraged to take an active part in class discussions. My hope is that we create an environment conductive to participation and characterized by thoughtful inquiry, attentive listening, and respectful dialogue. In assessing this component of your grade I will asses your attendance for the course discussions each evening (including cases, mini-case and ethics exploration group discussions), the extent to which you actively participated in class discussions, and the quality of your contributions to class discussions.

Required Reading
The following book is available in the WSUV Bookstore:
Business Ethics, 6th Edition, Richard DeGeorge

The book Nickle & Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich, is required for the course. The book is widely available in bookstores and on-line in paperback.

A number of required readings have been placed on electronic reserve with the WSU Vancouver Library (noted by "R" in syllabus). You can gain access to these readings through visiting http://eres.wsulibs.wsu.edu/eres/coursepass.aspx?cid=828. I will provide a password for you to use in class.

There are a number of assigned cases as well that you will purchase directly from the Harvard Business School (identified in the syllabus by “HBS”). Instructions on how to purchase the cases will be sent directly to you.

Office Hours
I will have office hours (Classroom Building 308U) on Monday from 4:00-5:30. If this period is not convenient we can arrange a different time to meet. I can be contacted by phone (360-546-9755) or by email (mailto:goodstei@vancouver.wsu.edu). My fax number on campus is 360-546-9037.

Availability of Final Grades and Cases/Projects

Final grades will be submitted two weeks after the conclusion of the course. Final grades are available on METRO the day following grade submission. If you want your final case and/or project returned to you, please leave me a SASE on the final day of class.

Academic Integrity & Academic Dishonesty

Students are expected to uphold the WSU standard of conduct relating to academic dishonesty (see WSU Student Handbook, WAC 504-25-015). Students assume full responsibility for the content and integrity of the academic work they submit. The guiding principle of academic integrity shall be that a student’s submitted work, examinations, reports, and projects must be that student’s own work. Students shall be guilty of violating the honor code if they: 1. Represent the work of others as their own. 2. Use or obtain unauthorized assistance in any academic work. 3. Give unauthorized assistance to other students. 4. Modify, without instructor approval, an examination, paper, record or report for the purpose of obtaining additional credit. 5. Misrepresent the content of submitted work. The penalty for violating the honor code is severe. The first offense will result in a failing grade for the course. All offenses will be reported to the Office of Student Affairs. If a student is unclear about whether a particular situation may constitute an honor code violation, the student should meet with the instructor to discuss the situation.

Student Conduct & Deportment

Per the WSU Vancouver Student Handbook, students are, “Expected to show due respect for …the rights of others.” For example, “While students have the right to freedom of expression…this expression cannot interfere with the rights of others or disrupt the processes of the University. Any malicious act which causes harm to any person’s physical or mental well being is prohibited.” Such activities include sexual harassment, discrimination, intimidation (e.g. bullying or belittling fellow students), disruptive behavior (e.g., loud talking in class, or slanderous comments made about other students or faculty (e.g., false and unsubstantiated claims of discrimination made for the purpose of improving grades). Students should be familiar with the Washington State University standards for student conduct presented in the WSU Vancouver student handbook (available from student services). “Students who fail to conduct themselves properly are subject to discipline, which may extend to temporary or permanent removal from the institution.”

Reporting Violations

Anyone wishing to report violations of the student or faculty conduct code should use the following procedures. Whenever possible, collect any documentation of the offending activity (e.g. written comments from other students or faculty, e-mail messages etc.). It is also useful for students to put their concerns in writing to faculty or administrators pursuing the matter can accurately convey the student’s concerns. Present the complaint and supporting documentation to the appropriate faculty member or administrator. The process should begin with the class instructor. If the instructor is unable to resolve the matter to the student’s satisfaction, of the problem behavior spans multiple classes, or if the nature of the problem makes this impossible, the complaint should be forwarded to the Program Director. If the matter is still not resolved to the student’s satisfaction, the complaint should proceed to the Associate Dean, then the Chancellor and finally to the University Ombudsman. See the WSU Vancouver student manual for more detail concerning this process.

Disability Accommodations

Accommodations may be available if you need them in order to fully participate in this class because of a disability. Accommodations may take some time to implement so it is critical that you contact Disability Services as soon as possible.  All accommodations must be approved through Disability Services, located in the Student Resource Center on the Lower Level of VSSC - (360) 546-9138.  

ON-CAMPUS COUNSELING is available in VCLB 160D. Phone 546-9446

 

I look forward to spending an intensive and rich Fall with you. Welcome to the course!

 

 

 

 

Mgt. 587: Seminar in Business Ethics Course Outline – Fall 2007

Aug. 20

Ethical Focus: Course Introduction & Overview

Case Discussion: Naivete or Boldness (distributed in class)

Recommended Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapter 1

“To Serve the Public Interest,” Carol Lewis & Stuart Gilman (R)

Aug. 27

Ethical Focus: Developing A Framework for Ethical Analysis and Moral Inquiry 
Case Discussion: Scott Lawson (HBS)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapts. 3, 4, 9 (pp. 225-233)

Ethics Presentation

 

Sept. 3

Labor Day Holiday

Sept. 10

Ethical Focus: Ethics and Authority
Case Discussion: Conflict on a Trading Floor (HBS)

Conflict on a Trading Floor (Sample Case)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapter 15 (pp. 411-415), 12

Badaracco, Business Ethics: A View From the Trenches

Student Ethics Mini-Case Discussion (1)

Sept. 17

Ethical Focus: “Giving Voice to Values”

Guest Speaker: Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D.

Research Director, Giving Voice to Values & Senior Advisor, Aspen Institute Business & Society Program

Required Reading: TBA

Sept. 24

Ethical Focus: Balancing Compassion and the Bottom Line
Case Discussion: Kathryn McNeil (HBS)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapt. 15 

Work-Life: The End of the Zero-Sum Game,” Stewart Friedman et al. (R)

Student Ethics Mini-Discussion (2)

Oct. 1

Ethical Focus: Conflicts of Personal, Professional, & Organizational Ethics 
Case Discussion: Martha McCaskey* (HBS)

Required Reading
De George, Chapt. 17 (esp. pp. 455-463)

“Corporate Policy and the Ethics of Competitor Intelligence
Gathering,” Lynn Sharp Paine (R)

Student Ethics Mini-Case Discussion (3)

Oct. 8

Ethical Focus: The Crisis in Corporate Governance
 Video Discussion: “Bigger Than Enron

DeGeorge, Chapt. 9 (pp. 211-219)

“The Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” Lynn Sharp Paine & James Weber (HBS)

 “Ethical Conflicts at Enron: Moral Responsibility in Corporate Capitalism,” Sherron Watkins (R)

Student Ethics Mini-Case Discussion (4)

Oct. 15

 Ethical Focus: Privatization in the Public Sector

Case Discussion: Privatization in Indianapolis: Problems, “Proximity Issues” and Oscar Robertson Smoot (R)

Required Reading:

“Public Ethics and the New Managerialism: An Axiomatic Theory,” George Frederickson (R)

“Accountability: The Achilles Heel,” Sheila Suess Kennedy (R)

Student Ethics Mini-Case Discussion (5)

Oct. 22

Ethical Focus: Information & Privacy                                              
Case Discussion: Google Inc.: Launching G-mail (HBS)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapt. 18

“Undermining Freedom of Expression in China: The Role of Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google,” Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_17068.pdf

 

Ethics Exploration Paper Discussion (1)

Oct. 29

Ethical Focus: Corporations and the Environment
Video Discussion: “Exporting Harm: The High Tech Trashing of Asia

Required Reading:

DeGeorge, Chapt. 11

“Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World,” Stuart Hart (R)

“Not in our Backyard: Exporting Electronic Waste,” Elizabeth Grossman (R) http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail1149.html

Ethics Exploration Paper Discussion (2)

Nov. 5

Ethical Focus: Social Entrepreneurship

Visit to ReBuilding Center, Portland http://www.rebuildingcenter.org

Nov. 12

Ethical Focus: Social Entrepreneurship

Guest Speaker: Dr. Howard Feldman, University of Portland

Required Reading: TBA

Ethics Exploration Paper Discussion (3)

Nov. 19

Thanksgiving Break

Nov. 26

Ethical Focus: Ethics and Globalization

Video Discussion: Barbara Ehrenreich & Bill Moyers – “Nickel and Dimed”

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapter 14

Ehrenreich, “Introduction,” “Selling in Minnesota,” “Evaluation”

Ethics Exploration Discussion (4)

Dec. 3

Ethical Focus: Ethics and Globalization
Case Discussion: Levi Strauss & Co.: Global Outsourcing (A)*
(HBS)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapt. 19, 20

Managing for Organizational Integrity,” Lynn Paine (R)

Ethics Exploration Discussion (5)

Course Conclusion