Washington State University, Vancouver 
MGTOP 587: Seminar in Business Ethics – Fall 2009

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, apply a formal process to identify and address ethical conflicts between firms and stakeholders, paying particular attention to private sector-public sector interactions, and explore questions of character and conduct. Specific areas of focus include:

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

·        Evaluating the role of the “moral manager” and personal character 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, short stories/essays, 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

 

Stakeholder Model

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

10/19,10/26, 11/2,11/9, 11/16

 

LG2

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

 

Individual case analyses and group discussions

Student Ethics Papers

Giving Voice to Values discussions

Necessary Evils Exercise

Readings/films

Stakeholder Model

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

 

All classes

LG3

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

 

Individual case analyses and group discussions

 

Stakeholder Model

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

10/19,10/26, 11/2,11/9, 11/16

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

Giving Voice to Values discussion

Ethics Matrix

Normative Ethics Theories

Giving Voice to Values

8/31, 9/14, 9/21, 10/12, 10/19, 10/26, 11/16

 

Course Requirements

Cases (40%)
For each of the two assigned cases – (1) Martha McCaskey and (2) IKEA’s Global Sourcing Challenge - you are required to prepare a case analysis (ten pages maximum – not including the ethics matrix, 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 early in the course. 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 Papers (15%)
I will be asking you to directly integrate your workplace ethics experiences through two assignments, equally weighted. The first assigned student ethics paper is to prepare an ethics mini-case. These mini-cases should be one-page and single-spaced. I will go over the assignment in greater detail in class and 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 September 28 and discussed in small groups. In addition to turning in your one-page case, you will be responsible for a three-five page (double-space, 12 point font, 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.

The second student ethics paper will involve you reflecting on an incident in the workplace in which an action you took or a decision you made caused harm to another person. You will be asked to respond directly to a series of questions regarding this experience and as with the first assignment, to consider what you learned from this incident, how the experience influenced your character, and the lessons you can pass on to others. I will be discussing this assignment in greater depth later in the course. This paper is due on December 3.

 

Ethics Journal (25%)

You will be asked to maintain an ethics journal throughout the course. The purpose of the ethics journal is to provide an opportunity for you to engage in written personal reflections as prompted by the literary readings (short stories, essays, plays) assigned for the course. For each assigned reading I will provide some questions in advance to guide your reading and journal responses (you are welcome and encouraged to go beyond these questions - perhaps write your own!). You will be asked to share your journal writing in small group discussions. Through the ethics journal process your own reflections and writing will become a central learning focus for the course. 

The ethics journal will be turned in on December 3. I will evaluate your journal efforts and determine a grade for this component of the course based on four criteria:
Thoughtfulness: How deeply have you thought about the questions and developed journal entries that reflect this depth of thought? 
Integrative strength: To what extent have you attempted to connect the literary readings to themes/topics discussed in class?
Clarity: How well have you clearly and directly addressed all the discussion questions related to a particular ethics journal reading? 
Authenticity: How well have you been able to relate these readings to your own personal experience and feelings?

 

Class Participation (20%)
Since this course is designed as a seminar, you are strongly encouraged to take an active part in class discussions. In assessing this component of your grade I will asses your attendance for the course discussions (larger class and small group), the extent to which you actively participate in class discussions, and the quality of your contributions. I will discuss different ways for you to “participate” if you happen to miss a class or find it difficult to speak in a larger group setting. I will ask you after each class to submit to me via e-mail a “record” of your participation and the form it took (e.g. a comment you offered related to our case discussion, a response to a question I asked, and so on). This will help ensure I accurately take account of your participation.

 

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

The Palace Thief, Ethan Canin (TPT)

Minding the Store, Robert Coles and Albert LaFarge (MTS)

 

There are a number of assigned cases/readings as well that you will purchase directly from the Harvard Business School (identified in the syllabus by “HBS”). The following link should take you directly to the website where you can purchase the cases/readings

http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/access/4457301

 

A number of readings will be placed on electronic reserve with the WSU Vancouver Library (noted by "R" in syllabus). You can gain access to these readings through visiting WSU Vancouver - Library - Course Reserves. I will provide a password for you to use in class.

 

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.

 

Academic Integrity

Students are expected to uphold the WSU standard of conduct relating to academic dishonesty (see WSU Student Handbook, WAC 504-25-015 as well as the Business Program Guidelines related to Academic Integrity).  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 grade of zero on the assignment/exam in question.  A second 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

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.”

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 Accommodation 

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 Student Services Center (360) 546-9138.

 

Emergency Notification System 

WSU has made an emergency notification system available for faculty, students and staff. Please register at myWSU with emergency contact information (cell, email, text, etc). You may have been prompted to complete emergency contact information when registering for classes on RONet. In the event of a Building Evacuation, a map at each classroom entrance shows the evacuation point for each building. Please refer to it. Finally, in case of class cancellation campus-wide, please check local media, the WSU Vancouver web page and/or http://www.flashalert.net/. Individual class cancellations may be made at the discretion of the instructor. Each individual is expected to make the best decision for their personal circumstances, taking safety into account.

 

Campus Counseling

Short-term counseling services for current Washington State University Vancouver students are available for free on campus from Dr. William D. Meek. Will is available for appointments Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM in Student Services Center 111. To schedule a visit, please call (360)546-9238 or go to   http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/ss/pc.htm for additional information.

 


 

 

 

 

 

MGTOP 587: Seminar in Business Ethics Course Outline – Fall 2009

Aug. 24

Ethical Focus: Course Introduction & Overview

Case Discussion: For Kidz Sake (distributed in class)

Recommended Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapter 1

 

Aug. 31

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

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

Ethics Presentation

Ethics Journal: Walker Percy, “The Moviegoer” (MTS)

Sept. 7

 

Labor Day Holiday

 

Sept. 14

Ethical Focus: Authority & Loyalty
Case Discussion: Conflict on a Trading Floor (HBS)

Conflict on a Trading Floor (Sample Case)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapter 10, 15 (pp. 411-415)

Ethics Journal: Ethan Canin, “Accountant” (TPT)

Sept. 21

Ethical Focus: Balancing Work and Life Commitments
Case Discussion: Kathryn McNeil (HBS)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapt. 15 

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

Ethics Journal: Ethan Canin, “The Palace Thief” (TPT)

Sept. 28

Ethical Focus: Giving Voice to Values (1)

Case Discussion: Naivete or Boldness?

“Ways of Thinking about Our Values in the Workplace,” Mary Gentile

http://aspencbe.org/teaching/gvv/index.html

Student Ethics Paper (1) Due

Oct. 5

Ethical Focus: Giving Voice to Values (2)

Case Discussion: Better Wrong Than Right?(A) & (B)

http://aspencbe.org/teaching/gvv/index.html

Ethics Journal: Raymond Carver, “Are These Actual Miles?” (MTS)

Oct. 12

Ethical Focus: Conflicts of Personal, Professional, & Organizational Ethics 
Required Case (1) Due: 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)

 

Film Discussion: Arthur Miller, All My Sons

Oct. 19

 Ethical Focus: Globalization and Corporate Responsibility

Case Discussion: Levi Strauss & Co. Global Outsourcing (A) HBS

Required Reading:

DeGeorge, Chapter 19

Ethics Journal: John Cheever, “The Housebreaker of Shady Hill” (MTS)

Oct. 26

Ethical Focus: Globalization and Corporate Responsibility

Case Discussion: Hitting the Wall: Nike and International Labor Practices (HBS)

Required Reading:

“The Path to Corporate Responsibility,” Simon Zadek (R)

Ethics Journal: Jill Nelson, “Volunteer Slavery” (MTS)

Nov. 2

Ethical Focus: Corporations & NGO’s
Case Discussion: Starbucks and Conservation International (HBS)

Required Reading:

“Collaborating with Activists: How Starbucks Works with NGO’s,” Paul Argenti (R)

Ethics Journal: Max Apple, “Indian Giver” (R)

Nov. 9

Ethical Focus: Environmental Responsibility

Video Discussion: Exporting Harm: The High Tech Trashing of Asia

Required Reading:

“Not in our Backyard: Exporting Electronic Waste,” Elizabeth Grossman (R)

Ethics Journal: Raymond Carver, “A Small Good Thing” (R)

Nov. 16

Ethical Focus: Global Outsourcing Revisited                                          
Required Case #2 Due: IKEA’s Global Sourcing Challenge: Indian Rugs and Child Labor (B) (HBS)

Required Reading:
DeGeorge, Chapt. 20

“Managing for Organizational Integrity,” Lynn Sharp Paine (R)

 

Film Discussion: Arthur Miller, Death of A Salesman (MTS)

Nov. 23

Thanksgiving Break

            Nov. 30

Ethical Focus: Moral Repair – Necessary Evils

Required Reading:

“Dying Words,” Jerome Groopman (R)

“Necessary Evils: A Diagnostic Exercise,” Joshua Margolis (HBS)

Ethics Journal: Richard Selzer, “Imelda” (R)

Dec. 7

Ethical Focus: Moral Repair  – Making Amends and Seeking Forgiveness

Student Ethics Paper (2) Due

Ethics Journal: Leo Tolstoy, “Master and Man” (MTS)