• April 17th, 2016

Report – Ethical Dilemmas

Paper, Order, or Assignment Requirements

1. Based on the dilemma that you outlined in assignment one, write a report that discusses an ethical dilemma that you have experienced in your workplace. In relating this dilemma, please take into account any feedback provided by your marker in assignment one.

(MY ETHICAL DILEMMA – While working with my previous employer, one of my duties was reconsiling the company credit cards and ensuring that all the correct documents and details were provided when submitting for approval. I was faced with an ethical dilemma when topline managers at my work disobeyed the company credit card spenditure policy, and spent thousands of dollars on alochol during a business trip. Knowing what they got up to, when I questioned what I was to put as the ‘business purpose’ of this spenditure, I was advised to make it a ‘customer meeting’. I knew this was against company policy and didn’t feel comfortable when submitting the expenses. I later decided to speak to the ombunsman, to report the event that happened and the extensive spenditure on company credit cards. After the investigation, the topline managers were given offical warnings and minimum access to credit cards.º

2. In your report, discuss the nature of the dilemma, and how you resolved (or tried to resolve) it.

3. Use egoism to assess your actions. An effective way to do this is to:

a. Briefly outline the theory to demonstrate your understanding of it.

b. Apply theory to the action/s you took to resolve your dilemma using the method taught in this subject (see resource folder).

c. When you have applied the theory, make a clear statement regarding whether or not your application of theory finds your actions ethical.

4. Discuss whether you might do anything differently now that you have an understanding of ethical theory.

5. As professionals, we have an obligation to others. Explain how your actions may have affected other stakeholders (i.e. anyone who may have been affected by your actions). This should be done in a separate section to your application of theory.

PLEASE NOTE: Extra resources will be provided in your Interact site that clearly explain the task, and an online meeting will be held before your report is due in order to address any questions that you may have.
It is strongly recommend that you:

attend the related online meeting
use the assessment rationale and the marking rubric provided below
These should assist your understanding of the task, and how marks will be allocated.

Your report should consist of the following:

Title Page
Table of contents
Introduction
Body of the report
Conclusion
References and
Bibliography

Rationale
This task is designed to measure the following learning outcomes where students should be able to:

solve real life ethical dilemmas;
outline ethical theories in western moral philosophy and apply them in organisational contexts; and
critically reflect on their role as business professionals and how their future actions as business professionals can affect society in positive and negative ways.

Marking criteria
Assessment 2 – Report

High Distinction (HD)
Distinction (DI)
Credit
(CD)
Pass
(PS)
Fail
(FL)
Criterion 1
9-10
8
7
5-6
<5
Written expression, referencing, and editing (10 marks)
Use of academic writing which is formal, elegant, and cautiously phrased. Work contains distinct readily graspable statements with no errors.
References in text and in reference list comply with APA standards, and all work has been acknowledged appropriately.
Use of academic writing which is formal, and cautiously phrased. Work contains distinct readily graspable statements with very few errors.
References in text and in reference list comply with APA standards, and all work has been acknowledged. appropriately.
Appropriate academic/professional writing. Minor spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. Work shows evidence of proofreading. References in text and in reference list mostly comply with APA standards.
Appropriate academic/professional writing. Some spelling, grammar and punctuation errors found but the work is readable. Others’ work has been acknowledged, although it does not always comply with APA referencing standards

Writing is not of academic standard in that it contains spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors. The work of others is not credited and no attempt at APA referencing is evident.
Criterion 2
9-10
8
7
5-6
<5
Organisation and structure (10 marks)
Extremely well organised. Work contains well-structured paragraphs with appropriate headings used. Content is structured in a manner that facilitates reader understanding.
Logical structure aids reader’s
understanding. One main argument/idea introduced per paragraph, supported by appropriate headings and relevant points.
Well-structured with one main idea or argument provided per paragraph. It is logically structured so that the reader can follow the arguments/ideas.
Reader can follow the author’s meaning, although work may include too many ideas in one paragraph, or is otherwise poorly structured.
Writing does not demonstrate properly formed sentences or paragraphs and/or the report does not have a logical structure. Report format not used or is done poorly.
Criterion 3
9-10
8
7
5-6
<5
Definition of an ethical dilemma, and explanation of ethical dilemma faced
(10 marks)
Definition of dilemma provided that is accurate and clear. Description of an ethical dilemma that the student experienced that allows the reader to understand the nature of the dilemma. It clearly explains why the issue was a dilemma and why the dilemma had ethical dimensions. The description shows a clear understanding of why some issues have ethical dimensions whilst others do not.
Definition of dilemma provided that is accurate and clear. Description of an ethical dilemma that the student experienced that allows the reader to understand the nature of the dilemma. It clearly explains why the issue was a dilemma and why the dilemma had ethical dimensions. The description shows a clear understanding of why some issues have ethical dimensions.
Definition of dilemma provided that is clear. Description of an ethical dilemma that the student experienced that allows the reader to understand the nature of the dilemma. It clearly explains why the issue was a dilemma and why the dilemma had ethical dimensions.
Definition of dilemma provided that is clear. Description that allows the reader to understand the nature of the dilemma that the student experienced.
A definition of dilemma is not provided or is flawed. An unclear or no description of an ethical dilemma experienced by the student is given. The student may have mistaken an everyday operational, management, or strategy issue for an ethical dilemma, or failed to explain clearly why the issue caused a dilemma for the student.
Criterion 4
9-10
8
7
5-6
<5
*Fulfilling the requirements of the task, including presentation requirements – see note below (10 marks)
All parts of the question have been addressed comprehensively. Each part of the task has been completed in detail.
All parts of the task have been addressed adequately.

All parts of the task have been addressed but there is room for further elaboration of some of the points/inclusions.
All parts of the task have been addressed, but some sections require more work to demonstrate understanding of the issues. All presentation guidelines have been followed.
Student has failed to address some of the task and/or has failed to comply with all of the presentation guidelines.
Criterion 5
9-10
8
7
5-6
<5
Description of ethical theory
(10 marks)
The main points, and the criticisms, of the theory have been discussed in a manner that shows evidence of clear understanding, and provides a strong rationale for why the theory could facilitate ethical decision making.
The main points, and the criticisms, of the theory have been discussed in a manner that shows evidence of clear understanding
The main points have been discussed with an attempt made to explain the rationale/logic underpinning the theory.
The main points of the theory have been reiterated with an attempt to explain the theory in student’s own words.
Main points of the theory have not been reiterated or have been copied so that there is no evidence of understanding.
Criterion 6
43-50
38-42
33-37
26-32
<25
Application of theory, development of logical arguments, and reflections (50 marks)
Ethical theory has been applied, using the ‘INPWS’ method, to assess the student’s actions. The application is logical, contains no flaws, and is comprehensive. Provides relevant and coherent arguments, and uses appropriate ethical principles to support them. Critical thinking used to present a compelling and persuasive argument.
Evidence of objective reflection, and clear links are drawn between the subject content, the dilemma, learning outcomes, and the task.

Ethical theory has been applied, using the ‘INPWS’ method, to assess the student’s actions. The application is logical and contains no flaws. Provides relevant and coherent arguments, and uses appropriate ethical principles to support them. Additionally, critical thinking has been used to group ideas and to make strong arguments. Links have been drawn between the subject content and the task.
Ethical theory has been applied well, using the ‘ ‘INPWS’ method, to assess the student’s actions. Some very minor inconsistencies may be present. Provides relevant and coherent arguments, and uses appropriate ethical principles to support them. Reasoning based on facts rather than on unfounded opinions.
Reflections on how effective the theory was in assessing the resolution of the dilemma, how the student would approach the dilemma now, and a professional’s obligations to stakeholders show evidence of critical thinking.
An attempt has been made to apply theory, using the ‘INPWS’ method, to assess student’s actions, but the application has some minor flaws. The student provides somewhat relevant and coherent arguments, although not all are properly supported. There may be some reliance on unfounded opinions or assumptions rather than on facts.
Reflections on how effective the theory was in assessing the resolution of the dilemma, how the student would approach the dilemma now, and a professional’s obligations to stakeholders show some evidence of serious reflection.
Poor or no application of theory to assess student’s actions. ‘INPWS’ method not used., or applied very poorly. Either no argument or an incoherent one is provided.
Reflections are superficial or not attempted.
Your final mark will be calculated by dividing your mark by 5 to represent 20% of your total assessment.

Please note:
To attain a mark at a higher level, all criteria at the lower level must be achieved. (i.e. to achieve a credit mark, students must fulfil all requirements for a pass and, in addition, perform at the higher level indicated by the credit requirements etc.).
It is not enough to attempt to fulfil a criterion; students must adequately address the criterion (i.e. although you may think that you have satisfied a particular requirement, you may not have done so. If this is the case, you can expect feedback from your marker indicating why you have not satisfied the requirement).
Addressing the requirements at a particular level does not guarantee you the highest available mark for that level. There will be some difference among students in regard to how well they have satisfied each requirement. Where there is some leeway for the allocation of marks, these will be awarded at the marker’s discretion (taking into account the level to which you have satisfied the requirement).

* The instructions used to assess criterion 4 are provided in the ‘Presentation’ section below.

Please read the task description carefully and ensure that you address all parts of the task:

Latest completed orders:

Completed Orders
# Title Academic Level Subject Area # of Pages Paper Urgency