Leadership and Ethics Team Written Case Analysis Rubric
Names: _________________________ Case:
________________________________________ Date:
_______________
You do not need to write an introduction to your analysis. The answer to question one
serves as the first paragraph of your paper.
1. What is/are the ethical issue(s) in the case?
•Identify the issue(s) in a couple of sentences. This is short and concise.
•Briefly, in your own words and in a couple of sentences, why is it an issue?
• What ethical models are relevant to the issue? For ethical models, consider
those discussed in class, for example, utilitarianism, rights, justice, and fairness.
• (Question 1 is the first paragraph of your case analysis. It sets the stage for
your analysis. (This section of the paper should be one half to one page.)
2. What are the pertinent facts of the case?
• Distinguish between more important and less important facts.
• Include as a fact if a code of ethics is available to guide the actors in the case.
(Company code of ethics? Industry or profession code of ethics?) Also include as a
fact if specific laws or regulatory standards are involved in the case.
• These facts must be the foundation for your alternatives and recommendations.
• (This section of the paper should be one half to one page.)
3. Stakeholders, harms, benefits, and rights
• Who are the important stakeholders in the case?
• So far in the case, who has been harmed? In what ways? Who has received benefits?
What specific benefits were received?
• So far in the case, whose rights or what rights have been exercised? How? Whose
rights or what rights have been denied? How?
➢ Frame the harms, benefits, and rights in terms of where things stand in the case right
now. Later, in analysis of alternatives (Question 5), you’ll discuss possible future
effects on stakeholders.
➢ Primary and secondary stakeholders are discussed in the first chapters in the text
and listed on a class handout.
➢ (This section of the paper should be one half to one page.)
4. What are the alternative courses of action to remedy the problem that you
have identified? Who must act in each alternative?
• Provide three distinct alternatives for the most important ethical issue that you
identify in Question 1.
• The three alternatives should address a range of actions about that one issue only.
• The same person or entity should be the “actor” in all three alternatives.
• (This section should not exceed one page. Do not analyze the alternatives here!)
17
5. Thoroughly evaluate the alternatives, their outcomes, and their possible effects on all
of the parties involved.
• For each alternative: what is the effect on each important stakeholder if this course of
action is followed?
• Are there any effects on stakeholders whom you do not consider “important”?
• Do these alternatives satisfy the ethical model you consider most relevant?
• (This can be a lengthy analysis as there are many stakeholders in society. It is a
major part of your paper and requires you to consider all of the possibilities and their
effects on the stakeholders. It should be approximately three to four pages.)
6. Make a specific recommendation based on your analysis of the case, on the important
facts that you identified in Question 2, and support it with a moral theory.
A) Be sure to state how your recommendation is tied to your analysis and facts and how it is
supported by ethical models.
B) Name any specific professional code(s) of ethics that might be applicable to the entities in
this case and state how the code(s) would support your recommendation. Conduct research to
find current day codes of ethics that are applicable. Be sure that this is a professional code, not
an industry code or regulatory standard.
• Your recommendation should be one of the three alternatives that you have proposed.
Use supporting data (e.g., important facts of case, analysis of alternatives, support
offered by specific code(s) of professional ethics, key concepts studied in the course,
and ethical models) to argue why your recommendation is the best alternative.
• Merely stating your opinion without supporting data (e.g., important facts of case,
analysis of alternatives, support offered by specific code(s) of professional ethics, key
concepts studied in the course, and ethical models) is not a recommendation.
• Does your recommendation provide a reasoned solution to the issue(s) you identified
in Question 1? (This part of your paper should be at least one page.)
|
Evaluation Criteria
|
Below Average Performance
(69% or lower)
|
Max. Pts.
|
Average Performance
(70% to 89%)
|
Max. Pts.
|
Exemplary Performance
(90% or higher)
|
Max. Pts.
|
Your Score
|
|
Issue(s)
|
· Does not recognize an ethical issue or mentions issues that are not based on facts of the case
· Doesn’t correctly identify issue category or underlying concept
|
4.1
|
· Recognizes one or more key ethical issues in the case; Provides some support for why problem is an ethical issue; Identifies only some categories or ethical concepts
|
5.3
|
· Recognizes multiple ethical issues in the case
· States most important issues and why
· Identifies category of issue(s) or underlying ethical concepts
|
6
|
|
|
Facts
|
· Simply repeats facts listed in case and does not discuss the relevance of these facts
· Doesn’t mention if professional code and/or law(s) is described in case
|
2.7
|
· Identifies some of the important facts in case
· Distinguishes between more important and less important facts
|
3.5
|
· Identifies most important facts in case, distinguishing between more and less important facts
· Describes professional code and laws/regulations if included
|
4
|
|
|
Stakeholders/ Harms/ Benefits/ Rights
|
· Little identification of stakeholders
· No discussion of harms and benefits
· No discussion of rights denied and/or exercised OR
· Misidentifies harms, benefits, rights; may describe
future instead of “already happened”
|
8.3
|
· Identifies some of important stakeholders; some mention of those not affected
· Discusses only some of harms and benefits, or lacks detail
· Discusses only some of rights denied and rights exercised, or lacks detail
|
10.7
|
· Identifies important stakeholders as well as those not affected
· Thoroughly discusses those harmed, and/or benefitted, and how
· Thoroughly discusses rights denied and rights exercised, and how
· Describes only those harms/benefits/ rights that have already happened
|
12
|
|
|
Actions
|
· Doesn’t state whether immediate action is needed
· No alternative action proposed or proposes infeasible action(s)
· No mention of who must act
|
4.1
|
· States whether immediate action is needed
· More than one reasonable alternative action proposed
· Names who must act, if anyone
|
5.3
|
· States whether immediate action is needed
· Proposed alternative actions seem to deal with the most important issue(s)
· Names who must act and states why
|
6
|
|
|
Alternatives
|
· Does not identify or misidentifies alternatives, outcomes, and possible effects on all stakeholders
· Little or no discussion of alternatives and relevant ethical model
|
8.3
|
· Evaluates some alternatives, their outcomes, and possible effects on some parties; or doesn’t thoroughly evaluate each part of the alternative
· Some discussion of alternatives and relevant ethical model
|
10.7
|
· Thoroughly evaluates all alternatives and their outcomes and possible effects on each individual stakeholder or groups of stakeholders
· Explains how alternatives satisfy ethical model considered most relevant
|
12
|
|
|
Recommen-dation
|
· No recommendation offered; OR opinion offered without support tied to issues, facts concepts, ethical model, or harms/benefits/ rights
· No mention of professional codes or codes are misidentified
|
6.9
|
· Recommendation offered but is not clearly tied to issue, facts, concepts, ethical model/theory, harms/ benefits/ rights
· Professional code(s) correctly identified but little discussion of applicability
|
8.9
|
· Recommendation is tied to issue(s) deemed most important;
· Recommendation is supported by key concepts; ethical model/theory; and most important facts and analysis of harms/rights/benefits
· Correctly identifies and applies professional code(s) of ethics
|
10
|
|
|
Total score
|
|
|
Submitted to Safe Assign by due time:
|
|
Total Maximum Points:
|
50
|
|
Notes for individual or team written case analysis. Points will be deducted if these directions are not followed:
1) The written case analysis must be presented in an eight to ten page paper (11th page may be added for References). It must be written in essay format, use subheads, follow the case format and must answer the case questions in the order asked.
2) Using APA style, the paper must follow all rules of good writing, including proper citation of references, both in-text and as a References list. The case, whether in the textbook or distributed as a separate handout, should be listed in the References list.
5) See Appendix E in the Syllabus for full details of the case analysis method.
Adapted from the University of Scranton, Kania School of Management, Assessment Tools, available http://academic.scranton.edu/department/assessment/ksom/
(OVER)
