1. Identify your country (Indonesia) and explain why it is interesting to you.
IMPORTANT NOTE RE.: QUESTIONS 2 and 3
The “facts” in Question 2 and the “moral issue” in Question 3 are NOT the same thing.
Facts are purely descriptive – “this is the way things are in this country.”
o DO NOT use any evaluative language in your description of these facts.
o Do not indicate whether you consider them to be admirable, appalling, dangerous, or any
other such thing.
o Just describe the situation with no judgment whatsoever about it.
o E.g.,
RIGHT: “Average wages for unskilled workers in [your country] are 20% lower than the
average wages for countries with similar economies in the same part of the world.”
WRONG: “Industries in [Your country] pays their unskilled workers very poorly, which
is morally unacceptable.”
Moral issues are facts or situations that have significant moral import.
o There are decisions to be made that will affect the moral value of the situation – that will
make it better or worse.
• In particular, you are looking for moral issues that, as they stand, will likely have negative
moral impact on your organization or its stakeholders.
2. Give an overview of the facts about the country that could make it hard for you to construct
an ethical organizational culture in your organization. Explain why.
• DO NOT neglect the “IMPORTANT NOTE” given just before this question
3. Name and describe one moral issue that you will likely face as an organizational leader
working in Indonesia.
• DO NOT neglect the “IMPORTANT NOTE” given just before Question 2.
• NOTE: Moral issue to use is Bribery.
4. Name at least four reliable resources you have located (books, articles, websites, etc.) that
will be helpful to you in researching how to deal with these moral issues in the country you
have chosen. For each, explain why you consider it a reliable resource.
• At least two of these sources must be specifically about your country (not a region it is
in). They cannot all be about moral issues in general or global interaction in general.
• These should be given in proper APA format.
• DO NOT neglect the second bullet point above – explain why you consider each to be a
reliable resource.
• Here is a very helpful link for determining reliable websites and pages.
https://www.thoughtco.com/gauging-website-reliability-2073838Links to an external site.
5. This question concerns the moral issue you identified in Question 3.
• Describe a plausible scenario in which this issue would create a moral dilemma for you
as an organizational leader in your chosen country. Explain the moral dilemma.
o By “plausible scenario” I mean a situation that is typical of situations organizational
leaders from the United States (or your home country, if different) face in Indonesia.
You must provide documentation for your claim that this situation is a plausible
scenario in Indonesia.
• Explain this dilemma by identifying two incompatible choices (alternative solutions). For each alternative, identify one moral principle that supports it. Explain how the
principle supports the option. These principles must come from those identified and described in the course
materials.
The connection between the moral principle and the alternative must be clear and
unambiguous. If you have to work too hard to make the connection, you need to find
another principle.
• If you cannot find two moral principles that clearly and obviously create a moral
dilemma, then your scenario is not adequate for this project. Either revise the scenario to
create such a dilemma or find another scenario.
• DO NOT identify a compromise solution. (You’ll have a chance to do that later.) Your
two choices should be incompatible. Following one moral principle means violating the
other.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL REMAINING QUESTIONS
Most of the key terms in the rest of these questions come from the Moral Decision Making Method
introduced in video lecture 3b: “A Moral Decision Making Method for Organizational Leadership.”
• Your answers to these questions must show that you are well acquainted with these terms
as discussed in that lecture.
• DO NOT simply assume you know what the words mean and start writing.
IF YOUR ANSWERS DO NOT SHOW THAT YOU KNOW THE VIDEO MATERIAL
YOU WILL RECEIVE NO CREDIT FOR THEM.
6. Identify at least two groups of primary stakeholders in your decision concerning the chosen
moral issue. (Just give enough description to make sure I know what group you’re talking
about.)
• Explain the stakes those stakeholders have.
• Be sure to identify which alternative of the dilemma would be most beneficial to each
group of stakeholders and why.
Two groups of stakeholders is the absolute minimum. However, if it is clear that there are
more than two groups of primary stakeholders, you must deal with all of them. You cannot
just give two and leave it at that.
• You must list at least one stakeholder group whose interests favor each of the two
alternatives you named in Question 5. (So, if you only name two groups, their interests must
favor different alternatives.)
7. Return to the two incompatible choices you identified in Question 5. Identify any other moral
principles you see as supporting either of the alternative solutions you have identified. For each
principle, explain how it supports the solution identified.
• Again, this connection must be clear and unambiguous.
• If you do not see any other principles supporting a given solution, you must state this
clearly. Otherwise you will be graded down for skipping this step.
• Be careful here. If there is a principle for which there is a clear and unambiguous
connection to one of the alternatives and you fail to list it, you will be graded down.
• NOTE: Your list of moral principles supporting these choices must include at least one
organization-specific moral principle. If you did not name one in Question 5, you must
name at least one in Question 7.
8. Identify a plausible compromise solution that would serve each of the primary conflicting
moral principles you named in Question 5.
• Explain how this compromise solution serves each of the primary conflicting principles
you identified.
• Explain how this compromise solution relates to the other moral principles you identified
in Question 7.
9. Create a list of pros and cons for each of the three (or two) solutions identified in Questions 5
and 8.
a. Give a brief (1-3 sentences) explanation of each pro and con you present in each list.
b. These pros and cons must be clear and unambiguous. If you find yourself working to
hard to explain it, then forget it. Get others.
c. There must be at least one pro and on con for each of the alternatives. While some
lists could be longer, limit yourself to three pros and three cons for each alternative.
10. Tell which of the three (or two) solutions identified in Questions 5 and 8 you believe is the
right choice.
a. Defend decision by showing why the principle(s) supporting your choice outweigh
those supporting the other action(s) in this particular situation.
b. Your explanation must include facts about this particular situation.
c. You may use Ross’s Priority Rules as part of your defense, but they cannot be the
only reason. (Remember, priority rules are prima facie! You must argue that it is
applicable in this situation.)
11. . Give at least two ideas for how you might go about vetting this decision in order to assure
yourself that it is the right choice. Explain why you think each is a good idea.
Video lecture link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIlNQX37WOY
Previous plausible scenario used: A plausible hypothetical scenario that I as an
organizational leader from the United States, employed by a global organization
in Indonesia, might face from fair competition issues could involve navigating
a business environment where local competitors engage in corrupt practices to
gain an unfair advantage.
Scenario:
I am leading a
subsidiary of a multinational United States based corporation operating in
Indonesia’s manufacturing sector. My company produces consumer electronics and
competes with several local firms in the Indonesian market.
After routine
review of the company’s operations, I receive reports from the sales team
indicating that we are facing challenges in securing contracts with key
retailers and distributors. Despite offering competitive pricing, quality
products, and excellent customer service, our company is consistently losing
bids to local competitors.
Upon further investigation, we discover evidence
suggesting that some of the company’s competitors are engaging in corrupt
practices to secure business opportunities by making side deals within retail
chains and distribution networks in exchange for preferential treatment or
exclusive contracts.
