Reflection Piece #2
Purpose
This assignment is designed to provoke thinking, and have you thoughtfully examine and make explicit your fundamental assumptions and beliefs about the topic.
Directions
Your reflection piece is to be roughly 1 page long (250-300 words), typed and double-spaced. Remember that the maximum length requirement is an important aspect of this assignment. Please cite sources following APA style.
On Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Leadership
Your task in this paper is twofold:
First, from this week’s readings, you have a choice.
(A) Select one of the two main readings — Stone or Argeenti. In your paper’s first part, briefly explain the central argument of the piece. What is the author primarily trying to convince you of, and why? Devote no more than half your reflection piece to this expository task. (B) Address this week’s case study — Case 5.1: “Mondragon Cooperatives.” In your paper’s first part, briefly explain the scenario that leads to our study questions.
Second, depending on whether you chose to write about one of the main readings or the case study, clearly and succinctly explain (A) whether you are convinced by the author’s argument, and why or why not, or (B) how you would answer study questions 1-4. Be sure to spell out your reasons use at least one concrete example to illustrate your perspective.
Submission
Submit your reflection as an attachment (.doc or .docx).
Upload your Reflection Piece to Canvas by Sunday 11:59 p.m. US Eastern Time. Click the Submit Assignment button on the upper right corner of the screen. Scroll below for the File Upload box to choose and attach your file for uploading to Canvas.
Your assignment will be submitted to the Turnitin plagiarism prevention service via Canvas. Your assignment content will be checked against Internet sources, academic journal articles, and the papers of other GU students, for common or borrowed content. Turnitin generates a report that highlights any potentially unoriginal text in your paper.
You are allowed one attempt to submit the final version of your assignment as repeated submissions checked via Turnitin will produce inaccurate and high similarity scores that indicate possible plagiarism.
Grading
The reflection piece will be graded on a 100 point scale. All Reflection Pieces will contribute 20% towards your final course grade. Please review the rubric below to understand how the assignment will be graded.
Page 3 of 5 in Module 4
Proceed to the next page by clicking the Next button at the bottom of the screen.
Rubric
BLHV 231 Reflection Piece Assignment Grading Rubric
BLHV 231 Reflection Piece Assignment Grading Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Content Reflection
50 pts
Exceeds Expectations
Reflection demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Insightful and relevant connections made through contextual explanations, inferences, and examples.
40 pts
Meets Expectations
Reflection demonstrates some degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.
30 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Reflection lacks critical thinking. Superficial connections are made with key course concepts and course materials, activities, and/or assignments
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Personal Growth
30 pts
Exceeds Expectations
Conveys strong evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates significant personal growth and awareness of deeper meaning through inferences made, examples, well developed insights, and substantial depth in perceptions and challenges. Synthesizes current experience into future implications.
24 pts
Meets Expectations
Conveys evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates satisfactory personal growth and awareness through some inferences made, examples, insights, and challenges. Some thought of the future implications of current experience.
18 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Conveys inadequate evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Personal growth and awareness are not evident and/or demonstrates a neutral experience with negligible personal impact. Lacks enough inferences, examples, personal insights and challenges, and/or future implications are overlooked.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Writing Quality
20 pts
Exceeds Expectations
Well written and clearly organized using standard English, characterized by elements of a strong writing style and basically free from grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling errors.
16 pts
Meets Expectations
Above average writing style and logically organized using standard English with minor errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.
12 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poor writing style lacking in standard English, clarity, language used, and/or frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. Needs work.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness
0 pts
0 points deducted
Reflection is submitted on or before deadline.
0 pts
1-5 points deducted
Reflection is submitted within 1 day (24 hours) after the deadline.
0 pts
6-10 points deducted
Reflection is submitted 2-3 days (49-72 hours) after the deadline.
0 pts
Total Points: 100
Previous Next
Ciulla, J. B., Martin, C. & Solomon, R. C. (Eds.) (2018). Honest Work: A Business Ethics Reader (Fourth Edition). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0190497682 [Henceforth referred to as Ciulla et al. ]
This course offers a selective introduction to the study of philosophy through the critical examination of ethical issues arising within situations calling for responsible leadership. We will apply theoretical principles to selected case studies from professional life. Our aim is to practice careful, critical analysis of problems of right and wrong conduct around finance, marketing and advertising, corporate governance, international human rights, data science, global business, distributive and social justice, environmental policy, COVID-19 and similar public health crises, and national and global democratic citizenship.
Week 4
09/13-09/19
Module 4: Corporate Social Responsibility & Stakeholder Leadership
Readings:
Christopher D. Stone, “Why Shouldn’t Corporations Be Socially Responsible?,” p. 179
Paul A. Argeenti, “Corporate Ethics in the Era of Millennials,” p. 198
Case 5.1: “Mondragon Cooperatives,” p. 200
Module 4 Reflection Piece #2
Midterm Paper Milestone 2: Literature Review
