Case Study Analysis/ Term Paper

Case Study Name:

I. The Pre-Analysis:

A. Perspective:

1. Author's Perspective. Describe the perspective of the author(s) of the case study and possible biases of the author(s):

- The case study was written by Kirsten E. Martin. She[You are to begin typing after the preceding paragraph sign " - ". Now, delete these two sentences in red, change the font color to black, and begin typing.]

2. Analyst's Perspective.Describe your perspective as the analyst:

-  My perspective is that of an instructor of a

B. Bracketing.State what you are bracketing:

II. The Situation:

A. Facts.Listthe facts relevant to the issue(s) identified:

B. Historical Context.List the facts that comprise the historical context relevant to the issue(s) identified:

C. Bias.(1)Provide quotationsfrom the case study that may indicateabias of the author(s)and could possibly influence the reader apart from the simple statement of facts. (2) State why the quotations seem to indicate bias. Do not provide more than three instances.

III. The Analysis:

A. Situational Analysis

1. Key Parties. (1)Who are the principal parties (i.e., the key parties) involved in the case study?List and briefly identify them.(2) For the primary business in the case studyonly, (a) identify the company's stakeholders,(b) for each stakeholder, identify their stakes and attributes,and (c) define what is the meaning ofthe termmutual interdependencies of stakehold-ers and discuss in terms of this case.

(1) Key Parties.List key parties to the incident(s):

(2)(a& b) Stakeholders of Principal Corporation. Complete the matrix below (each of the three columns has a tab stop):

Category of Stakeholders Stakes Attributes

(2)(c) MutualInterdependencies.10Define what is the meaning of the term mutual in-terdependencies of stakeholders? Discuss in terms of this case.

2. Key Processes. (1)Listthe key processes used by the principal corporation to resolve the conflict(s) described in the case study.(2) How did each key process listed impact the con-flict?

3. Key Constraints.(1)List the key constraints uponthe leadership's decision-making in the primary corporationas discussed in the case study.(2) How doeseach constraint listed impact the decisions made?

4. Chance Events.What role, if any,didchance eventsbeyond the firm's control(in the sense of fortune or fate)play(a) in the decisions made by the primary corporation discussed in the case study and (b) in the outcomes of those decisions?

5. Differing Values.(a)Separately, name, categorize, and contrast thedifferingvalues among the keyprincipal corporation and other parties, if appropriate, and (b)discuss the impact upon the decision-making process.In your discussion, state values explicitly and when possible categorize them.

6. Ethical Issues and Theories.(a)Identify the primaryethical issue(s) in the case study. (b) Name, define, and describein the context of the case anethical principle that may have been used by the principal corporation. (c) Broaden your analytical discussion to include one or more principleethical theoriesthat might have produced better results. Again, name, define, and discuss the ethical principles in the context of the case.

a. List the PrimaryEthical Issue(s) in the Case Study.

b. Discuss aRelevant Ethical Principle likely used by the primarycorporation.

c. Discuss Relevant Ethical Principle(s) that might have produced better results.

7. Cognitive Biases.(a)Whatcognitive biases may have influenced the decision-makingby the leadership of the principal firm? (b) Within your responsename and definethe cognitive biases that you have identified andprovide an explanation that justifies having includedthose cognitive biases.

8. Organizational Sustainability. (a)What decisions were being made that predictably would lead to organizational sustainability (as this term is defined in the instructor's lectures)? (b) Also,discusswhether the decisions being made increased or decreased the achievement of long-term objectives and (c) why and how the achievement of long-term objectives relates to building a sustainable organization?

9. Unexamined Presuppositions.(a)Identifylikely unexamined presuppositions regarding the decisions made by thekey firm.(b) Justify why this is an unexamined presupposition and (c) state how the unexamined presuppositions could have or may have compromised the company's sustainability.

B. Organizational Analysis:The questions in this section are about the effects of the decisions madeby the primary business organization discussed in the case study.

1. Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Efficacy:

a. Necessary Actions.Were the actions under analysis necessary to the effectiveness, effi-ciency, and/or efficacy of the primary corporation discussed?Discuss why the actions were or were not necessary.

b. Outcomes of Actions. Did the outcomes of the actions taken increase or decrease the ef-fectiveness, efficiency, and/or the efficacy of the primary business organization dis-cussed? Was the result achieved the one intended? Explain.

2. Risk:

a. Initial Optimal Risk.Was risk at an optimal level for the primary business organization discussedat the time of the actions under analysis?

b. Subsequent Optimal Risk.Was risk at an optimal level for the primary business organization discussedfollowing the actions under analysis?

C. Operations-Quality Leadership, Stakeholder Management, Moral Leadership,and Environmental Leadership: At the time of the event(s) related in the case study, was the primary business discussed effectively practicing operations-quality leadership, stakeholder management, moral leadership, and environmental leadership? Include within your argument the evidence that supports the position you have taken.

D. Societal Analysis.What were the effects of the decisions made by the principal parties upon differing parts of society (or societies)?

IV. Key Issues. List the questions expressing thekeyissues in this case study that are relevant to this class in Business Environment?

V. The Analyst's Position:As the analyst, state and argue for your own viewpointregarding the is-sue(s)you have identified. Include within your response,the evidence that supports the viewpoint you have taken.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfjxcscu7loam3o/Attachments.rar?dl=0