Portfolio of Evidence Contents

The portfolio contents should provide evidence of your diligent engagement with the module activities including the directed learning opportunities. Your portfolio should be divided into clear sections, with the appendices clearly marked A, B, and C so that your examiner can easily find and mark your evidence. A summary of our expectations is provided below:

Appendix A: The Ethical Leadership Debate

A reflective statement of 600 words which describes and critically evaluates the arguments presented in the debate on Ethical Leadership. Your argument must culminate in your opinion regarding the debate motion.

We expect you to analyse the arguments (for and against) made by the teams on behalf of their characters in your seminar. We are not asking you to write an essay purely based upon the character biographies that we supplied for debate preparation.

This is the debate on Ethical Leadership in class:

Debate Title: "The business school believes that ethical leadership is impossible in a shareholder focused economy"

Mike

Agrees upon statement

Stakeholder view is more important, having good ethical leadership allows companies to be more ethical.

While shareholder view only focuses upon profit and real business don't always evolve around profit.

Mike is in stage 4: Law & social science, as he has been lecturing ethics for years and a member of Greenpeace.

Also applied to Act Utilitarian, protesting towards wrong actions and seek for majority happiness.

Maxim 2 - human dignity, treats majority humanity and respect.

Corporate governance - believes in both (way of life and codes of conduct) "there must be rules to follow; cultivating people to become more ethical"

Jan Edwards

Agrees on the statement

Focused on the society (by building community, programs for disadvantages people and charities)

Virtuous - believes businesses and society cannot be separated

No egoism - claims to contribute not for show

Utilitarian - seek for greater happiness to greater amount of people Maxim 2 - treat majority equally (provides education in Gutemala and advices small businesses)

Corporate governance - way of life

Triple bottom line - "as long as you contribute/care for the society & people, profit will come later"

Level 3 Stage 5 - contribute to majority of people (society) (pluralistic view)

Level 2 Stage 3 - shows empathy and humanity

Deshi - Chen

Agrees on the statement

Conservative due to Chinese culture, doesn't care about ethics

Egoism and Individualism - only cares for his family

Maxim 1 (Consistency) - he believes on his own perspective only ("I was born with no ethical concern")

Virtuous person and only ethical towards parents dreams

Corporate governance - doesn't care or don't believe in corporate governance (Stage 6)

Mei - Hua

Disagree because businesses lack ethics today.

Mei Hua is an ethical leader who helps companies to reduce taxes. (Utilitarian)

Claims to be definitive stakeholders

Stage 3: follow the codes of conduct of government and company orders. Hence, gains good position due to his work.

Maxim 2: Human dignity (Building the community and having concerns for other people.

Views on corporate code of governance: Code, as profits always come first.

Debate

Mei - Hua to Mike

Mei: Mike claimed to be the dangerous stakeholder when he is actually a mosquito?

Mike answered, having experiences as a university lecturer on ethics makes him as dangerous stakeholder and the member of Greenpeace.

Mei included Mike just following the institute order and other people knowledge, so it doesn't mean that he is the ethical leader?

Mei: if mike were to be ethical, he wouldn't force his daughter into ethical perceptions for example: if Mike protests his daughters company this would eventually affect her job. Mei further suggests Mike is at stage 1 only. "Following principles only but doesn't rely on his own thoughts"

Mike argues to be stage 4 because he obeys right behavior and respects authority.

Jan Edwards to Deshi

Jan: Deshi claims that western companies are ethical but when doing business in Asian countries they become unethical. Could this apply on Deshi's belief as well?

Deshi ans: Not really, deshi claims to not hide, cover mistake and always remain transparent. Maintain his obvious manner and sustain his point of view which is "ethics is a waste of time".

Deshi: Jan is an unethical leader, with high egoism and high human dignity?

Jans ans: Jan denies she's not egoistic and she claims that all her doings are to contribute to the society.

Jan puts herself at stage 3 - good boy - good girl as she's empathetic towards the majority. Deshi agrees with this statement.

Mei Hua to Deshi

Mei: states Deshi to be at stage one as he only looks after his selfish needs. For instance, using his parents as an excuse for getting a decent fiancé.

Deshi: claims to be in stage 3 rather than stage 1 as he cares and is empathetic towards his family (follows parent's instructions).

Mei Hua to Jan Edwards

Mei: Mei argues Jan for using charity to lure shareholders and promoting her company and herself. Also Mei claims Jan to be in stage 4 as she is legally contracted with stakeholders and egoistic.

Jan: Jan states her family should know that she's doing. Jan claims to be in stage 5 &3 as she uses encouragement to gain profit.

Other student's perspectives

MEI HUA:

Cannot see problem between legally saving company money within the rules and her codes of conduct.

Is in stage 3&4, problem: victim prosecution which is being complex where she claims to be ethical.

Jan Edwards

Shown as highly reflective person

Proud ( wants to be acknowledged and takes all lime light)

Encourages everyone to like her

Level 3 stage 6

Mike

Found to be most dishonest person

Protes tied to his daughters issues

Tries to satisfy own selfish needs/wishes

No ethical principle showing

Level 3, stage 5

Deshi

Most honest character

Objective is to earn a degree and help his family out

Family oriented and keen on future plans

Has been blunt about his dislike towards ethics

Level 1 stage 2.

Appendix B: The Seminar Case (in Seminar 1)

A reflective statement of 600 words concerning the seminar ethical dilemma case which was discussed in the Seminars One. Briefly identify the ethical dilemmas in the case, and then select one for analysis using the normative ethical theories and descriptive frameworks taught on this module.

This is the debate on Ethical Leadership in class:

Team Swee Lan did not agree with Stage 5 because Borris did not consult Marcus and friends and believes Borris is actually in stage 2 - egoistic.

Marcus's decisions/opinions should not affect Borris' decision because they might want to take advantage of Borris to improve their own status in the company.

Team Marcus questions why are there only 3 theories applied instead of 6?

In Germany individualist is high which means they put work first before thinking of relationship with others

Probability of effect - any decision that borris makes will affect people

Temporal - in the company, employees have close relationships. The managers, marcus and friends' relationship with borris will be affected.

Can you prove act utilitarian approach?

Greater people affected will be the company, manager and colleagues

Emphasize the importance of the client and high regards they had for borris' work (borris clients have high expectation, if he lets them down the company will be affected as a whole)

Employee tend to be either dismissed quickly after their unsuitability or leaves voluntarily after only 2/3 years. (borris worked for for years now which means the company likes him and he also likes his work)

If this launch was a success, then they would likely generate further contract

Stage 2 Borris is selfish

· If he goes on holiday - the project will be delayed, he will have no control of the project, clients might lose trust and no further contracts in the future. Colleagues may be affected as they would also be receiving less contracts in the future.

· Manager emphasizes the importance of client as the company operates in a highly competitive market

He needs to balance his priorities (needs to prioritize his future)

Swee Lan can be more supportive of the decision

Legal social contract

Did not taken account of minority group

Disregard the relationship between colleagues

Good boy - good girl orientation (stage 3)

Majority does not believe exist

Observers disagrees with egoism( team Swee Lan) because if he is showing egoism, he would not have relationship with other people - they think he follows the rule utilitarian approach (rules of the company) (stage 1)

Team Swee lan disagrees because Borris did not discuss with marcus and friends and the company has no right to take someone out of their holiday.

Team Swee lan thinks that Borris is ethical only when there is a contractual relationship and that he seems to be unethical when there is no contract involved.

Company (contractual relationship)

Swee Lan (no contract)

Did not consult Marcus and friends (no contract)

Goes against maxim 1

Appendix C: Interpersonal and Team-working skills

A reflective statement of 300 words showing how your interpersonal and team-working skills were used in this module.