#mykbs

TECH1400 Database Design and Management Assignment Help

MBA402 Governance, Ethics, and Sustainability Assessment

Assessment 2 Information

Subject Code: MBA402v Subject Name:Governance, Ethics, and Sustainability Assessment Title:Giving Voiceto Values Assessment Type:Case Analysis and Script Assessment Length:1,500Words (+/-10%) Weighting : 40 % Total Marks: 40 Submission: Turnitin Due Date:Week 8

Your Task

Analyse the Case Study, then write a script to address the ethical problem described in the case. Reflect on the script that you produced.

Assessment Description

The ability to handle difficult workplace conversations, and especially discussions concerning ethical issues, is a valuable skill at every level in a company (employee, manager, or Board Director).

The Giving Voice to Values (GVV) material introduced in the Week 6 workshop, provides tools to help employees, managers and company Directors stand up for their values in the workplace. Assessment 2 provides an opportunity to apply these tools to a realistic workplace scenario, to help build your capacity to handle difficult workplace conversations, while remaining true to your personal values.

The Learning Outcomes you will demonstrate in performing this assessment include:

LO1:Evaluate the success (or lack thereof) of an organisation’s governance responsibilitiesLO2:Analyse the legal andregulatory environment in Australia witha view to understanding its impact on business strategyLO3:Analyse the role of the boardin the assessment of strategy and risk,and the way in which this expertise can be better utilized.

Assessment Instructions

Read the Case Study document supplied. Analyse this document, ensuring you understand the ethical dilemma that the situation poses.

Write the following elements based on the case study. You should submit these as a single Word document, through Turnitin

Case Analysis using the GVV approach (500–600 words):

Identify the ethical issue, values at stake, and potential rationalisations of the key parties.

Evaluate the potential impacts, on stakeholders and the organisation, in the event the issue is not addressed.

Identify potential barriers to speaking up and propose strategies to overcome these barriers.

Propose alternative actions aligned with GVV principles.

Script Development (500–600 words):

Develop a script where you give voice to values and address the ethical issue in the case.

Use the GVV framework to structure your script.

Clearly articulate your values and the reasons behind your stance.

Address potential rationalisations (of others) and articulate them in the script

Present effective counterarguments to these rationalisations.

Consider the audience and tailor your message accordingly.

Propose specific actions or solutions to address the ethical issue.

Reflection (500–600 words):

Reflect on the process of applying the GVV framework to the case, by answering the following questions:

What did you find more challenging: analysing the case or writing the script? Explain why.

What impacts might your proposed actions have upon the stakeholders and the organisation?

How has this experience influenced your understanding of ethical decision-making in your current and future workplace and career?

Note on section word limits:

Provided you answer the questions, you may vary the word limits between sections.

The MBA programme encourages skills in writing succinctly (using only the words you need to make your point). Consider if you require the maximum word limit for some sections.

Your facilitator will inform you if s/he thinks you have used more words than you needed, to make your points.

Your facilitator will stop reading your work after 1,800 words.

Important Study Information

Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy

KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.

Please read the policy to learn the answers to these questions:

What is academic integrity and misconduct?

What are the penalties for academic misconduct?

How can I appeal my grade?

Late submission of assignments (within the Assessment Policy)

Length Limits for Assessments

Penalties may be applied for assessment submissions that exceed prescribed limits.

Study Assistance

MyKBS Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Further details can be accessed at https://elearning.kbs.edu.au/course/view.php?id=1481

Generative AI Traffic Lights

Please see the level of Generative AI that this assessment has been designed to accept:

Traffic Light

Amount of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenerativeAI) usage

Evidence Required

This assessment

(✓)

Level 1

Prohibited:

No GenerativeAI allowed

This assessment showcases your individual knowledge, skills and/or personal experiences in the absence of Generative AI support.

The use of generative AI is prohibited for this assessment and may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but notlimited to a mark of zero for the assessment.

ü

Level 2

Optional:

You may use GenerativeAI for research and content generation that is appropriately referenced.

See assessment instructions for details

This assessment allows you to engage with Generative AI as a means of expanding your understanding, creativity, and idea generation in theresearch phase of your assessment and to produce content that enhances your assessment. I.e., images. You do not have to use it.

The use of GenAI is optional for this assessment.

Your collaboration with Generative AI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. Click on the link below to learn how to reference GenAI. https://library.kaplan.edu.au/referencing-other- sources/referencing-other-sources-generative- ai

In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including allprompts and responses used for the assessment.

Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of yourassessment may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above.

Level 3

Compulsory:

You must use GenerativeAI to complete your assessment

See assessment instruction for details

This assessment fully integrates Generative AI, allowing you to harness the technology’s full potential in collaboration with your own expertise.

Always check your assessment instructions carefully as there may still be limitations on what constitutes acceptable use, and these may be specific to each assessment.

You will be taught how to use generative AI and assessed on its use.

Your collaboration with GenerativeAI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. Click on the link below to learn how to reference GenAI. https://library.kaplan.edu.au/referencing-other- sources/referencing-other-sources-generative- ai

In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including all prompts and responses usedfor the assessment.

Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details duringthe content generation parts of your assessment may potentially resultin penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above.

Assessment Marking Guide

CriteriaF (Fail) 0% -49%P (Pass) 50% — 64%C (Credit) 65%-74%D (Distinction) 75%-84%HD (HighDistinction) 85%-100%MarkCase AnalysisFails to demonstrateShows limitedDemonstrates goodShows highlyDemonstrates excellent/12 satisfactoryunderstanding of theunderstanding of thecompetentunderstanding of the understanding of theethical dilemma, withethical dilemma. Someunderstanding of theethical dilemma. Clearly ethical dilemma.significant gaps ingaps in connectingethical dilemma.identifies values. Generally defective inconnecting values,values, evaluatingStrongly connectsComprehensive connecting values,evaluating stakeholderstakeholder impacts,values. Evaluatesevaluation of stakeholder evaluating stakeholderimpacts, and proposingand proposingstakeholder impactsimpacts. Proposes impacts, and proposingstrategies to overcomestrategies to overcomeand proposes strategiessophisticated strategies strategies to overcomebarriers.barriers.to overcome barriers.for overcoming barriers. barriers. Script DevelopmentFails to articulateShows a limitedDemonstrates a basic

Articulates valueswith clarity, addressing potential rationalisations.

Proposes alternative actions. Navigates barriers to speaking up effectively.

Articulates valueswith/12 values effectively.articulation of values.articulation of values,exceptional clarity, Deficiencies inSignificant gaps inwith some gapsinaddresses potential addressing potentialaddressing potentialaddressing potentialrationalisations in-depth. rationalisations,rationalisations,rationalisations,Proposes alternative proposing alternativeproposing alternativeproposing alternativeactions with a clear link to actions, and navigatingactions, and navigatingactions, and navigatingGVV principles. barriers to speaking up.barriers to speaking up.barriers to speakingEffectively navigates up.barriers to speaking up.

CriteriaF (Fail) 0% -49%P (Pass) 50% — 64%C (Credit) 65%-74%D (Distinction) 75%-84%HD (HighDistinction) 85%-100%MarkReflectionWriting is not reflective in tone or content, and/or writing fails to address the questions posed.

Minimally satisfactory reflection on personal implications and insights gained. Considers the impact on stakeholders and the organisation, but in a superficial way.

Shows limited understanding of the broader implications of ethical decision-making.

Demonstrates a basic reflection on personal implications and insights gained, with some gaps in considering the impact on stakeholders and the organisation.

Shows a basic appreciation of the broader implications of ethical decision- making.

Reflects on personal implications and insights gained, considering the impact on stakeholders andthe organisation. Displays sound understanding of the broaderimplications of ethical decision- making

Reflects deeply on personal implications. Thoughtfully considers the impact on stakeholders and the organisation.

Showcases deep understanding of the broader implications of ethical decision-making.

/12Writing and Referencing

Fails to present ideas effectively, lacking clarity and coherence. Writing is uneven in quality and is not professional in tone. Poor grammar and limited vocabulary hinder comprehension.

Fails to use a coherent referencing style with substantial inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Presents ideas with limitations in clarity and coherence. Writing fails to maintain a consistent professional tone.

Occasional lapsesin grammar and word choice may obscure sentence meaning.

Adheres to Harvard referencing style, but with substantial inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Presents ideas adequately, with some lapses in clarity. Tone of writing is generally professional. Only very minor lapses in grammar and word choice.

Adheres to Harvard referencing style, with some inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Presents ideas in a clear coherent way. Writing is professional in tone. Generally good grammar and language usage. Writing overall engages the reader.

Adheres to Harvard referencing style,with mostly accurate and consistent citations.

Presents ideas with high levels of clarity, good grammar and a wide vocabulary. Writing is highly professional in tone and highly engaging for the reader.

Adheres to Harvard referencing stylewith no exceptions.

/4Comments: /40