• Home
  • Blog
  • California State University Ethical Dilemma Engineer at Biztekno Solutions Case Study

California State University Ethical Dilemma Engineer at Biztekno Solutions Case Study

0 comments

Seth Binghampton has worked as an engineer at Biztekno Solutions for the last 25 years. The company’s corporate headquarters and sole manufacturing center are in the lovely, but remote, town of Blue Ridge. Blue Ridge has a population of about 45,000 people and two principal employers: Blue Ridge State University (BRSU) and Biztekno Solutions. Seth and his wife June have raised three children there, and love the town’s quaint good looks.

June works at Biztekno in the accounting department. Unfortunately, recent news out of accounting has not been favorable. The company’s revenues have been down for several years now, and the company has a lot of debt. The possibility of bankruptcy is real enough that June told Seth “it’s really dicey now – we have about a 50-50 chance of going out of business in the next year or two.” Seth noted that Biztekno’s stock was performing fairly well and June replied “the media don’t know about our problems yet, but in the next few months it’s going to be obvious.”

Seth has recently served on his department’s hiring committee in an effort to recruit an engineer to supervise the development of the company’s new 3-D printing technology. The success of technology is critical to the company’s plans for the future, and an excellent person is essential. Last year the company hired for this position as well, but the person they got didn’t work out well for the company and was transferred to a less demanding job. As hiring committee chair, Verne Barnes, said to Seth “we’ve got to get someone good soon or we’re in trouble.” Unfortunately, getting somebody good has been very difficult as engineers with the right skills are in great demand and most of them work in Capitol City nearly 250 miles from Blue Ridge.

After sifting through many resumes, the hiring committee identified two candidates. One of the candidates is quite weak, but is clearly willing to take the job. Easily the best of the candidates is Jim Tucker. Mr. Tucker has 5 years of experience. Recommendations from senior colleagues at his previous job suggest he’s much more capable than any of the other candidates the committee has considered. Seth and the rest of the hiring committee are excited by the possibility of Jim working for Biztekno so much so that they’ve gotten approval to make a generous salary offer. On the phone, Jim told Seth that he had other offers in Capitol City but none were quite as good as the money at Biztekno Solutions. Jim is concerned about moving his family, though. He has two children in school in Capitol City and moving would disrupt their lives. Moreover, his wife works and would have to find a new job.

Seth has realized that if Jim Tucker knew that Biztekno was very likely to go bankrupt he might not be willing to take a job that required moving to Blue Ridge. When Seth mentioned this to Vern Barnes he was told: “It’s a very serious thing to reveal confidential accounting information to prospective employees. If you want to keep your job here, I’d keep quiet on this one.”.

Analyze the above ethical case by writing an essay using the ethical frameworks discussed in class (times new roman, 12 point font, double space). Please submit your assignment by uploading a WORD file only (NOT A GOOGLE DOC). This assignment will close automatically at 2:30 PM. Therefore, please plan accordingly. Late and email submissions are not accepted.

Rubric

In Class (virtual) Ethical Essay (2)

In Class (virtual) Ethical Essay (2)

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction of FactsRelevant facts are properly and effectively stated, using your own words, in a sequential and continence fashion . In addition, essay is written from the correct perspective.

30 pts

Distinguished

25.5 pts

Proficient

21 pts

Marginal

13 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEthical DilemmaThe correct ethical dilemma is properly identified, clearly explained, and properly positioned in the correct section of the essay .

20 pts

Distinguished

17 pts

Proficient

14 pts

Marginal

7 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify primary stakeholdersAll relevant primary stakeholders are properly identified using an essay format with a clear explanation as to why there are stakeholders (what do they have at stake).

15 pts

Exceptional

12.75 pts

Proficient

10.5 pts

Marginal

6 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Possible SolutionClearly identified the relevant first possible solution to the correct ethical dilemma using an essay format, and properly supported this solution with its two (2) applicable ethical theories.

30 pts

Exceptional

25.5 pts

Proficient

21 pts

Marginal

13 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Possible SolutionClearly identified the relevant second possible solution to the correct ethical dilemma using an essay format, and properly supported this solution with its two (2) applicable ethical theories.

30 pts

Exceptional

25.5 pts

Proficient

21 pts

Marginal

13 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCompare & AssessProperly discussed the consequences from applying each possible solution.

15 pts

Exceptional

12.75 pts

Proficient

10.5 pts

Marginal

6 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDecisionThe conclusion/ decision is brief, concise, and is based on the discussed and provided analyses

10 pts

Exceptional

8.5 pts

Proficient

7 pts

Marginal

4 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganizationWriting shows high degree of attention
to logic and reasoning of points. Unity
clearly leads the reader to the
conclusion and stirs thought regarding
the topic.

25 pts

Exceptional

21.25 pts

Proficient

17.5 pts

Marginal

10 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar & MechanicsEssay is free of distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors; absent of fragments, comma splices,
and run-ons.

25 pts

Exceptional

21.25 pts

Proficient

17.5 pts

Marginal

10 pts

Inadequate

0 pts

Unacceptable

25 pts

Total Points: 200

About the Author

Follow me


{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}