Managerial Ethics:

Contemporary Challenges and Imperatives

Course Syllabus: GMP Batches A & B, XLRI, Jamshedpur
August 18 November 15, 2014
Instructor: Fr. Ozzie Mascarenhas S.J., Ph.D.
JRD Tata Chair Professor of Executive Ethics, XLRI Jamshedpur

Course Outline:
In a morally perplexed world wrought with market turbulence, economic chaos, global financial crisis,
corporate fraud, organized lobby and bribery, this course in managerial ethics seeks to examine ethical
imperatives of business management as a governance system of moral agents (inputs), moral agencies
(processes) and moral consequences (outputs). Part One (Modules 01-02) explores the ethical quality
of moral agents embedded in the capitalist markets as the human person, the critical thinker, the virtuous
actor (virtue ethics) and the trusting executive (ethics of trust). Part Two (Modules 03-04) investigates
the ethical quality of moral agencies of executive decisions, choices and actions when supported by
ethics of moral reasoning, ethics of rights and duties, and ethics of moral leadership. Part Three (Module
05) examines the ethical quality of moral executive outcomes as seen through the ethics of executive
responsibility and corporate social responsibility. Global and domestic business cases of ethical
challenges and moral imperatives are discussed throughout the course.

Course Structure, Schedule of Topics, and Class Sessions: See Appendix 2 & 3.
Course Learning Objectives:
This course in Managerial Ethics seeks to train students in the understanding, application and exercise of
the following ethical skills:

Part I: Ethics of Moral Agents

Module 01: Moral foundations for understanding the Ethics of Capitalism well Used (Handout 01), or
the Ethics of Capitalism Abused via Fraud, Corruption and Bribery (Handout 02) in the context of an
Ethics of the Human Person (Handout 03): (Prologue, Handouts 01-03: Sessions 1-3).
Module 02: Executive Ethics of Critical Thinking for resolving business problems (Handout 04: Session
4), via the Ethics of Executive Virtue (Handout 05: Session 5) and the Ethics of Trusting Relationships
(Handout 06: Session 6).

Part II: Ethics of Moral Agencies

Module 03: Ethics of the executive processes of decisions and dilemmas, human acts and actions as
supported by the Ethics of Moral Reasoning, moral worth, moral governance and moral obligation
(Handout 07: Session 7);
Module 04: Ethics of Moral Rights and Duties (Handout 08: Session 8), and the Ethics of Moral
Leadership (Handout 09: Session 9).

Part III: Ethics of Moral Outcomes

Module 05: Ethics of Executive Outcomes via the Ethics of Executive Responsibility and corporate
social responsibility (Handout 10: Sessions 10).

Course Pedagogy
We will be using a pedagogy that is specific to Managerial Ethics and which has built-in assurance of
learning (AOL) attributes. Accordingly, we propose three models AOL1, AOL2 and AOL3 that are
detailed in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. All three models start with the domain of management problems
that have an ethical and moral content, but deploy different approaches to formulating and resolving the
starting problem. AOL1 is an input-based learning model; AOL2 is a processbased learning model, and
AOL3 is an output-based learning model. All three models are premised on a systems approach: all
problems are considered to be systems at unrest (Ackoff and Emery 1972) that are composed of
subjects, objects, properties and events (SOPE):
AOL1 explores the problem from its component input variables that are either controllable (X) or
uncontrollable (Y) to the company that owns the problem, and accordingly investigates and evaluates
solution alternatives.
AOL2 explores the problem from its constituent legal, ethical, moral and spiritual issues and
processes, and seeks a solution by invoking relevant ethical concepts or constructs, theories or
paradigms that could best resolve the problem legally, ethically, morally, and spiritually.
AOL3 explores the problem-resolution from its outputs or consequences (good or bad, intended or
unintended) to various stakeholders, especially the powerless and the marginalized, and seeks to
analyze if these consequences can be justified using various ethical theories.

All three AOL models have different learning possibilities, opportunities and challenges that students and
teachers must explore and appropriate.
Handouts 05 (ethics of virtue) and Handout 06 (ethics of trust) suggest yet another model of Assurance
of Learning (AOL4) by applying various propositions of ethical theories in a given context to concrete
case situations as processes that enable learning (see Exhibits 5.1 to 5.5 in Handout 05, and Exhibits 6.1
to 6.5 in Handout 06).

Assurance of Learning Goals and Outcomes

In general, learning goals refer to discovering and mastering the requisite strategies, processes or
procedures for performing effectively as opposed to relying on the knowledge and skill that one already
possesses. Also, it is assumed that performance goals activate lower cognitive functions such as attention,
memory, and comprehension, while learning goals activate higher functions such as analysis, evaluation,
planning, and self-monitoring.
Using the directives received from the Academic Deans Office on learning goals, we use six measures for
assessing learning goals and two learning outcomes with respect to AOL1 to AOL4.
Learning Goals
Communication
Stakeholder Sensitivity
Global Perspective
Decision Making
Quest for Excellence
Functional Knowledge

Learning Outcomes
Behavioral change in
self
Behavioral change in
self

Operational Definitions of Learning Goals or Outcomes

Ability to effectively listen, inform, persuade through this medium
Ability to understand and factor in the perspectives of all persons, groups and organizations
Ability to analyze business problems from a global perspective
Ability to generate alternative solutions to a problem and then take an integrated approach to seek an
optimum solution
Ability to raise the bar in quest for higher standards
Ability to effectively identify and apply conceptual frameworks while dealing with business problems

Operational Definition
The kind of integrity between self and behavior under learner control conditions.
The kind of integrity between self and behavior under project control conditions.

Learner control conditions: These conditions are controlled by the student, such as attention, class-preparation,
punctuality, homework, enthusiasm for learning, curiosity for learning, intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic
motivation, and the like.
Project Control Conditions: These conditions are controlled by the teacher through the course (project) such as
assignments, class participation methods, individual or group viva, handouts, PPTs, YouTubes, take home
exams, classroom teaching, pedagogy, tutorials, management labs, assessment, and the like.

We assume that learning like anything is a system with its own specific inputs, processes, and outputs.
Other things being equal, AOL1 learns a problem primarily from its inputs, AOL2 learns the same
problem primarily from its processes, and AOL3 learns it primarily from its outputs or outcomes. AOL4
tests applied learning of identifying and applying major concepts, definitions, theories and paradigms covered
in that module or handout to the given case. Accordingly, AOL1 to AOL4 can be assessed against the six
earning goals and two learning outcomes. Appendix 1 provides a framework for such assessment.

Course Readings:
Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (2014), Corporate Ethics: Contemporary Challenges and
Imperatives [Monograph Chapters will be distributed in class]

Supplementary (optional) Textbooks:

Covey, Stephen R. (2004), The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. New York: Free Press.
Covey, Stephen R., Roger A. Merrill, and Rebecca R. Merrill (1994/2003), First Things First: To Live, to Love,
to Learn, to Leave a Legacy, New York: NY, Free Press,
Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (2008), Responsible Marketing: Concepts, Theories, Models, Strategies and Cases,
North Richland Hills, Texas: Roval Publishing Company.
Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (2011), Business Transformation Strategies: Concepts, Theories, Models, Strategies
and Cases, New Delhi: India, Sage Publications.
Senge, Peter M. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Revised
edition, New York, Currency: Doubleday.

Suggested recent Journal Articles on Ethics of Business Strategies:

1.

Amabile, Teresa M. and Steven J. Kramer (2007), Inner Work Life: Understanding the Subtext of Business
Performance, Harvard Business Review, (May), 72-83.
2. Anderson, James C., James A. Narus and Wouter van Rossum (2006), Customer Value Propositions in Business
Markets, Harvard Business Review, (March), 90-99.
3. Arruada, Benito and Xos H. Vzquez (2006), When your Contract Manufacturer becomes your Competitor,
Harvard Business Review, (September), 135-145.
4. Bazerman, Max H. and Dolly Chugh (2006), Decisions without Binders, Harvard Business Review (January), 88-97.
5. Beer, Michael and Nitin Nohria (2000), Cracking the Code for Change, Harvard Business Review (May-June); see
also HBR on Turnarounds, pp. 1-23.
6. Beer, Michael and Russell A. Eisenstat (2004), How to have an Honest Conversation about your Business Strategy,
Harvard Business Review (February), 82:2 (February), 82-89.
7. Bodrock, Phil (2005), The Shakedown, Harvard Business Review, (March), 31-43.
8. Bremmer, Ian (2005), Managing Risk in an Unstable World, Harvard Business Review, (June), 51-62.
9. Bradach, Jeffery L., Thomas J. Tierney and Nan Stone (2008), Delivering on the Promise of Nonprofits, Harvard
Business Review, (December), 88-97.
10. Buckingham, Marcus (2005), What Great Managers do, Harvard Business Review, (March), 70-80.
11. Charan, Ram (2006), Conquering a Culture of Indecision, Harvard Business Review (January), 108-117.

12. Camillus, John C. (2008), Strategy as a Wicked Problem, Harvard Business Review, (May), 98-106.
13. Fleming, John H., Curt Coffman and James K. Harter (2005), Manage Your Human Sigma, Harvard Business
Review, (July-August), 106-114.
14. Garvin, David A. (2006), All the Wrong Moves, Harvard Business Review (January), 18-32.
15. Garvin, David A. Michael A. Roberto (2005), Change Through Persuasion, Harvard Business Review (February),
104-112.
16. Gottfredson, Mark and Keith Aspinall (2005), Innovation versus Complexity: What is too much of a Good Thing?
Harvard Business Review, (November), 62-73.
17. Guiltinan, Joseph P. and Gregory T. Gundlach (1996), "Aggressive and Predatory Pricing," Journal of Marketing
60:3 (July), 87-102.
18. Hammond, John S., Ralph L. Keeney and Howard Raiffa (2006), The Hidden Traps In Decision Making, Harvard
Business Review (January), 118-126.
19. Herzberg, Frederick (1998), One More Time: How do you Motivate your Employees, in Business Classics: Fifteen
Key Concepts for Managerial Success, Harvard Business School Publishing, pp. 42-53.
20. Iansiti, Marco and Roy Levien (2004), Strategy as Ecology, Harvard Business Review, (March), 69-78.
21. Jackman, Jay M. and Myra H. Strober (2003), Fear of Feedback, Harvard Business Review (April), 101-9.
22. Joni, Saj-nicole, A. (2004), The Geography of Trust, Harvard Business Review, (March), 82-89.
23. Kesavan, Anand, Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas, and Ram Kesavan (2009), Government Bailouts, Financial Sector
Turnarounds, and Wicked Problems, Journal of business, society and government, Midwest Business Administration
Association, 56-78.
24. Kesavan, Ram, Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Trevor Crick, Anand Kesavan, (2009), The Global Financial Crisis as a
Wicked ProblemPresented at the Business, Society and Government Consortium, Chicago, March 2009.
25. Kesavan, Anand, Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas, and Ram Kesavan (2010), On Developing Sustainable Strategic Policy
for Financial Market Turnarounds, 2010 MBAA Conference in Chicago, in the Business, Society and Government
Track.
26. Kesavan, Ram, Michael D. Bernacchi, and Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas (2013), Word of Mouse: CSR
Communications and the Social Media, International Management Review, 9:1, 59-67.
27. Lacayo Richard and Amanda Ripley (2003), Persons of the Year: The Whistle Blowers, Time, Cover Story,
December 30, 2002 - January 6, 2003, pp. 30-40.
28. Lavoisier, Cardozo, Nelia M. Afonso, A. N. F. Aranha, S. S. Egly, Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas, and R. S. Robertson
(1999), The Ethics of Information Disclosure in HIV Disease and Cancer: A Study of Medical Residents Attitudes.
Patient Education and Counseling, Elsevier, 36: 75-80.
29. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (1990a), "An Empirical Methodology for the Ethical Assessment of Marketing
Phenomena such as Casino Gambling," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (Summer 1990), 209- 220.
30. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (1990b), "Towards a Macromarketing Analysis of Buyer-Seller Value Exchanges" Detroit
Business Journal, 1:1, December 1989, 56-78.
31. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (1991), "Spousal Ethical Justifications of Casino Gambling," Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 25:1, (Summer), 122-143.
32. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (1995), "Exonerating Unethical Marketing Executive Behaviors: A Diagnostic
Approach," Journal of Marketing, 59:2 (April), 43-57.
33. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan, and Michael D. Bernacchi (2003a), Co-Managing Online Privacy A
Call for Joint Ownership. The Journal of Consumer Marketing; 20:7, pp. 686-702.
34. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan, and Michael D. Bernacchi (2003b), Ethics of Casino Gambling: A
Hofeldian Analysis. Brown Bag Lecture to the Business School Faculty, University of Detroit Mercy, School of
Business Administration, Detroit, Michigan, April 14, 2003.
35. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Jeanne David and Eugene Swinnerton (2003a), Recent Corporate Accounting
Irregularities: A Distributive Justice Based Ethical Analysis Proceedings of the American Academy of Accounting
and Finance, 10th Annual Meeting, Chicago, (December 10-13, 2003).
36. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Jeanne David and Eugene Swinnerton (2003b), An Ethical Analysis of Accounting
Frauds and Security Scams. Brown Bag Lecture to the Business School Faculty, University of Detroit Mercy, School
of Business Administration, Detroit, Michigan, January 23, 2003.
37. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., David Jeanne, and Eugene Swinnerton (2004), Recent Corporate Securities
Irregularities: A Distributive Justice-Based Ethical Analysis? Proceedings, Midwest Finance Conference (March 1719; Chicago).
38. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan, and Michael D. Bernacchi (2005a), Governmental and Corporate Role
in Diffusing Development Technologies: Ethical Macromarketing Perspectives, The Journal of Nonprofit and Public
Sector Marketing, Volume 13: Nos. 1&2, 271-292.
39. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan, and Michael D. Bernacchi (2005b), Progressive Reduction of Economic
Inequality as a Macromarketing Task: A Rejoinder, The Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Volume
13: Nos. 1&2, 313-318.

40. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan, and Michael D. Bernacchi, (2005c) Global Marketing of Lifesaving
Drugs: An Analogical Model, The Journal of Consumer Marketing; 22:7, 404-411.
41. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Lavoisier J Cardozo, Nelia M Afonso, Mohamed Siddique, Joel Steinberg, Marybeth
Lepczyk, and Anil NF Aranha (2006), Hypothesized Predictors of PatientPhysician Trust and Distrust in the
Elderly: Implications for Health and Disease Management. Clinical Interventions in Aging 1: (2), 175-188.
42. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan and Michael D. Bernacchi (2008), Buyer-Seller Information Asymmetry:
Challenges to Distributive and Corrective Justice, Journal of Macromarketing 28:3, (January), 68-84.
43. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan, Anand Kesavan, and Michael Bernacchi (2009) Ethics of Turnaround
Marketing Strategy: A Wicked Problem Approach , Proceedings of The Marketing Management Association, 2009;
Editor: John Fraedrich.
44. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Michael Bernacchi, Ram Kesavan (2009), Is Government Bail Out of the Financial
Markets a Quick-Fix Solution with Long-term Dire Consequences? Presented at the MBAAI Annual Meeting,
Chicago, March 2009.
45. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan, and Michael Bernacchi (2010) A Joint Advertiser-Viewer Responsibility
Paradigm, Proceedings: NASMEI: (North American Society for Marketing Education in India), December 23-24,
2010.
46. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan and Michael Bernacchi (2011), The Ethics of Global Marketing: An
Evolutionary Approach. Asian Forum on Business Education Journal, Vol. 5, Issue 10, 151-178.
47. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan and Michael D. Bernacchi (2012), Is Trust a Cardinal Virtue?
Presented at the DSI-2012 Annual General Meeting at San Francisco, USA, (November), DSI-2012 Proceedings.
48. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J. (2013), Ethical versus Moral Leadership: Challenges and Imperatives, Proceedings of
the National Conference on Effective Leadership: Organizational Change Management, (January), AIMIT, pp. 6-34.
49. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan and Michael D. Bernacchi (2013a), Catalytic Social Entrepreneurship to
Eliminate Desperate Poverty: A Systems Approach, International Journal of Management Studies, Volume 20:1,
(June).
50. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J., Ram Kesavan and Michael D. Bernacchi (2013b), Advertiser-Consumer Joint
Responsibility for Information Asymmetry Reduction, Aloysian Journal of Management and Research, 1:1, (June),
AIMIT, 1-35.
51. OBrien, Louise (2004), Eliot Spitzer: How to Restore the Fiduciary Relationship, The HBR Interview, Harvard
Business Review (May), 70-78.
52. Porter, Michael E. and Mark R. Kramer (2006), Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage
and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, (December), 78-92.
53. Sawhney, Mohanbir and Jeff Zabin (2002), Managing and Measuring Relational Equity in the Network Economy,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30: (Special Issue: Fall), 313-32).
54. Schoemaker, Paul J. H. and Robert E. Gunther (2006), The Wisdom of Deliberate Mistakes, Harvard Business
Review, (June), 108-116.

55. Silverstein, Michael J. and Neil Fiske (2003), Luxury for the Masses, Harvard Business Review (April), 48-58.
56. Sirdeshmukh, Deepak, Jagdip Singh, and Barry Sabol (2002), Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational
Exchanges, Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 15-37.
57. Sull, Donald N. and Charles Spinosa (2007), Promised-Based Management: The Essence of Execution, Harvard
Business Review, (April), 78-86.
58. Van Buren Mark E. and Todd Safferstone (2009), The Quick Wins Paradox, Harvard Business Review, (January),
54-61.
59. Wagner, Stephen and Lee Dittmar (2006), The Unexpected Benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley, Harvard Business Review
(April), 133-140.
60. Weiss, Jeff and Jonathan Hughes (2005), Want Collaboration? Accept and actively Manage Conflict, Harvard
Business Review, (March), 92-101.

Student Evaluation:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Every Session by Class Participation: Content Review, Current Market Events Review, Readings Review, Case
Analysis, Student Viva. Each student with ones group will be called on stage at most 5 times during the course,
with up to 5 marks attached to each stage-outcome (Total 25%).
By Monday, August 25, 2014: First Group Exercise in Managerial Ethics: (Modules 01-02; Handout 01-04;
Sessions 1-4) (20%).
By Friday, September 19, 2014: Second Group Exercise in Managerial Ethics: (Modules 03-04; Handout 05-10;
Sessions 5-10) (20%).
Date and time to be announced: End of the Course: Final Exam (Individual): (Modules 01-05; Handouts 01-10;
Sessions 1-10) (35%).

Office Hours:
Monday through Friday: 9:00 am 5:00 pm
For other times call or contact via:
Office Landline 3125 (Admin Bldg; First Floor, above the Dean Academics Office)
Tome Jesuit Residence: Room 25, Landline: 3325
Cell Phone: 959 -134 -9683; Email: ozzie@xlri.ac.in; mascao37@gmail.com

Table 1: Assurance of Learning Model One (AOL 1):

An Inputs-based Problem Resolution Model
Domain
Search/Identify
Key facts, Key figures,
Key data, Key
information
Key subjects, Key
objects,
Key properties and
Key events (SOPE
analysis),
Timeline of key events
Explanations of
SOPE?
Key explanation?

Analyze SOPE

Classify SOPE
Categorize SOPE
Characterize SOPE
Problem Identification
Key Problems?
Underlying key
problem?
Problem Formulation
Problem specification

Problem solutions
alternatives?

Optimal problem

Inputs Analysis:
Key Questions

Type of
Analysis

Ethical
Analysis

What? Who? Where? When?

How? How often? And with whom?

Descriptive

Who are the key subjects, what are

the key objects, with what properties
and events? Where, when, how, how
often and with whom do SOPE
operate?
What, when and how often of key
SOPE constituents.
Why SOPE? Why did it happen?
Why not?
Major Antecedents of SOPE?
Major Determinants of SOPE?
Major Concomitants of SOPE?
Key Circumstances of SOPE?
Critical Contingencies of SOPE?
Relations between SOPE
components or any two or more key
events:
Sequences? Associations?
Correlation?
Necessary Conditions?
Sufficient Conditions?
N & S Conditions? Co-causes?
Any analogies?
Key categorization?
Key characterization?

Descriptive

Is your search for facts, figures, data

and information objective and
unbiased?
Is your search for SOPE honest,
objective and unbiased? That is, are
you using the right SOPE for ethical
analysis? How do you ensure this?

What are the controllable variables

(X)?
What are the uncontrollable
variables (Y)?
To what extent Y dominates X?
How do define X?
How do you define Y?
How is X related to Y?
How is X related to components of
X?
How is Y related to components of
Y?
How many solutions can you
identify?
How do you rate them in terms of
efficiency, effectiveness, sales
earnings, market share, profits,
growth, development, and market
valuation?
How do you know the solution

Analytic

Descriptive
Analytic

Analytic

Analytic

Analytic
Analytic

Is your timeline accurate and

factual?
Is your explanation of SOPE valid,
useful, objective and unbiased?
Are you looking for the right
antecedents, determinants and
concomitants of SOPE?
Are you explaining SOPE away via
circumstances and contingencies?
Are you looking for the right
relations between SOPE
components?
Are you projecting, overstating or
understating such relations?

Are your SOPE classification,

categorization and characterization
based on right analogies, valid and
meaningful?
Have you identified the key problem
with most X and Y?
Have you assessed control
objectively?
Have you defined the variables
rightly?
Have you specified the relations
between X and Y objectively?

Analytic

Are your solution-alternatives to the

problem mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive (MECE)?

Analytic

Does optimality include social,

solution

Optimal strategy
Optimal
implementation
Consequences

Learning

selected is optimal and not suboptimal?

What are its tradeoffs?
How do you strategize the optimal
solution?
Are you implementing the final
solution alternative timely and
correctly?
Hence what?
What are the major consequences to
each stakeholder?

ethical, moral, spiritual and human

dimensions?

What have you learnt from AOL1?

Analytic

Is your strategy legal, social, ethical

and moral? Hence desirable for all?
Is your strategy implementation
legal, ethical and moral?

Analytic

Are you rightly and fairly assessing

consequences to every major
stakeholder? How justly do you deal
with the harmful consequences,
especially to the powerless and the
marginalized?
How can you reinforce good
learning?

Reflective

Table 2: Assurance of Learning Model Two (AOL 2):

A Process-Based Problem Formulation-Resolution Model
Problem ProcessExploration

Process Analysis:
Key Questions

Type of
Analysi
s

Subject: Enron
Object:
Properties:
Events:

In 2001, it was unearthed that the financial

records were the results of a planned
accounting fraud. This resulted to a loss of
$11 billion of shareholder's money. On
revision of the financial statements of five
years preceding the exposure, it was found
that there was $586 million of losses, which
eventually led to Enron's bankruptcy in
December 2001.

Descriptive
Observational

Sope is honest, objective and unbiased.

What are the basic

legal, ethical and
moral issues involved
in the SOPE process
domain?

Why do you consider them legal,

ethical or moral? Are there other
legal, ethical and moral issues you
have not identified?
The legal, ethical or moral issues are
misuse of investors money, showing
an inflated profit and incorrect
financial reports, which in order led
to bankruptcy of Enron and loss of
stakeholders money.
Included: All the affected parties have
been included as leaving out any
stakeholder could have left a few gaps
in the analysis.

Analytic
Investigational

What are the implications and

ramifications of these legal, ethical
and moral issues?
Ramifications of such activities are
far reaching; in this case Enron had
to pay with its bankruptcy.

Descriptiv
e
Analytic

As we are taking into account the

account the well known facts, we feel
that the timeline is accurate.

1930: Enron was

initially incorporated in
1930 and re-incorporated
in 1997.

1985: Final
establishment of Enron
was achieved by 1985
merger of Houston
Natural Gas and Inter
North of Omaha,
Nebraska.

2000: Enron was

ranked seventh among
Fortune 500 in the year
2000 where its stocks
touched all time high.

2000: October,
Enron faked a huge deal
with Denver-based Qwest
Communications that
involved a pseudo
transaction of $308
million.

2001 : On October
16, ,Enron announces a
huge third-quarter loss of
$618 Million in the first
major public sign of
trouble,

2001 : On October
22, The Securities and
Exchange Commission
(SEC) begins an inquiry

Ethical
Analysis

into Enron's accounting

practices,

2002: December 2,
Enron files for
Bankruptcy after
revealing a $618 million
loss and eliminating $1.2
billion of shareholder
equity (Hays, 2002).

Explanation of the
SOPE narrative and
processes from an
ethical and moral
perspective

Analyze SOPE
processes from an
ethical and moral
perspective

Problem SOPE
processes
Characterization from
an ethical and moral
viewpoint

Why? Why did it happen? What laws

not complied with? What ethical
codes violated? What moral principles
compromised? What brought this
about?
Major social and cultural
antecedents?
Major social & cultural
determinants?
Major social & cultural
concomitants?
Key socio-economic and competitive
circumstances? Regulationconstraints?
Free market resource constraints?
How are SOPE elements ethically and
morally interrelated? Are they mere
random or arbitrary sequences or
associations? Are there strong and
significant correlations among SOPE
that exonerate guilt?
The subject, Enron and the objects i.e,
the stakeholders, are related in the
sense that the company was morally
obliged towards the stakeholders and
anything unethical and immoral on
the part of the company would have
had an unwanted and unwarranted
impact on the object.
How do you characterize your SOPE
processes ethically and morally? Why
and why not? What are the major
ethical concepts and constructs
involved or should be included in your
SOPE analysis & why?
The entire fraud was an epitome of
ethical and moral deterioration of a
globally respected firm. The main
issue here is fiddling with
stakeholders money and the
fraudulent activity which is both
unethical and immoral.

10

Market
Analytic

Is your SOPE narrative and

explanation exclusive, inclusive,
valid, useful, objective and unbiased?
Are you looking for the right
antecedents, determinants and
concomitants?
Are you explaining away the legal,
ethical and moral violations via
peripheral circumstances and
contingencies?

Analytic

Are you looking for the right

relations and interdependencies
between SOPE elements? Are you
projecting, overstating or
understating such relations and
interdependencies?
The relationships between the SOPE
elements have been properly
analyzed and have not been
understated or overstated.

Ethical
Analytic
Characteri
-zation

Have you identified and

characterized the key ethical, moral
and social processes of the problem?
How did you assess the gravity of the
problem from a legal, ethical and
moral viewpoint?
The gravity of the problem lies in the
impact of the fraud and the elements
affected by this. The process that led
to the fraud was an outright breach
of legal, ethical and moral conduct.

Problem SOPE
processes Formulation
from ethics theory
perspective

Problem SOPE
processes Formulation
from moral theory
perspective

Problem process
solution- alternatives?

Learning

How do you understand your SOPE

analysis using major ethical theories
and why? For instance, how do you
empower this analysis using Rawlsian
distributive justice principles and
why?
If we go by Rawlsian distributive
justice then there must be a just
distribution of goods. In this case, a
few amassed wealth through
fraudulent measures while many lost
their investments as a result.
How do you understand your SOPE
analysis using major moral principles
and to what effect? For instance, how
do you empower this analysis using
Kantian moral universal principles
and why?
According to Immanuel Kant,
immorality involves a violation of the
Categorical Imperative and is thereby
irrational. Kantian moral principle
says that fundamental principle of
morality is the law of autonomous
will. But, autonomous will never mean
anyone can do anything,. This
principle also states that immorality is
irrationality. So, this explains why
whatever was done was immoral,
irrational and waste.
How many ethical and moral solutions
can you identify? How do you rate
them in terms of effectiveness and
moral value?
Instead of amassing wealth and
cheating the investors by the
fraudulent activities and hide the
losses, Enron should have come out
clean of the mess by maintaining
truth, integrity and transparency in
the financial reports.
We have learnt that identifying
detailed issues pertaining to a case
helps you in understanding the case
better. Also, no matter what, one
should always stick to ethical and
moral values. Any digression from
ethics will have its own price and it is
a hefty one, as Enron had to pay with
its bankruptcy.

11

Ethical
Analytic

Have you invoked the right ethical

theories to understand the problem
and to what effect?
The right ethical theories have been
invoked to understand the problem
to every possible extent through
proper research and analysis.

Moral
Analytic

Have you invoked the right moral

principles to understand the problem
and to what effect?
The right moral principles were
invoked as per our best
understanding of Kantian principles.

Analytic

Are your legal, ethical and moral

problem solution-alternatives
MECE?
Yes. The legal, ethical and moral
problem solution-alternatives are
MECE.

Reflective

How can you reinforce good

learning?
Good learning can be reinforced by
ingraining the basic principles of
ethics, morality and legality. And
moreover, practicing them without
failure brings not only success but a
clear conscience as well. And as they
say, the softest pillow is a clear
conscience.

Table 3: Assurance of Learning Model Three (AOL 3):

An Outcomes-Based Problem Resolution Model
Domain
Search/Identify

Analysis:
Key Questions

Type of
Analysis

Key outcomeconsequences to subjects,

objects, properties and
events (SOPE)

What were the beneficial/harmful

consequences and to whom, when, where,
how serious, how often, and with whom?
- 4500 employees lost their jobs.
- Investors lost around 60 billion dollars
within a few days.
- Pension fund for the company's
employees was obliterated.

Descriptive,
Investigationa
l

Is your search for and analysis of

beneficial/harmful outcomes objective,
unbiased, exhaustive and accurate?
Yes. The search for and analysis of the
outcomes are objective and unbiased as
they are based on facts.

Key subjects, objects,

Properties and events
(SOPE) in relation to
problem outcomes?

Who were the key stakeholders

(subjects), especially of harmful
outcomes, in relation to what key objects,
with what key properties and key events?
The main subject was Enron and their
actions led to unwanted ramifications to
the different objects i.e, the investors, the
employees and the US govt.

Descriptive,
Investigationa
l

Timeline of key outcomeevents that led to

beneficial or harmful
consequences

What, when and how often of key

consequences to SOPE.
2001: Enron filed for bankruptcy.
Employees lost their jobs. Pension funds
were obliterated. Banks and audit firms
were accused of collusion.
2002: The rules for company financial
reporting were drastically sharpened:
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002).

Descriptive

Is your investigation and assessment of

the harmful consequences in relation to
SOPE honest, objective and unbiased?
That is, is the harm accurately assessed in
relation to the right SOPE? How do you
ensure this?
Yes. As these are based on facts, and we
are in no way attached to either the
subject or the object, this assessment is
unbiased.
Is your timeline accurate and factual?

Explanations of harmful
consequences with
respect to SOPE?

Why harm? Why did it happen? Why

not prevented?
Major Antecedents of harmful
consequences in relation to SOPE?
Their major determinants,
concomitants?
and critical contingencies?
Any analogies?
Key classification?
Key categorization?
Key characterization?

Analytic,
Investigationa
l

What were the intended and unintended

harmful consequences in relation to
SOPE, and why, and how severe?
The actions of a few executives in charge
were totally intended towards preparing
a fraudulent financial report and
gradually amass wealth. There was
nothing unintended and the entire thing
was well thought of and planned.
Teleologically (i.e., relative to benefits
over costs to the largest number) are
harmful consequences justifiable, and
why?
Deontologically (i.e., relative to fulfilled

Analytic,
Investigationa
l

Classify, categorize and

characterize harmful
consequences in relation
to SOPE
Intended and unintended
consequences in relation
to SOPE

Teleological analysis of
the consequences

Deontological analysis of

Ethical
Analysis

Yes. The timeline is accurate and factual.

Analytic

Is your explanation of harmful

consequences in relation to SOPE
compelling, valid, useful, objective and
unbiased?
Are you looking for the right antecedents,
determinants and concomitants of these
harmful consequences?
Are your analogy, classification,
categorization and characterization of the
harmful consequences relative to key
SOPE valid, useful, compelling and
meaningful for explanation?
Is your search for and assessment of the
intended and unintended harmful
consequences in relation to SOPE valid,
objective, accurate and unbiased?
Yes. The assessment is unbiased, objective
and accurate.

Teleological
analysis of the
consequences

Is your teleological analysis of assessing

benefits over costs to the largest number
valid and objective?

Deontological

Is your deontological analysis of assessing

12

the consequences

Distributive justice based

analysis of the
consequences

Corrective justice based

analysis of the
consequences

Virtue-ethics based
analysis of the
consequences

Trust-ethics based
analysis of the
consequences

Hindsight versus
foresight analysis of the
problem-resolution

Assurance of Learning

rights over violated duties of the largest

number) are harmful consequences
justifiable, and why?
Distributive justice-wise (i.e., relative to
the equitable distribution of benefits
versus costs, fulfilled rights versus duties
violated in relation to the largest
number) are harmful consequences
justifiable, and why?
Corrective justice-wise (i.e., setting up
just procedures for a more equitable
distribution of benefits over costs, rights
over duties, and to the largest number)
are harmful consequences justifiable,
and why?
From an executive virtue-based (e.g.,
fairness, compassion, prudence) ethics
perspective, are harmful consequences to
any stakeholders, especially the
powerless and the marginalized,
justifiable and why?
From an executive virtue based ethics,
what Enron did was absolutely uncalled
for and totally unethical. That cannot be
justified at any level whatsoever.
From an executive trust based (e.g.,
mutual transparency, confidence,
vulnerability) ethics perspective, are
harmful consequences to any
stakeholders, especially the powerless
and the marginalized, justifiable and
why?
There was no transparency whatsoever,
and the entire fraud was based on the
lack of transparency which led to a
massive loss in stakeholders money.
Hence, by hindsight what have you learnt
from this problem-resolution process
that, by foresight, will empower you to
reduce harmful consequences, especially
to the powerless and marginalized?
The solution has always been to stick to
honesty and ethics, any digression
however, fruitful it looks in the
immediate future will lead to unwanted
ramifications which was what happened
in Enrons case. Had it been true to itself,
the company would have reaped long
term benefits rather than a crisis.
What have you learnt from applying
AOL3 to the problem-resolution?
Through the process of understanding
the different justice based and ethical
decision making points, I have learnt
how to critically analyze a problem.
Many problems are multifaceted and it is
not easy to analyze them. The systematic
approach of this AOL has given more
smaller decision points which will help us
to make the bigger decision.

analysis of the
consequences

fulfilled rights over violated duties to the

largest number valid and objective?

Distributive
justice based
analysis of the
consequences

Is your distributive justice based analysis

of the even or equitable distribution of
benefits over costs, fulfilled rights over
violated duties, and in relation to the
largest number, valid and objective?

Corrective
justice based
analysis of the
consequences

Is your corrective justice based analysis

of setting up just processes for a more
equitable distribution of benefits over
costs, rights over duties, and to the largest
number, valid and objective?

Ethics of
virtue analysis
of the
consequences

Is your executive virtue-based (e.g.,

fairness, compassion, prudence) ethical
analysis and justification of harmful
consequences to the stakeholders,
especially to the powerless and the
marginalized, valid and objective?
Yes, the analysis is justified.

Ethics of
executive trust
based analysis
of the
consequences

Is your executive trust based (e.g., mutual

transparency, confidence, vulnerability)
ethical justification of harmful
consequences to the stakeholders,
especially the powerless and the
marginalized, valid and objective?
Yes, the analysis is justified based on the
facts, figures and analysis from the trust
based ethical point of view.

Hindsightforesight
analysis of the
consequences

Is your hindsight versus foresight analysis

of the problem-resolution valid,
defensible, replicable, and generalizable?
Yes. The hindsight v/s foresight analysis is
valid, defensible, replicable and
generalizable as concluded from the
incident, relevant facts and its
consequences.

Reflective

13

How can you reinforce AOL3 based

learning by applying it to other
problems?

Appendix 1: Assessment of Assurance of

Learning (AOL) in Managerial Ethics, XLRI 2014
Dear Student:
This is not an end-of-the-course student feedback (this will happen as usual in due time), but a
mid-term instrument for evaluating a specific target: learning goals and outcomes. Learning is an important
life-long project. All of us learn continuously, and use different approaches to learning. AOL1, AOL2, AOL3
and AOL4 were some of the major approaches we set to learning managerial ethics.
Using the directives received from the Academic Deans Office on learning goals, We have used six
measures for assessing learning goals and two learning outcomes with respect to AOL1 to AOL4. To illustrate
the assessment exercise, let us sample fill the first row:

Learning
Goals

Operational
Definition

Communicati
on

Ability to effectively
listen, inform,
persuade through
this medium

AOL1

AOL2

AOL3

AOL4

Studies a
problem
primarily from
its inputs

Studies a
problem
primarily from
its processes

Studies a
problem
primarily from
its outputs or
outcomes

To what extent
did the 15 items
in the First
column of AOL1
stimulate groupcommunication
in identifying,
gathering,
interpreting and
analyzing inputs
of the caseproblem in
question?

To what extent
did the 11 items
in the First
column of AOL2
stimulate groupcommunication
in identifying,
gathering,
interpreting and
analyzing
processes
involved in the
case-problem in
question?

To what extent
did the 14 items
in the First
column of AOL3
stimulate groupcommunication
in identifying,
gathering,
interpreting and
analyzing
outputs of the
case-problem in
question?

Studies a
problem
primarily from
its underlying
concepts and
theories
To what extent
did filling the
five Exhibit
Tables as part of
AOL4 stimulate
groupcommunication
in identifying,
gathering,
interpreting and
analyzing
concepts,
theories, models,
paradigms that
explain the caseproblem in
question?

Do the same analysis for responding to the other five learning goals and two learning outcomes in
the Assessment Table.
Learning outcomes (see the last two rows in the Table that follows) are defined under two sets of
conditions:
The assessment instrument is given in the page that follows. Please use EXCEL and do the needful
and post it at your earliest. Your participation will be rewarded by FIVE marks of Class
Participation (out of 25).
Please call me or my research associate for any further clarifications.

14

Thanks
Fr. Ozzie Mascarenhas SJ, August, 2014

15

In the matrix instrument that follows, please indicate ONE number between 0 (= no learning) and
ten (=maximum learning) that represents your objective perception of learning goals or outcomes
for each cell.

Learning
Goals

Operational
Definition

Communicati
on

Ability to effectively
listen, inform,
persuade through
this medium
Ability to
understand and
factor in the
perspectives of all
persons, groups and
organizations
Ability to analyze
business problems
from a global
perspective
Ability to generate
alternative solutions
to a problem and
then take an
integrated approach
to seek an optimum
solution
Ability to raise the
bar in quest for
higher standards
Ability to effectively
identify and apply
conceptual
frameworks while
dealing with
business problems

Stakeholder
Sensitivity

Global
Perspective
Decision
Making

Quest for
Excellence
Functional
Knowledge

Learning
Outcomes
Behavioral
change in
self

Operational
Definition

AOL1

AOL2

AOL3

AOL4

Studies a
problem
primarily
from its
inputs

Studies a
problem
primarily
from its
processes

Studies a
problem
primarily
from its
outputs or
outcomes

Studies a
problem
primarily
from its
underlying
concepts
and theories

AOL1

AOL2

AOL3

AOL4

The kind of integrity

between self and
behavior under
learner control

16

Behavioral
change in
self

conditions.
The kind of integrity
between self and
behavior under
project control
conditions.

Please circle:

Program: [HRM] [BM] [GMP].

Batch: [A] [B] [C].

Appendix 2:

Managerial Ethics: Contemporary Challenges and Imperatives

Course Structure & Schedule: Modules, Sessions and Content

Part

Corporat
e
Focus:

Handou
t#
Prologue

In General
PART
ONE:
Ethics of
Corporate
Business
Inputs

PART
TWO:
Ethics of
Corporate
Business
Process
PART
THREE:
Ethics of
Corporate
Business
Outputs

1
2

The
Corporate
Moral
Agencies

The
Corporate
Moral
Outcomes

Module

Ethical Imperatives for

Business Executives
The Ethics of Capitalism
The Ethics of Capitalism
Abused

Sessions
(1.5 hrs each)

The Ethics of Human

Personhood
The Ethics of Executive Critical
Thinking
The Ethics of Executive Virtue

The Ethics of Executive Trust

The Ethics of Moral Reasoning

The Ethics of Moral Rights and

Duties

The Ethics of Moral Leadership

10

The Ethics of Moral Outcomes

10

10

10

3
The
Corporate
Moral Agent

Chapter Title

11
Epilogue

The Ethics of Moral Executive

Responsibility and Corporate
Social Responsibility
The Ethics of Executive
Spirituality

Appendix 3: Managerial Ethics:

Schedule of Sessions for GMP (Sections A & B)
Term IV (From 18 August 15 November, 2014)
Fr. Oswald A J Mascarenhas, S J
Venue: GMP Batches A&B: New Learning Center, Lecture Hall 23
Date
Tue 19/08/14

Batches
A&B
Session 01

9:00- 10:30 am

11:00 am 12:30
pm

2:30 4:00 pm
GMP A&B (2014-5)

17

4:15 5:45 pm

6:00 7:30 pm

Thu 21/08/14
Fri 22/08/14
Mon
25/08/14
Mon
08/09/14
Thu 11/09/14
Fri 12/09/14
Mon
15/09/14
Thu 18/09/14
Fri 19/09/14
TBA

Session 02
Session 03
Session 04
Session 05
Session 06
Session 07
Session 08
Session 09
Session 10
Final Exam

GMP A&B (2014-5)

GMP A&B (2014-5)
GMP A&B (2014-5)
GMP A&B (2014-5)
GMP A&B (2014-5)
GMP A&B (2014-5)
GMP A&B (2014-5)
GMP A&B (2014-5)
GMP A&B (2014-5)

18