Purpose This assignment is designed to provoke thinking, and have you thoughtful

Purpose
This assignment is designed to provoke thinking, and have you thoughtfully examine and make explicit your fundamental assumptions and beliefs about the topic.
Directions
Your reflection piece is to be roughly 1 page long (250-300 words), typed and double-spaced. Remember that the maximum length requirement is an important aspect of this assignment. Please cite sources following APA style.
On The Rights and Wrongs of Corporate Governance
Your task in this paper is twofold:
First, from this week’s readings, you have a choice.
(A) Select one of this week’s two main readings — Dunfee or McCall. In your paper’s first part, briefly explain the central argument of the piece you chose. What is the author primarily trying to convince you of, and why? Devote no more than half your reflection piece to this expository task.
(B) Address this week’s case study — Case 13.3: “Corporate Governance and Democracy.” In your paper’s first part, briefly explain the scenario that leads to our study questions.
Second, depending on whether you chose to write about one of the main readings or the case study, clearly and succinctly explain (A) whether you are convinced by the author’s argument, and why or why not, or (B) how you would answer study questions 1-4. Be sure to spell out your reasons use at least one concrete example to illustrate your perspective.
Submission
Submit your reflection as an attachment (.doc or .docx).
Grading
The reflection piece will be graded on a 100 point scale. All Reflection Pieces will contribute 20% towards your final course grade. Please review the rubric below to understand how the assignment will be graded.
Page 3 of 4 in Module 12
Proceed to the next page by clicking the Next button at the bottom of the screen.
Rubric
BLHV 231 Reflection Piece Assignment Grading Rubric
BLHV 231 Reflection Piece Assignment Grading Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Content Reflection
50 pts
Exceeds Expectations
Reflection demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Insightful and relevant connections made through contextual explanations, inferences, and examples.
40 pts
Meets Expectations
Reflection demonstrates some degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.
30 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Reflection lacks critical thinking. Superficial connections are made with key course concepts and course materials, activities, and/or assignments
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Personal Growth
30 pts
Exceeds Expectations
Conveys strong evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates significant personal growth and awareness of deeper meaning through inferences made, examples, well developed insights, and substantial depth in perceptions and challenges. Synthesizes current experience into future implications.
24 pts
Meets Expectations
Conveys evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates satisfactory personal growth and awareness through some inferences made, examples, insights, and challenges. Some thought of the future implications of current experience.
18 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Conveys inadequate evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Personal growth and awareness are not evident and/or demonstrates a neutral experience with negligible personal impact. Lacks enough inferences, examples, personal insights and challenges, and/or future implications are overlooked.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Writing Quality
20 pts
Exceeds Expectations
Well written and clearly organized using standard English, characterized by elements of a strong writing style and basically free from grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling errors.
16 pts
Meets Expectations
Above average writing style and logically organized using standard English with minor errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.
12 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poor writing style lacking in standard English, clarity, language used, and/or frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. Needs work.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness
0 pts
0 points deducted
Reflection is submitted on or before deadline.
0 pts
1-5 points deducted
Reflection is submitted within 1 day (24 hours) after the deadline.
0 pts
6-10 points deducted
Reflection is submitted 2-3 days (49-72 hours) after the deadline.
0 pts
Module 12 The Rights and Wrongs of Corporate Governance
Overview
How can the public be confident that large and powerful corporations are complying with the law, adhering to their own professed ethical standards, or acting in ways that do not undermine the public good? What is the balance of responsibility for corporate governance between executives, board members, employees, shareholders, and stakeholders in the general public? In this module, we examine these questions and look for sound models for corporate governance.
Learning Objectives
Upon successful completion of this module, you will be able to:
Evaluate the meaning and viability of “marketplace morality.”
Debate the merits of and potential problems with employee representation and participation in internal corporate decision-making.
Investigate governmental regulation of industry via a detailed case study.
Key Concepts
This module focuses on the following major topics:
Moral analysis of a range of different models of corporate governance.
How strong should the voice of employees be, and what role should it play, in valid and viable models of corporate governance?
Read
All readings below that are listed with page numbers are in our Ciulla et al. reader.
Tom Dunfee, “Corporate Governance in a Market with Morality,” p. 492
Box, “Corporate-Governance Reform,” p. 486
John J. McCall, “Employee Voice in Corporate Governance: A Defense of Strong Participation Rights,” p. 510
Case 13.3: “Corporate Governance and Democracy,” p. 526
Introduction to Our Guest and Interview Questions
On behalf of the whole class, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to our guest for Module 12, Professor Patrick McCreesh. (Links to an external site.)
We’re very fortunate to have Professor McCreesh with us to discuss Module 12 of our course. The topic for this module is “The Rights & Wrongs of Corporate Governance.”
Some of the issues explored in the material assigned for this module include the following: How can the public be confident that large and powerful corporations are complying with the law, adhering to their own professed ethical standards, or acting in ways that do not undermine the public good? What is the balance of responsibility for corporate governance between executives, board members, employees, shareholders, and stakeholders in the general public? In this module, we examine these questions and look for sound models for corporate governance.
Professor McCreesh, before we jump into the material, I’d love to give you a chance to tell us a little more about your current research, work projects, teaching, or anything else that you’d like to share.
One of the primary assigned readings for this module, written by John J. McCall, has a title that speaks for itself: “Employee Voice in Corporate Governance: A Defense of Strong Participation Rights.” In it, McCall examines a big issue around our topic, namely whether honoring the equal dignity of employees requires inviting them to participate in decision-making in corporations. What’s at issue here is allowing workers to represent their own interests as well as share in the exercise of advisory power, or in codetermining policy, in the workplace. McCall observes that we spend upwards of half our adult lives at work, and argues that giving employees a voice in managing their own work environment fosters a number of important moral goods: among them fairness, autonomy, and self-respect. McCall defends a strong presumption favoring the right of employees to codetermine corporate policy. But, in doing so, he addresses the criticism that such an employee right violates corporate owners’ property rights. His response to this is that the basic moral values that support the right to private property are also, at the same time, precisely those which support an employee’s right to have a voice in corporate policy.
Professor McCreesh, has your experience in both the public and private sector given you any insight into this question about whether employees ought to have a prominent voice in corporate governance?
2. In an article we’ve read for this module entitled, “Corporate Governance in a Market with Morality,” Thomas W. Dunfee works with a basic distinction between two models of the true nature and purpose of the corporation. The first, which Dunfee calls “the monotonic view,” considers the maximization of shareholder wealth to be the supreme value that should guide corporate decision-making. The second, which he calls “the pluralistic view,” includes the needs and interests of stakeholders in the calculus of corporate governance. Stakeholders here include “bondholders, suppliers, distributors, creditors, local communities, consumers, users, state and federal governments, special interest groups,” and even the public interest, or the common good of society, itself.
Professor McCreesh, can you help us unpack this distinction? When might corporate decision-makers feel pressured to choose between these paradigms? In your experience, which of these two models has greater currency in the corporate world? And, finally, are there other models that go beyond this dichotomy?