x. A brief introduction. a. Tell VERY briefly the key points to consider in the description of the case. Call this, identification of key issues. b. Analyze carefully the situation. Use analytic tools such as business, decision making, strategic analysis models, if useful. I am not enamored of the old style SWOT or SWOTT or TOWS analysis models. They end to be vague, forced, and uninteresting. c. Generate some alternative approaches to handle the situation. One of the key items of a good decision making process is generating alternatives. Whether is done via brainstorming, or thumping your own forehead against the wall, do it. d. Recommend the "best" approach, the one that will account for most of the facts and considerations with the most congenial likely outcomes. You can arrive here by a lot of paths. One is the standard cost/benefit analysis, a feature of Utilitarianism, but also useful in case analysis whether or not you use the utilitarian ethical way. One is the deontological principle of universalization. Another is a solid situation analysis (coming in a future week’s lectures). e. Support, justify, "sell," the "best" approach. Give well supported, documented, “reasoned reasons” why this is not only the analysis we should accept, but why it is better than other competing analyses. f. State final conclusions. And call for implementation. Without an implementation plan we do have nice hot air to lift some balloons. g. Use numerical analysis whenever you can in order to support your claims. This is not always appropriate, but a little number magic helps to sell in a business or even not-for-profit organizational situation. h. Integrate relevant text models whenever appropriate in order to anchor your analyses. i. Include a list of sources. You should also use parenthetical citations in the body of the text where appropriate. You MUST have at least one ethical theory applied well in the analysis; I recommend either utilitarianism or deontology (Kantian ethics) present in your analysis. Each case study is worth 7 points – a LOT of points. Make sure that your work is at least 850 words – preferably 900 –1500 words. Have at least 2 or 3 outside sources in addition to the textbook. Please do NOT use Question-Answer format. Write these as papers. We are in a graduate course, not an undergraduate course. Thanks. Remember, this is week one, so I am a bit mellow in the grading – but next week I expect full adherence to these requirements. This is a “general” listing. Different cases may require a lot of some of these items, and a little of other items, and maybe zero of a given item. You as the author make that judgment call, and I as the recipient make my judgment calls. The books by Frank Harrison are excellent in the field of Decision Making, and these books are used in graduate business programs throughout the country. A former CEO of a financial services company and a senior executive at American Express, and a friend of mine since freshman year college at Manhattan College, John Elliott (2005), wrote a good book on Decision Making, with his brother, T.J., who is Chief Learning Officer at Educational Testing Service at Princeton, NJ. The book is Decision DNA: Discovering reality-based decision making. Cheers, Frank Dr. Frank Morelli Anaxfrank@gmail.com Shipyards.” Answer the following questions and submit your answers to the instructor. § Although the behavior of Robinson’s male coworkers is morally objectionable, should management attempt to prevent it? Do you accept the claim that the workers have a right to post pictures in the workplace? Is this a personal problem that workers should handle among themselves? § Title VII does not mention sexual harassment but merely prohibits sex discrimination. Was the treatment of Lois Robinson a form of sex discrimination? Suppose the managers of Jacksonville Shipyards admit that her treatment was morally wrong but deny that they or her male coworkers did anything illegal. Would you agree? § How was Lois Robinson harmed? No one pressured her for sexual favors, she was not denied any advancement or wage increases because of her treatment, and she did not suffer a mental breakdown. Rather, she was offended. Does any employee have a right not to be offended? § The sign “Men Only” on the trailer door might have been intended to keep Robinson from seeing pornographic material and to preserve an all-male enclave in the workplace. Is the posting of the sign morally (and legally) objectionable? Hint: what was the trailer used for?