Moral Minefield

Assignment Guidelines

1. Copy and paste (or screenshot) your Level overview and scores. You can find this information
again in your Overview & Profile.

2. Reflect on the scenarios presented in the game. Was there anything you found particularly
difficult? Anything that surprised you?

In the first scenario there is a marketing launch meeting that is being planned between PR and
marketing team. As the plans of the meeting is being discussed, there is discussion about not including a
member of the research and development team by essentially “freezing them out” (“Planet Jockey”,
2019). I initially thought that by excluding this person from the team meeting because of the concerns
they raised as being unethical. This was the wrong answer. What I did learn was that while freezing
someone out or excluding a person with contrasting views is bad team management, it is not unethical
(“Planet Jockey”, 2019). The best teams are diverse teams and including all stakeholders view are
beneficial so including her would have been good business practice. If she was being left out because of
her race, religion, or gender than this would have been a completely different case. I believe that this
team may have benefited from Habermas’ Discourse Theory.
 3. Explain one of the decision-making scenarios you were given in this level and analyze it in
terms of one of this week’s theories.
(Note: for full credit, be sure you name the theory you are using, explain the theory fully, and
then explain how the scenario illustrates that theory)

I would still like to focus on the first scenario that I mentioned earlier. When Stella Dallas, a
member of the research and development raised new concerns which caused her to be uninvited to
future meetings. We established that this wasn’t considered unethical and just poor team management
strategy (“Planet Jockey”, 2019). It did, however, make me reflect on chapter sevens Discourse Theory.
This team could have really benefited from allowing everyone to participate in discourse in their meeting.
According to discourse theory ethical legitimacy of a course of action is determined by the quality of
communication and debate from which it proceeds and by the extent to which that communication and
debate ends in consensus (Fryer, 2015, p. 253). If Stella had concerns she should be able to debate them
and allow other team members to decide on the best course of action. Habermas suggests that in order to
have legitimating discourse everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion into the discourse, and
everyone is allowed to question any assertion. Stella in this scenario should be allowed to raise and
concerns and in return the public relation team is also allowed to question them (Fryer, 2015, p. 267).
Unfortunately, the head of the public relations was acting strategically when planning this meeting of
discourse. With his reasons of not inviting Stella it is clear that he was imposing his agenda. Habermas
makes an important distinction between acting communicatively and acting strategically. He explains
how acting strategically, is to intentionally impose some agenda that we value, and we use discourse as a
means of gaining others support for that agenda (Fryer, 2015, p. 266). In this case his agenda was to
leave out any legitimate concerns to prevent having to deal with negative PR.

4. How could you use the concepts discussed in this simulation in your job today? Relate these
concepts to the other course materials and to your own experiences.
(Note: for full credit, be sure discuss a specific scenario, a specific example from your own
experiences, and a specific connection to something you learned from the text)

This scenario with Stella Dallas really hits home for me because I have experienced this before. In
my previous job I was excluded from certain conference calls. At the time I hadn’t realized this was
happening until a fellow manager explained that the DM would leave me out because I would raise too
many concerns about certain practices used to increase sales. Also, he felt like I would give lengthy
suggestions. I personally think that the calls where more design to implement his ideas and have
everyone go along to make it feel like it was a team decision. If my previous management team would
have considered a Discourse Theory approach it would have allowed for a more developed debate
and perhaps prevent certain issues from occurring. It would have most certainly prevented
groupthink. As I have learned that two main contributors to groupthink is closed-mindedness and
pressure towards uniformity (Thompson, 2018, p. 173). Like Habermas described, I believe that my ex
District Manager was imposing his own agenda and by not allowing me to actively communicate it
allowed the team to be close-minded (Fryer, 2015, p. 266). I understand now the importance of
diverse ideas on a team (“Planet Jockey”, 2019). How beneficial a democratic setting can be. In my
current job I always openly listen to objective views and ideas. I can appreciate opposing views and
 come to a determination after seeing all perspectives. Everyone’s opinion matters and everyone
should have an opportunity to voice their opinions.

Reference

Business Ethics Course EIGames. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://play.eigames.com/game/11#/level/46

Fryer, Mick. (2015). Ethics Theory and Business Practice. PERUSALL edition.

Thompson, L. L. (2018). Making the team: a guide for managers. NY, NY: Pearson.