Exhibit 123 Global Strategy In Action: Test Your Principles

Exhibit 123global Strategy In Action Testyourprinciplesjust A Few

Exhibit 12.3: Global Strategy in Action: Test YOUR Principles Just a few years ago, the dean of Duke’s Fuqua School of Business announced that 10 percent of its MBA class had been caught cheating on a take-home final exam and would be dismissed. These MBAs were “cream of the crop” students with six years of corporate experience and careers under way in the new “wiki” world of online collaboration and aggregation of others’ knowledge via the Web as an emerging key source of competitive advantage. So they collaborated in crafting answers to the take-home final exam, sharing insights and ideas, and so forth. Their professors saw the similarity in answers, and, looking to evaluate individual performance, found the collaboration unethical, dishonest, lacking integrity, and fundamentally wrong.

So they were dismissed for cheating. Three years later, Centenary College, a small Hackettstown, New Jersey-based institution, ended its MBA program for Chinese-speaking students after finding “evidence of widespread plagiarism,” the school said in a statement posted on its Web site. The China MBA program was based in Beijing, Shanghai, and Taiwan. All 400 students were given the choice of accepting a tuition refund—as much as $1,400—or taking a comprehensive exam to earn a degree. According to the statement, all but two students decided to take a refund. The college also noted in the statement that students who cheat are ordinarily dismissed from the school, but the China MBA students are being given more leniency “in an effort to afford students every fair possibility.”

A BusinessWeek Commentary took issue with the Duke decision—and saw a different interpretation. Their point: the new world order is about teamwork, shared information. Social networking, a new culture of shared information, postmodern learning wiki style. Text messaging, downloading essays, getting questions answered from others, often unknown, via the Web. All of these are the new ways we work today. We function in an interdependent world, where success often hinges on creative collaboration, networking, and “googling” to tap a literal world of information and expertise available at the click of a keyboard or a cell phone.

Others, starting with their Duke professors, viewed these students collaborating on a take-home exam as a conscious effort to break the rules, or at least, gain unauthorized advantage. And maybe, they apparently thought, this was a good situation about which to make an example in order to rein in an increasingly rudderless business culture. What do you think? Is what these students did ethical, principled leadership? Is it “cheating,” or simply collaborative learning?

Michelle Conlin, “Commentary: Cheating—or Postmodern Learning?” BusinessWeek, May 14, 2007; and Geoff Gloeckler, “MBA Program Withdraws from China due to ‘Widespread Plagiarism,’ Other Issues,” Bloomberg-Businessweek, July 26, 2010.

Paper For Above instruction

The cases discussed in Exhibit 12.3 illuminate the complex intersection of ethics, education, and evolving global strategies within the context of modern collaboration. The issue revolves around whether collaborative behaviors, particularly in academic settings that emphasize individual performance, can be justified as ethical in a world increasingly driven by interconnectedness and shared knowledge. This essay explores the ethical dimensions of student collaboration, contrasting traditional views that regard such actions as cheating with contemporary perspectives that see them as a natural evolution of learning in a digital, interconnected environment. Additionally, it considers how businesses and educational institutions challenge traditional ethics to adapt to new methods of information sharing and cooperation.

At the core, the debate highlights significant ethical considerations: integrity, fairness, and honesty. The classic view, exemplified by Duke University’s strict stance, treats collaboration on exams as dishonest because it undermines the principle that students should demonstrate individual mastery. Such perspectives argue that academic integrity is crucial for maintaining trustworthiness and the value of a certification. From this standpoint, the students’ actions are unequivocally unethical, as they violate established academic codes of conduct that emphasize individual accountability (Bretag & Mahmud, 2009).

Conversely, proponents of collaborative learning in the digital age argue that the very fabric of modern education and business relies on information sharing, teamwork, and collective intelligence. Social networking platforms, wikis, and digital collaboration tools exemplify how knowledge has shifted from individual possession to shared repositories. In this view, what may seem like cheating is reinterpreted as participation in a new culture of learning and cooperation, which emphasizes collective success over individual memorization (Cuban & Tyree, 2007). Such perspectives challenge the traditional definitions of academic honesty but recognize that in a globalized world, the boundaries between collaborative and dishonest actions are increasingly blurred.

Furthermore, the contrasting responses of Duke University and Centenary College demonstrate differing organizational strategies and cultural approaches to the ethics of collaboration. Duke’s strict dismissal underscores a commitment to traditional academic standards and the preservation of individual integrity, reflecting a more conservative stance aligned with established educational norms. In contrast, Centenary College’s leniency towards Chinese-speaking students involved in plagiarism hints at a pragmatic approach rooted in cultural sensitivity and recognition of the international dimension of education. Such differences reveal how ethical standards are often shaped by cultural and institutional contexts, highlighting the importance of understanding local norms while balancing global expectations (Kirkman et al., 2009).

From a broader perspective, these cases illustrate the evolving nature of ethics within a global strategy context. Organizations operating internationally must reconcile diverse cultural values with their corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards. For example, the emphasis on collective effort and respect for social harmony prevalent in many Asian cultures may influence how academic dishonesty is perceived and addressed. The challenge lies in establishing ethical frameworks adaptable enough to accommodate cultural differences while upholding universal principles of honesty and fairness (Husted & Allen, 2007).

In conclusion, the discussion around student collaboration, academic integrity, and global ethics underscores the importance of contextual understanding. While traditional standards prioritize individual accountability and strict definitions of cheating, the digital and interconnected landscape fosters a culture of shared learning that complicates these boundaries. Educational institutions and organizations must develop nuanced ethical policies that reflect the realities of global collaboration while upholding core values. Such policies should emphasize transparency, cultural sensitivity, and adaptable standards to navigate the ethical dilemmas presented by modern, interconnected environments.

References

• Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Student Academic Integrity: A Review of the Literature. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2), 1–11.
• Cuban, L., & Tyree, T. (2007). The Digital Generation: The Impact of New Media on Learning. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 12-17.
• Husted, B., & Allen, D. (2007). Toward a Model of Corporate Social Responsibility in International Business Contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 105-115.
• Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2009). A Quarter Century of Culture in Organizations and Societies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 283–322.
• Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Student Academic Integrity: A Review of the Literature. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2), 1–11.
• Conlin, M. (2007). Commentary: Cheating—or Postmodern Learning? BusinessWeek, May 14.
• Gloeckler, G. (2010). MBA Program Withdraws from China Due to ‘Widespread Plagiarism,’ Other Issues. Bloomberg Businessweek, July 26.
• Goh, S. C. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making in Global Business: A Cultural Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), 371–385.
• Roberts, L. M., & Simons, T. (2010). Ethical Competence and Leadership in a Global Age. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 326–342.
• Whitney, P., & Daudelin, M. W. (2014). New Strategies for Teaching and Learning in a Global Context. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(3), 319–329.