Part 1: Matrix Complete The Dissertation Process And Deliver ✓ Solved

Part 1: Matrix Complete the Dissertation Process and Deliver

Part 1: Matrix Complete the Dissertation Process and Deliverables Matrix for Phase 1 through Phase 5. For each phase, provide an explanation of the process in your own words, indicate what class you will be in at the end of the phase, and identify the deliverable for that phase.

Part 2: Reflection Using the case “Whom to Promote?”, write a 750+ word essay addressing: 1) a brief summary of the case; 2) the main legal issues and ethical considerations for Lael; 3) the key stakeholders and their involvement; 4) which candidate Lael should promote, with justification. Include APA style references and citations, and use the MEAL Plan to structure paragraphs (Main idea, Evidence, Analysis, Link).

Paper For Above Instructions

The following essay responds to Part 2 of the instructions, applying ethical theory and management principles to the case study presented in the assignment. The MEAL Plan (Main idea, Evidence, Analysis, Link) guides the structure of each paragraph to ensure a disciplined, scholarly argument. Throughout the discussion, in-text citations demonstrate engagement with established scholarly literature on ethics, stakeholder theory, and organizational decision making (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2020; Treviño & Nelson, 2017; Brown & Treviño, 2006), and the broader foundations of ethical analysis (Kohlberg, 1984; Rest & Narvaez, 1997).

1) Brief summary of the case

The case concerns Lael, a senior manager faced with a promotion decision among three candidates: Liz, Roy, and Quang. Each candidate presents distinct qualifications, experiences, and potential biases that complicate the decision. Liz is an African American woman with strong motivation and a family caregiving responsibility; Roy is an older, long-tenured white male with a record of steady performance; Quang is a younger Asian woman with a reputation for intense work ethic and high performance, including prior success at a previous employer. Complicating factors include perceived favoritism, diversity goals, expectations from senior leadership, and public relations considerations if the decision is perceived as biased or unfair. Lael must navigate legal obligations (e.g., equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination requirements) while upholding merit-based selection and ethical duties to stakeholders (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The case thus presents a classic dilemma at the intersection of merit, fairness, and organizational values. (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2020; Eisenhardt, 1989.)

2) Main legal issues and ethical considerations for Lael

Several legal issues shape Lael’s decision. First, equal employment opportunity law requires that hiring and promotion decisions be free from unlawful discrimination based on protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender). While diversity goals are legitimate strategic interests, they cannot substitute for merit and non-discrimination in practice (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Second, conflict of interest considerations arise from relationships and proximity to decision-makers and candidates (e.g., concerns about favoritism). Ethically, Lael must balance duties to fairness, transparency, and the organization’s legitimate interests. The stakeholder perspective emphasizes that decisions affect multiple parties, including employees, teams, and organizational reputation (Freeman, 1984; Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014). From an ethics-education standpoint, the case invites reflection on moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984) and on how professionals develop ethical judgment (Rest & Narvaez, 1997). Finally, the Organization’s leadership culture and the potential for bias—explicit or implicit—must be acknowledged and mitigated (Treviño & Nelson, 2017; Brown & Treviño, 2006).

3) Key stakeholders and their involvement

Key stakeholders include Lael (the decision-maker), Liz, Roy, and Quang (the candidates), the human resources function, senior leadership, and the wider organizational community affected by the promotion outcome. Liz represents diversity and inclusion objectives but faces personal caregiving demands and potential perceptions of favoritism. Roy embodies tenure and reliability but raises questions about adapting leadership needs as the organization evolves. Quang represents a high-potential, merit-based alternative with a strong work ethic but raises concerns about fit and interpersonal dynamics. HR and senior leadership influence expectations, governance, and the public image of the decision; their involvement underscores the importance of fair process and documentation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Freeman, 1984). The case exemplifies stakeholder theory in practice: decisions should consider the interests and rights of those affected while balancing competing claims (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).

4) Which candidate Lael should promote, with justification

After weighing merit, impact, and ethical considerations, a defensible recommendation is to promote Quang, with explicit development plans to address any identified risks. Quang’s record of high performance in demanding roles, combined with a meticulous management style, suggests strong leadership potential and an ability to drive results in a competitive environment (Treviño & Nelson, 2017; Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2020). Her prior experience at a different organization and her ability to deliver sales increases, even amid team resistance, indicate resilience and strategic thinking that align with organizational priorities. Nevertheless, concerns about intensity and potential interpersonal frictions must be addressed. Lael can mitigate these risks by pairing Quang with a leadership coach, providing clear behaviors and expectations, and investing in mentoring and team-development initiatives to stabilize team dynamics (Brown & Treviño, 2006). This approach supports merit-based advancement while also signaling a commitment to inclusive leadership and ethical governance—principles central to stakeholder theory and responsible organizational practice (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson & Preston, 1995).

In closing, Lael’s decision should foreground fairness, merit, and organizational welfare, supported by transparent criteria and defensible rationale. The recommended promotion of Quang, paired with targeted development support and clear channels for feedback, aligns with ethical decision-making frameworks and stakeholder theory, while acknowledging and mitigating potential risks. The alternative of promoting Liz or Roy could be justified in specific contexts (e.g., exceptionally aligned strategic needs or urgent leadership gaps), but such choices demand careful justification and robust safeguards to prevent perceptions of bias or discrimination. By anchoring the decision in evidence, ethics, and organizational values, Lael can uphold professional standards while advancing leadership capacity within the organization. (Ferrell et al., 2020; Treviño & Nelson, 2017; Brown & Treviño, 2006; Eisenhardt, 1989; Kohlberg, 1984; Rest & Narvaez, 1997; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984.)

References

  • Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2020). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases (13th ed.). Cengage.
  • Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right (7th ed.). Wiley.
  • Boatright, J. R. (2019). Ethics and the Conduct of Business (8th ed.). Pearson.
  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Arguments, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
  • Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
  • Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1997). Moral Development in the Professions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kidder, R. M. (1995). How Good People Make Tough Choices. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
  • Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.

Related Assignments