Special Project Submission Document MGMT 4243 2022
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Northwest Arkansas Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
208
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by mmgrammer87
Name: ____________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS: For this project, you will be watching the movie “The Insider” and applying concepts from
the research articles you read this week to the movie.
When you read the articles, I am not expecting you to
understand the research methods or math in the results.
Please focus on how the terms needed for this
assignment are defined and applied.
If anything confuses you, please feel free to email me.
For part A, you will
be summarizing the movie.
You can refer to part A when you are completing parts B, C, and D.
For part B, you
will write about the important characters and explain their role in the movie.
For part B, highlight instances
from the movie where each character faces an ethical decision or dilemma.
Part B will be important for
answering the questions in part D.
For part C, you will define 10 terms associated with moral disengagement
from the articles, describe how they relate to business ethics, and apply them to specific examples in the movie.
For part D, apply the concepts of moral awareness and “Bad Apples” “Bad Barrels” from the articles to the
movie.
Use this document to complete your special project in Microsoft Word. You should submit your completed
project through Blackboard by Sunday, June 19th at 11:59 pm. This project should be completed individually,
and all responses should be in your own words. You should not copy definitions or any other information from
outside sources.
PART A:
Movie Synopsis (20 points)
Include your own detailed synopsis of the movie “The Insider” below. This synopsis should be in your own
words and should describe the movie and its plot thoroughly and completely.
“The Insider”
is a 1999 film about Big Tobacco. The main character, Jeffrey Wigand, is a whistleblower.
After being fired from Brown and Williamson (tobacco company), Wigand is contacted by Lowell Bergman via
fax. Bergman, being a journalist thought there is more to the tobacco company decides to reach out to Wigand
for an interview. They come together in a hotel room. Wigand made it know that he had signed a confidential
agreement to Brown and Williamson, and he honors it. After a few exchanges with Bergman, and threats to him
and his family, Wigand decides to give an interview with Mike Wallace from CBS. Wigand finds a bullet in his
mailbox, so he contacts the FBI. The FBI agents come into his house and take his personal computer. The
agents even question him about his guns and integrity. After giving the interview the big tobacco got on and
went after CBS to try to stop the airing on 60 minutes. The higher ups of CBS told Bergman that they will not
be airing the interview with Wigand. They will only air so much of the story. Wigand’s sworn deposition stated
that the top tobacco executive lied under oath that nicotine was not addicting. Wigand knew that there was a
drug in nicotine that caused addiction. After the deposition, Wigand losing his family and Bergman fighting the
network, the interview was aired on 60 minutes.
PART B:
Key Players List & Description of / Notes about Each (20 points)
List each key player in the movie. Then, provide a description of each character and the ethical decisions or
dilemmas they faced. Your list may or may not use all the spaces below but be sure to include all the relevant
players and a detailed description of each.
KEY PLAYERS
Character’s Name
Description and Notes
Jeffrey Wigand
did work for Brown and Williams (R&D). Corporate vice president for
tobacco company
Lowell Bergman
Journalist, producer, works for CBS
Mike Wallace
Works for CBS. Interviewed Jeff
Jeff’s old boss
Tobacco Executive
Part of the 7 dwarfs, wants Jeff to sign another confidential agreement
The guy on the couch with
Jeff’s old boss (lawyer)
Tries to get Jeff to sign
Helen or Debbie
Lowell Bergman’s assistant
Police Officers
FBI agents
Takes Jeff’s computer and questions Jeff about his guns since he found a
bullet in his mailbox.
Tobacco lawyers
Tells Jeff to shut up
Mr. Motley
Jeff’s lawyer
Jeff’s first wife
Big tobacco talks to her about Jeff’s past
Richard
Another lawyer for Jeff
PART C:
Moral Disengagement Concepts (60 points)
Read the research articles and make sure you understand the following concepts that influence moral
disengagement:
1)
Machiavellianism
2)
Locus of Control
3)
Moral Justification
4)
Euphemistic Labeling
5)
Displacement of Responsibility
6)
Diffusion of Responsibility
7)
Distortion of Consequences
8)
Advantageous Comparison
9)
Dehumanization
10) Attribution of Blame
For each concept, you must provide
: (1) a definition of the concept in your own words; (2) an explanation of
why the concept is important to study in workplace ethics; (3) a detailed description of an example of this
concept from the movie.
Point Breakdown:
Definitions:
15 points
Explanations of Relevance:
15 points
Movie Examples:
30 points
1.
Concept _Machiavellianism
a.
Definition:
the view that politics is amoral. Not being fair or honest can be used in achieving
power. (sly, deceptive, distrusting, and manipulative)
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): use manipulation to reach their goals while scheming for personal benefit. People use
strategic behavior.
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
When Jeff’s old boss tries to get him to sign another confidential agreement.
2.
Concept _Locus of Control
a.
Definition: A person’s perception about the underlying main causes of events in their life.
(internal and external)
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): People with an internal locus of control respond more ethically than external locus of
control.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept: When Jeff loses
his family because he was the whistleblower for Big Tobacco.
3.
Concept _Moral Justification
a.
Definition: When a person action or idea is questionable, but they accept it because there is a
good reason for it.
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?):
Evaluating questionable acts to make it seem right.
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
They way Bergman fought the network to get the interview with Wigand aired on 60 minutes.
4.
Concept __Euphemistic Labeling
a.
Definition: using polite words to express unpleasant situation.
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): doing one thing that is not as bad as doing the other.
c.
Detailed of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
Jeff’s lawyer in Jeff’s sworn deposition.
5.
Concept __Displacement of Responsibility
a.
Definition: putting blame onto others.
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): When people don’t take responsibility for their actions.
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
The big tobacco companies lying about nicotine being addicting.
6.
Concept __Diffusion of Responsibility
a.
Definition: when people wait for someone else to make a decision.
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): doing nothing when seeing something. (Being a bystander)
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept: When Mike
Wallace takes the side of the higher ups not being on the side of Bergman.
7.
Concept __Distortion of Consequences
a.
Definition: Minimizing the consequences of unethical behavior.
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): When consequences are ignored or disbelieved.
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
When the 7 dwarfs lied about tobacco not being addicting.
8.
Concept __Advantageous Comparison
a.
Definition: comparison of unethical behavior with even worse behavior to make the original
behavior seem acceptable
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): When a person justify their conduct by comparing it to more extreme alternative.
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
When Jeff in the tobacco executive’s office saying doing his job for money and most importantly
for his family’s health insurance.
9.
Concept __Dehumanization
a.
Definition: depriving people of their human qualities.
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): mistreatment of people
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
How CBS choose not to air the interview with Wigand because they might be sued by the big
tobacco companies.
10. Concept __Attribution of Blame
a.
Definition: the process people explain for behaviors for them and others.
b.
Explanation of this concept’s relevance to workplace ethics (i.e., why is this important to
study?): Shifting the blame (blaming the victim)
c.
Detailed description of an example from the movie that represents this concept:
Jeff’s old boss firing him for lack of social skills rather than the truth.
PART D:
Moral Awareness Concepts (40 Points)
Choose a character from the movie in part B (Jeffrey Wigand, Lowell Bergman, any executive from Brown &
Williamson, etc.) and explain how three factors of moral awareness (magnitude of consequences, moral
language, and perceived social consensus) influenced a decision they made.
Was the ethical dilemma caused
by a “bad apple” or a “bad barrel”?
Make sure you (1) define the three factors of moral awareness, (2)
clearly state the character and decision they made in the movie, (3) explain whether the decision was caused
by a “bad apple” or a “barrel”, and (4) explain how each factor of moral awareness influenced their
decision to receive full credit
.
Magnitude of consequence: Jeffrey Wigand knew the consequences of whistleblowing. But decided to
tell the truth anyways. In my opinion, Jeff was a bad apple from a bad barrel. But getting fired make him a good
apple?
Moral language: They way Bergman help persuade Wigand to tell the truth about Big Tobacco.
Perceived social consensus: Since Jeffrey Wigand did tell the truth about big tobacco, it changed the
industry forever. There is not even advertisement for tobacco anymore. According to the movie Jeffrey
Wigand’s truth cost the tobacco industry $246 billion.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Grading Rubric
Grade
Content in answers
A (126-140 points)
The synopsis of the movie and characters is
comprehensive.
Every term is clearly defined and
applied to an example in the movie.
Every part of
each question is answered clearly, concisely, and
correctly.
B (112-125 points)
The synopsis of the movie and characters is
comprehensive.
Most terms are clearly defined and
applied to an example in the movie.
A small number
of answers may be missing correct information.
C (98-111 points)
Part of the movie and characters may be missing
from the synopsis but there is enough information to
answer the questions.
Some of the terms are clearly
defined and applied and others are not defined
correctly or at all.
Some answers may be missing.
D (84-97 points)
The movie synopsis and character explanations are
too short and large parts/characters are missing.
Most questions and terms are either skipped or
defined/answered incorrectly.
F (Less than 97 points)
The questions are not answered correctly, and it is
clear the person completing the assignment did not
watch the movie.