| Course | BUS 454 Ethical Decision Making for Business |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Workplace ethics analysis |
| Length | About 1,020 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 454 Module 4
Skipping Lockout to Make Rate: Employee Rights, Ethical Culture and Speaking Up
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
BUS 454: Ethical Decision Making for Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Skipping Lockout to Make Rate: Employee Rights, Ethical Culture and Speaking Up
On Harbor Point Foods' second shift, a line supervisor under pressure to meet a new output target began telling operators to clear jams on the bar-cutting machine without completing the full lockout procedure, which takes about four minutes each time. Operators were told to hit the stop button and reach in. Over three weeks, the line met its target. Then an operator, Luis, emailed the plant safety coordinator describing the practice. Two days later the supervisor moved Luis to the least popular cleaning shift. This paper analyzes the case in terms of employee rights, the sources of unethical behavior, ethical culture and whistleblowing.
Employees' Rights
Employees have a right to a workplace free of recognized serious hazards and to raise safety concerns without retaliation. Federal occupational safety rules require lockout of energy sources before workers service machines where unexpected startup could injure them, and federal law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report safety concerns. Reaching into a cutter with only a stop button pressed exposes workers to amputation. Beyond the legal rights, workers have a moral claim not to be asked to risk serious injury for production targets they did not set. That claim holds even when a worker agrees to the shortcut, because consent given under a supervisor's pressure is not freely given.
Bad Apples or a Bad Barrel?
It is tempting to blame one supervisor. A meta-analysis of research on unethical decisions at work found that individual characteristics, features of the ethical issue and features of the organizational environment all contributed to unethical choices (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). The supervisor made a bad choice, but the environment helped: a new target set without engineering review, a bonus tied only to output, and no one checking how the target was met. Treating the incident as one person's failure would leave those conditions in place.
Ethical Culture
Kaptein (2011) studied ethical culture through dimensions such as the clarity of expectations, the example set by managers, whether employees have the time and resources to act ethically, whether problems can be discussed openly, and whether ethical and unethical behavior are rewarded and sanctioned. Harbor Point's written lockout rule was clear, but several other dimensions were weak. Managers above the supervisor praised the output without asking how it was achieved. The target left too little time for lockout. And retaliation against Luis signaled that raising problems was punished.
Culture Weaknesses and Fixes
The table links weaknesses to remedies.
| Culture dimension | Weakness at Harbor Point | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Rule clear but not reinforced | Lockout steps posted and audited weekly |
| Management example | Output praised without questions | Managers ask how targets are met |
| Feasibility | Target left no time for lockout | Targets reset with engineering review |
| Openness | No routine safety discussion | Five-minute safety huddle each shift |
| Sanctions | Reporter punished; violator rewarded | Reverse retaliation; discipline supervisor |
Whistleblowing
Near and Miceli (1985) described whistleblowing as current or former members of an organization reporting wrongdoing that their employer controls, whether unlawful or unethical, to someone with the power to stop it. Luis's email to the safety coordinator was internal whistleblowing, the channel most organizations say they prefer. Internal reporting only works if it is protected. When the response is punishment, employees either fall silent, leaving hazards in place, or go outside to regulators, often after harm has already occurred.
The Retaliation
Moving Luis to an undesirable shift two days after his report looks like retaliation, whatever reason the supervisor gives. It is ethically wrong because it punishes a person for protecting coworkers, and it exposes Harbor Point to legal liability. It also teaches the remaining operators that silence is safer. The company should immediately return Luis to his shift, thank him and state publicly within the plant that reporting safety concerns is expected and protected.
Responding to the Supervisor
The supervisor should be disciplined for ordering unsafe work and for the retaliation, consistent with policy. But the response should also acknowledge the pressure created by the target and bonus structure, which is management's responsibility. A fair process investigates the facts, allows the supervisor to respond and applies consequences proportionate to the conduct.
Preventing Recurrence
Harbor Point should reset the line's target with engineering input, including lockout time; change supervisor bonuses to weigh safety and quality alongside output; train supervisors on lockout and on responding to concerns; and audit lockout compliance randomly. The plant manager should tell all shifts what happened, what changed and why, without naming individuals. Six months later, the plant should survey operators anonymously about whether they feel safe raising concerns, and compare the results across shifts to see whether the changes have taken hold.
The Operators' Position
The operators faced their own dilemma. Refusing an instruction from a supervisor risks discipline; following it risks injury. Several said later that they knew the shortcut was wrong but assumed management approved, since the line's output was praised at plant meetings. This is a common pattern: when leaders reward results without asking how they were achieved, employees infer that the methods are acceptable. The operators' silence was not indifference but a reasonable reading of what the organization valued.
What Leaders Owe Employees
Leaders owe employees more than compliance with safety law. They owe targets that can be met safely, honest attention to how results are produced and protection for those who raise concerns. They also owe consistency: if a rule is posted, it must be enforced for everyone, including when enforcing it costs output. When leaders fail in these duties, individual employees are left to carry ethical risks that the organization should carry. The plant manager should acknowledge this openly when explaining the changes to the shifts.
Conclusion
The lockout shortcut violated workers' rights to safety and was compounded by retaliation against the person who reported it. The causes lay not only in one supervisor's choices but in targets, rewards and a culture that did not ask how results were achieved. Protecting Luis, holding the supervisor accountable and repairing the conditions that encouraged the shortcut are all necessary for employees to trust that speaking up is safe.
References
Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710390536
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382668
BUS 454 Module 4 instructions, in plain terms
Aspen frames BUS 454 around dilemmas inside complex organizations, and a fourth-module paper often focuses on workplace ethics and employees' rights. With the actual Module 4 prompt shared in class, this example studies one incident. State employees' rights clearly, legal and moral. Look for causes at the individual, issue and organizational levels, rather than blaming one person. Use a research-based model of ethical culture to identify weaknesses. Treat reporting as whistleblowing and analyze how the organization responded. Address retaliation directly. Consider the position of employees who went along. Propose fair accountability for the individual and changes to targets, rewards and culture, and explain how you would know the changes worked.
How this BUS 454 Module 4 example is built
The paper opens with a new target, skipped lockout, an operator's email and a shift change two days later. It states rights to a safe workplace and to report hazards without retaliation. Kish-Gephart and colleagues' meta-analysis shifts attention to targets, bonuses and oversight. Kaptein's culture dimensions are applied, and a five-row table pairs each weakness with a fix. Near and Miceli's definition frames the email as internal whistleblowing. Sections address the retaliation, the operators who complied because output was praised, fair discipline for the supervisor, what leaders owe employees and prevention through revised targets, bonuses weighted for safety, training, audits and an anonymous survey six months later.
Where the marks sit in the BUS 454 Module 4 rubric
Workplace ethics papers are graded on accurate statement of rights, depth in analyzing causes, use of research and fair, practical recommendations. This example looks beyond the obvious wrongdoer to targets, rewards and culture, which is what instructors most want to see. Its APA reference list draws on three journal studies: Kish-Gephart, Harrison and Treviño's meta-analysis in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Kaptein's Human Relations study of ethical culture and Near and Miceli's Journal of Business Ethics article on whistleblowing. The culture table connects diagnosis to remedy. Treating the retaliation as urgent, and the supervisor fairly, shows balanced judgment. The section on the operators who complied adds nuance, and the planned survey gives a way to check whether trust returns.
BUS 454 Module 4 help from the desk
Students often blame one person and stop. Examine the organizational conditions that made the conduct likely. Another weakness is discussing whistleblowing in general without analyzing how this organization responded. Address retaliation specifically; it is often the most damaging part of the story. Consider employees who went along and why. Recommend fair process for the person responsible. Tie each recommendation to a cause. Include how you would measure whether the culture improved. Use research on ethical culture rather than general statements about tone at the top. If the case comes from your job, protect identities and be careful with facts you cannot confirm. Where the facts are disputed, such as the reason for a shift change, say what evidence would settle the question.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More BUS 454 and Business Administration sample papers
- BUS 454 Module 1: Ethics and the Stakeholder View
- BUS 454 Module 2: Ethical Frameworks
- BUS 454 Module 3: Stakeholder Mapping
- BUS 454 Module 5: Corporate Social Responsibility
- BUS 454 Module 6: Marketing and Product Ethics
- BUS 454 Module 7: Crisis and Stakeholder Communication
- BUS 454 Module 8: Personal Code of Ethics
- BUS 484 Module 6: Financing a New Venture
- BUS 495 Module 3: Country Risk Analysis
- BUS 305 Module 5: Research Plan and Sources
- BUS 320 Module 2: Environment and Research
BUS 454 Module 4 questions, answered
What does BUS 454 Module 4 usually ask for?
Aspen's BUS 454 examines ethical dilemmas in organizations, so a paper on workplace ethics, employee rights or whistleblowing is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
What is internal whistleblowing?
Reporting wrongdoing to people inside the organization who can act on it, such as a manager, compliance office or ethics line, rather than to outside authorities.
Are employees protected when they report safety hazards?
Yes. Federal law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who raise workplace safety concerns.
Where can I find a free BUS 454 Module 4 sample paper?
The full paper appears above, covering a lockout shortcut and retaliation against the worker who reported it, with a table linking culture weaknesses to fixes.
What is ethical culture in an organization?
The shared expectations, examples, resources, openness and rewards that shape whether employees act ethically, beyond what written rules say.