The Case of the Killer Phrases (A)
As the students of Class 35 of the MarberryExecutive MBA program straggled intotheclassroom for their one-day workshopon business ethics, they stopped by the front setof seats todrop off their written assignments.
Professor Stevens chatted with a couple of themembers of the group while lining up his stack ofcases and videos for the day’s work. Just as theclock reached 8:00 a.m., the appointed time fortheworkshop to begin, Max Snell stopped andcasually asked, “Gee, Professor Stevens, ourstudygroup did the case write-ups as a group effort. Weweren’t sure that was correct. Was it?”
Taken a bitby surprise, because the written assignment was tobe done by each studentindividually, ProfessorStevens replied, “Just drop your paper on the pileand I’ll look at it later.”
The workshop day was filled with lectures,discussions, videos, and case discussions. ProfessorStevens forgot about Max’s comment, but as hegot into his car to drive home after the eight-hourworkshop, he realized he would have to deal withthe group’s nonconforming actionscarefully.
Business Ethics Workshop
The business ethics workshop had been taughtby a variety of people over the years. Recently, aretired professor of philosophy from New Yorkhad come in to teach it. The reviews had beenmixed, so the Marberry Executive MBA (MEMBA)Academic Committee asked Bob Stevens, atenured senior professor at Marberry StateUniversity and past president of the AmericanBusiness Ethics Academic Association, to give theworkshop in addition to continuing to teachtheprogram’s Business Policy course. The AcademicCommittee’s hope was that ProfessorStevens, apast winner of the program’s Best InstructorAward, would be able to strike the properbalancebetween theory and managerial practice.
The Marberry Executive MBA program wassimilar in conception to most executive MBAprograms. Students were expected to be promisingmidlevel and senior-level executives fromlocal andregional organizations. Each student must have anexecutive sponsor who commits tohelping thestudent deal with the pressures inherent in havingto continue working full-timewhile completing theMEMBA in two years, attending class on alternateweeks Friday/Saturday. Sponsors were expected tobe informal liaisons between their firms (whichwere paying morethan twice what the localuniversity charged for its MBA program). Thefinancial realities ofexecutive MBA programsinclude the need to generate demand from largeorganizations and tomaintain cordial and positiverelationships so that large numbers of their employeesare sent tothese more expensive programs.
Grading The Paper
When Professor Stevens got home around 5:45p.m. that day, he was bushed and decided to waituntil the next day to tackle the grading of theworkshop’s pass/fail assignment. The nextmorning,he went straight to the paper turned in by MaxSnell, a member of the “Five Aces”study group(see Figure 1). The content was certainly wellwithin the “pass” range. It seemedodd to him thatthe list of his study group members was hand-written at the top of the first pageof Max’s paper. Ifthis was truly a group paper, why hadn’t thegroup’s names been part of theprinted material?
Bob took a moment and went to a copy of theworkshop assignment that read, “You are toprepare an analysis of each case consisting of. . .” Why had the other 37 students in the businessethics workshop seen this as an individual assignment,while the Five Aces concluded it was agroup assignment? For group assignments, ProfessorStevens had always included language suchas,“Your group is to . . .” as a way of signalingonly one version of the work need be submitted.
There had never been this situation before.
Leafing through the pile of 42 papers, Bobselected the Five Aces’ other four papers and gavethem a quick look. It seemed strange that each ofthe five papers had both significant similaritiesand obvious differences. As he thought about thegroup’s actions, he realized that each memberofthe Five Aces had submitted his or her ownslightly modified “version” of the variousassigned case analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
More careful examination of the group members’papers led to the following conclusions:
1. Only Max’s paper listed the other group members.The other group members had listedthemselvesas the sole author of their submitted paper.
2. Each of the five papers was slightly different.For example, the ordering of the five caseanalyses varied among the group’s set ofpapers. The wording of each paper’s introductionwas different, some had added their ownanalytical points, and some presented differentialor supplemental recommendations.
3. There were a few phrases that seemed to be infour or all five of the papers. These phraseswere essential to the communication of somekey point or conclusion. Professor Stevens sawthese as “killer phrases”—elements of thegroup’s analysis that none could bring themselvestoleave out of their own papers.
Reflecting on what he had just read, ProfessorStevens drewsometentative conclusions. First,some
orallmembers of the Five Aces hadworked togetheron the five case analyses (the “killerphrases” weresubstantial evidence of this). Second, they hadplanned to submit individualpapers under theirown names without telling the instructor (evidencefor this was that only onehad handwritten the othergroup members’ names on his paper). Third, thegroup may not havebeen “confused” about thenature of the assignment (evidence for this was theapparent attemptat individualizing each person’spaper). Fourth, a potential claim that they thoughtthis was agroup assignment was contradicted bytheir submitting five individual papers instead ofonly onegroup paper.
CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVES
Professor Stevens thought about what he hadfound and considered alternatives, but decidedthat he had better get the other papers graded,given the MEMBA’s expectation that grades wouldbeready within two days of a workshop. As heproceeded to grade the other students’ papers, hesettled into a comfortable routine—reading thesituation/issue description section quickly,ponderingthe level of analysis provided, and determiningwhether the recommendations werepersuasive.About two-thirds of the way through the seeminglynever-ending pile, Bob cameupon a paper with thesame “killer phrases” found in the Five Acesgroup’s papers. WilliamMarshall’s paper wasnearly identical to the work of the five who hadworked together. Lookingat Class 35’s team rostershowed that Marshall was not a member of the FiveAces but was partof the “Fearsome Foursome.”The situation had just gotten extremely complex.
How had Marshall gotten the Five Aces’work? Had he been an active participant or justfoundtheir work and used it as his own? Whyhadn’t his name been placed on the paper MaxSnell hadsubmitted? Was that an oversight or asignal that he had really done nothing more thancopy(with minor cosmetic changes) the work ofone of the Five Aces’ members? Perhaps, evenmoreimprobably, the Five Aces could have usedhis paper as the basis of their work.
Bob Stevenswas dumbfounded at the picture thathad just emerged. Five or six members of theExecutive MBA Program might have committedplagiarism (Max’s decision to provide the fulllist ofcontributors might reduce his behavior below“plagiarism,” because he had provided anaccuratepicture of who had done work on his submittedpaper). One (the individual from theother studygroup) may or may not have done any work on hispaper beyond a modest attempt atconcealment ormay have had his paper used, with or without hisknowledge, as the basis of theFive Aces’ papers. Thesituation seemed to demand action, but ProfessorStevens realized thatany explicit action on his partbringing up plagiarismcould lead to a lot ofwork forhim andserious consequences for those involved.
HOW TO PROCEED?
After completing the grading of 36 other businessethics workshop papers, Professor Stevens satback in his home office chair and thought abouthow to proceed. A variety of questions racedthrough his brain:
• Who should he contact first (the students;Professor Tim James, the program’s academiccommittee chair; or Marjorie Washburn, theprogram’s executive director)?
• What evidence, if any, should he develop?
• Should a student’s motive or circumstancesmatter?
• What definition of “plagiarism” did thestudents have?
• Did they do something worthy of formal action?
• What impact would a formal accusation and/ordetermination of plagiarismhave on anMEMBAstudent or on the MEMBA program itself?
• Was any action required, given that the“course” was a workshop and the gradingwaspass/fail?
• What time and effort might be required toresolve any issues raised about these papers?
Question for Discussion
1. If you were Bob Stevens, what would you doand why?