Notes from instructor -Please note, please expand on the rough draft paper and add references Need a better thesis statement:
• tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
• is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
• directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
• makes a claim that others might dispute.
• is usually a single sentence somewhere in your first paragraph that presents your argument to the reader. The rest of the paper, the body of the essay, gathers and organizes evidence that will persuade the reader of the logic of your interpretation.
A thesis statement is a short (just 1 or 2 sentences) clear summary of an argument. When writing a paper to convince others of something, a thesis statement should go at the end of the 1st paragraph.
Abstract
Through the years, many corporations have had to deal with some magnitude of product harm crisis. No matter the size of the company, there is a code of ethics and responsibility that must be adhered to and followed at all departmental levels. If companies choose to ignore this ethical responsibility they run risk of having an ethical breach levied upon them. This paper will provide an in depth analysis of how GM failed to enforce product harm crisis practices within their ranks and suffered the consequences. I will also discuss recommendations on how an organizations social responsibility has an effect on their brand and customers loyalty.
In order to discuss product harm crisis and how it impacts companies and corporations, we must first define exactly what a product harm crisis is. A product harm crisis is a well-publicized occurrence where products are found to be defective or unsafe.
Today’s current business and regulatory environment provides a more stringent product safety legislation, and the increasing willingness of organizations to assume a voluntary product recall has made product harm crisis a frequent occurrence.
Product harm crisis may be contributed by several reasons; manufacturer’s negligence; product misuse or defective parts which many companies attempt to minimize or limit their liability to lessen the blow of a financial loss. In addition to proving a defect, many Consumer Reports provide information as to if the product failed to perform consistently with a consumer’s reasonable expectations, if a product’s had established unsafe conditions or possessed an unsafe design.
General Motors has recalled 1.6 million vehicles due to a faulty ignition switch. GM sites this defect due to a heavy key ring or a “jarring event,” such as running off the road, could cause the ignition to slip out of position. The result of the faulty ignition switch has accounted for 13 fatalities. GM is further plagued with 303 deaths in GM vehicles due to uninflated airbags.
Though, in spite of the overwhelming consequences of product-harm crises, little methodical investigation exists to measure its marketing drawbacks effect consumer buying power.
In 2014 General Motors ranked no. 7 against other Fortune 500 companies. In February 2015 General Motors earned $1.1 billion in the fourth-quarter, a 21% improvement from a year earlier, under the new leadership of CEO Mary Barra.
Recommendations
The normative stake of an environment alludes to sets of organizational expectations. The cognitive and normative foundations of the environment have an essential impact on embracing of organizational practices as they structure, thus limiting, the set of organizational alternatives and intended pressures. An else pretty alternative may be rejected, because it is not seen as suitable within a certain institutional context. Regulatory pressure, on the other hand, refers to the level that regulators have threatened to impede an organization’s operations. Customers impose pressure to the organization to deliver the best in quality and quantity.
Metrics – On grading
How Do I Fix This? Managing a Product-Harm Crisis Draft Submission (50 points)
Reflection and Analysis
15 points maximum Exemplary
(14-15 points) Acceptable
(11-13 points) Minimal Acceptance
(0–10 points)
A clear understanding of the weekly resources is evident.
The paper shows a high degree of discovery and creativity in assimilating and framing the weeks’ resources into a coherent, plausible response.
Effectively demonstrates an ability to present a clear and coherent analysis. A mostly clear understanding of the learning resources evident.
The paper shows a degree of discovery and creativity in framing the response.
Shows an understanding of the key elements relevant to the topic and provides an assessment of the resources . An understanding of the learning resources minimally evident.
Minimally shows or does not show an understanding of the key concepts.
Minimally provides or does not provide a coherent analysis.
Critical Thinking
15 points maximum Exemplary
(14–15 points) Acceptable
(11–13 points) Minimal Acceptance
(0–10 points)
Successfully follows the assignment instructions.
Demonstrates exceptional ability to engage in scholarly thinking and writing.
Applies new and original ideas to present a viable recommendation for responding to a product-harm crisis. Follows assignment instructions. Demonstrates some higher levels of thinking and writing.
Applies somewhat new and original ideas to produce a somewhat plausible recommendation for responding to a product-harm crisis Does not follow instructions specific to the Seminar Final Paper. Minimally demonstrates or does not demonstrate scholarly thinking and writing.
The document and research topic show little creative application and are predictable.
Does not present a plausible recommendation for responding to a product- harm crisis.
Paraphrasing Technique
10 points maximum
Exemplary
(9–10 points) Acceptable
(7–8 points) Minimal Acceptance
(0–6 points)
Demonstrates exceptional use and understanding and use of paraphrasing techniques and contains no or few citation errors. Demonstrates some understanding and use of proper paraphrasing techniques but contains several citation errors. Demonstrates minimal understanding of proper paraphrasing technique and contains many citation errors.
Organization
5 points maximum Exemplary
(5 points) Acceptable
(3–4 points) Minimal Acceptance
(0–2 points)
The document is well organized.
The format is easy to follow, flows smoothly from one idea to another, and logically conveys the key ideas.
The style remains consistent. The document is presented in a thoughtful manner.
There is an overall organization and most transitions are easy to follow, but at times ideas are unclear. The document is inconsistent and at times unorganized.
The format is difficult to follow and transitions of ideas are abrupt and distracting.
Style and Grammar
5 points maximum Exemplary
(5 points) Acceptable
(3–4 points) Minimal Acceptance
(0–2 points)
Follows APA writing style and rules of formal English grammar and written essay style.
Exhibits higher levels of critical thinking than memory/recall.
Communicates in a cohesive, logical style. Mostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style.
Exhibits critical thinking and not just memory/recall.
Mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style. Does not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style.
Exhibits minimal critical thinking or is primarily mem
