...TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC BÁCH KHOA ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA TP. HỒ CHÍ MINH KHOA QUẢN LÝ CÔNG NGHIỆP ======== BÀI TẬP CÁ NHÂN ĐẠO ĐỨC KINH DOANH CHỦ ĐỀ: TRƯỜNG HỢP CỦA TIẾN SĨ OLIVIERI-ĐẠO ĐỨC TRONG KHOA HỌC Y SINH. GVHD: Ths Lê Phước Luông Sinh Viên: Bùi Đức Hưng MSSV: 71301614 TP. HCM, tháng 8-2015 mục lục CHỦ ĐỀ: TRƯỜNG HỢP CỦA TIẾN SĨ OLIVIERI 2 Tóm tắt bài tập cá nhân 2 Câu 1: Đó có phải là hành vi đạo đức của Apotex khi bao gồm điều khoản ‘’gag’’kéo dài 3 năm trong hợp đồng với giáo sư Olivieri? 3 Câu 2: Mặc dù Olivieri sau đó thừa nhận rằng bà không nên ký hợp đồng với Apotex bao gồm điều khoản bảo mật này, nhưng trên thực tế bà đã ký hợp đồng đó, vậy việc này có ảnh hưởng gì đến hành động của bà ở đây không? Tại sao có và tại sao không? 3 Câu 3: Quyết định của Giáo sư Olivieri trong việc công khai phát hiện của mình trong cuộc thử nghiệm là một ví dụ của thuyết hành vi hay thuyết vị lợi? Giải thích? 3 Câu 4: Nếu chúng ta xác định đối tượng chủ chốt trong trường hợp này là Giáo sư Olivieri, Apotex, các Bệnh viện Nhi và Đại học Toronto. Khi đó xung đột về lợi ích giữa họ là gì? 4 Ban giám hiệu Ðại học Toronto đứng về phía công ty, bởi vì đơn giản đại học đang thương lượng để được tài trợ 25 triệu USD từ công ty này. Còn về phía Giáo sư Olivieri, bà chỉ muốn thông báo cái phát hiện của mình để đem lại lợi ích cho các bệnh nhân. 4 Câu 5: Điều gì sẽ xảy ra nếu các học giả đồng nghiệp không ủng hộ Giáo sư Olivieri trong cuộc chiến? 4 Câu 6: Làm thế nào xử lý...
Words: 1566 - Pages: 7
...12 Angry Men paper Influence Like power, influence deals with the capacity to impact the behaviors of others. Influence, however, arises directly from one’s behavior toward others. There are 8 methods you can use: Foreman –giving options, being likeable, listening to others 1. Coalition building: seeking alignment with others Asking everyone what they thought when he gave everyone the story about the woman. Comparing kids juror #2 and #8 seeking sympathy to show how kids can be ungrateful #8 Involved everyone in discussion and made changes as suggested (speed it up anyone can walk faster than that) One juror looking at the other juror – did or didn’t the old man see the boy moving out the house? He’s looking to the other juror to agree with him. Then he moves on to shouting. Nudging the juror next to him – tell them will ya Shouty guy – what’s the matter with you guys? Can’t you see he’s guilty? 2. Consultation – asking and otherwise involving others Picky little points don’t mean anything. You know how these people lie – I don’t have to tell you stereotyping and putting THEM into a different bracket than ‘normal folk’ trying to make people tink I’ve known a couple that are ok but It’s like an exception. Having the opposite effect of what he wanted. Showing that he is prejudiced. Told to exit the discussion. Jury 8 still able to empathize. He’ able to go ti system again and again to say that...
Words: 1128 - Pages: 5
...* ------------------------------------------------- TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC TÀI CHÍNH-MARKETING KHOA QUẢN TRỊ KINH DOANH LỚP CLC – 12DQT1 MÔN HỌC: Nghệ thuật lãnh đạo ĐỀ TÀI: ĐÁNH GIÁ NGHỆ THUẬT LÃNH ĐẠO CỦA HƯNG ĐẠO VƯƠNG TRẦN QUỐC TUẤN GVHD: Lê Cao Thanh Nhóm thực hiện: Nhóm 1 TP.HCM, tháng 10 năm 2014 * ------------------------------------------------- TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC TÀI CHÍNH-MARKETING KHOA QUẢN TRỊ KINH DOANH LỚP CLC – 12DQT1 MÔN HỌC: Nghệ thuật lãnh đạo ĐỀ TÀI: ĐÁNH GIÁ NGHỆ THUẬT LÃNH ĐẠO CỦA HƯNG ĐẠO VƯƠNG TRẦN QUỐC TUẤN GVHD: Lê Cao Thanh Danh sách thành viên nhóm STT | Họ và tên | MSSV | 1 | Hồ Như Minh Dung (nhóm trưởng) | 1212010040 | 2 | Hồ Lữ Phương Vy | 1212010361 | 3 | Vũ Minh Khoa | 1212010111 | 4 | Trần Thúy Nga | 1212010161 | 5 | Huỳnh Văn Diệu Hằng | 1212010101 | 6 | Phạm Thị Thu Hương | 1212010092 | TP.HCM, tháng 10 năm 2014 MỤC LỤC 1. Sơ lược tiểu sử Hưng Đạo Vương Trần Quốc Tuấn 2 2. Những yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến nghệ thuật lãnh đạo của Trần Hưng Đạo 2 3. Phân tích, đánh giá nghệ thuật lãnh đạo của Trần Hưng Đạo 2 4. Bài học rút ra cho các bạn sinh viên 2 1. Sơ lược tiểu sử Hưng Đạo Vương Trần Quốc Tuấn Trần Quốc Tuấn, sinh ngày 10 tháng Chạp năm Mậu Tý (1228). Ông là con thứ 2 của Khâm Minh Đại Vương Trần Liễu, mẹ là Đoan Túc. Quê Ông ở làng Tức Mặc, xã Lộc Vượng, ngoại thành Nam Định. Viết về sự khai nguyên của dòng dõi nhà Trần, sách Đại Việt Sử Ký Toàn Thư của Ngô Sĩ Liên chép rằng :"Có...
Words: 5855 - Pages: 24
...The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men (the committee) is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of this young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informed the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) registered a shocking not guilty vote. Immediately the room is in uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenient of his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda) by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks precede juror #8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspect. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty. Arriving at a unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. The jury encounters many difficulties in learning to communicate and deal with each other. What seems to be a decisive guilty verdict as deliberations...
Words: 2817 - Pages: 12
...12 Angry Men Briefly summarize each act of the play. Act I: After hearing a case of a young man who is accused of killing his father and is now on trial, the twelve jurors enter a vacant room to discuss the trial. If the twelve jurors find him guilty the mandatory sentence is the death penalty. The twelve men take a vote and they all find the young man guilty except for one juror… the 8th juror. The other jurors become angry with him for making it a difficult process but decide to go around the table to discuss why they think the young man is guilty in attempt to change the 8th jurors mind. The 8th juror is still sure in his decision and explains to the other jurors that the murder weapon could've been available to anyone, it wasn't one of a kind. He proves this by displaying his own replica of the murder weapon, shocking the other jurors. Also learning that the young man shouted, “I’m going to kill you’” then a loud thump heard from downstairs followed by the young man running away, leaving the building. Moreover, the young man had claimed to be at the movies but was unable to name the movies or who was in them and was seen by a woman across the street stabbing his father through a passing train. Act II: The 8th juror goes on speaking about the evidence being weak; the old man couldn’t have heard anything upstairs because of the loud sound the train makes when passing by. The vote is now in favor of guilty 9-3. After questioning why the young man would return home if he killed...
Words: 957 - Pages: 4
...MR. LIN Zechen Gender: Male D.O.B: 04/05/1989 Mailing Address: A0806, Harbourfront Horizon All-Suite Hotel 8 Hung Luen Road, Hung Hom Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong Mobile phone: +852 93492500 Email: simonlinnz@hotmail.com EDUCATION BACKGROUND 07/2010 ~ 06/2013 The University of Auckland: Bachelor of Commerce in Accounting and Finance 08/2013 ~ 08/2014 City University of Hong Kong: Master of Arts in International Accounting AWARDS AND QUALIFICATIONS Academic year 2007 Certificate of The National Second-Class Athlete (CHINA) Academic year 2011 Certificate of Distinction in Introductory Statistics Academic year 2012 Top 5 of the Cost and Management Accounting Course Championship of the interfaculty basketball game WORKING EXPERIENCE 11/2010-02/2011 Internship in Lishui AUDITING BUREAU Traced general leger accounts to original source documents Assisted senior auditor in inventory count 12/2011-02/2012 Internship in BDO Shanghai Assisted senior auditor in performing variance and trend analysis for the revenue and expense numbers listed on the financial statements of the SHANGHAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CO., LTD. SKILLS Fluent English in Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking; Computer skills: Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), MYOB; High ability of organization, leadership and communication; HOBBIES AND INTERESTS Basketball is one of my favorite sports and I play it every weekend no matter how busy I am. Besides, I am keen on fitness...
Words: 275 - Pages: 2
...The Assignment BUS 520 Meaning of action: semantic vs pragmatic. The importance of language : How we speak about action; what are the specific circumstances between actors. Language creates new meanings. New linguistic meanings create new possibilities and social realities. And language and action inform each other. Example: the statement “Jump from the window!” can mean many things. The statement can be “reinterpreted in many ways” and “different kinds of actions” are compatible/triggered by that statement, other than the literal interpretation and action that reflects the literal meaning. Semantics views action as propositional sentences. Seen as statements that someone makes to someone about something; they refer to events in the world (mere descriptions of things). Theory of action: from what? To Why? To who? (the agent). Focusing too much on What? and Why? and losing track of Who? (The who? Is ultimately needed for understand action from an ethical perspective.) We need to understand action related to an agent (not just a logical agent but a self). Attribution (of predicates) to a logical subject is not the same as: Ascription to a self where the agent can self-designate himself in the action he performed (or better yet, that he has not yet performed). Imputation (of moral value to an action) is an improvement over attribution but it is not enough. We must distinguish between event vs. action, knowing how vs. knowing that. Action can...
Words: 6365 - Pages: 26
...12 Angry Men-Influencing Other Group Members This movie was great to see again and to experience all the different dynamics that were occurring amongst the 12 jurors. The time frame in which this movie takes place is not too different than what we experience today in our judicial system. The major differences today would be we do not discriminate based upon age, race or gender. All three of these factors would influence how the jurors would interact with one another and would eventually have a major impact on the final verdict. Juror 8 was so successful in convincing the other 11 jurors for two simple facts. He demonstrated assertiveness and use of reason. While his peers and the foreman fell into a group think mentality from the outset of the movie. Once the 12 jurors are escorted to the deliberation room and checked in the forming of the group commenced. When the bailiff locks the door all the jurors minus number 8 are surprised. The mood of the room turns from relief to despair. Juror 8 does not say a thing nor does he turn away from the window he is looking out of. The foreman at this time tries to call all the jurors to the table and start the deliberation process. The foreman starts out by instructing the group to perform a blind vote on the case. The foreman starts out by trying to have the total buy in from the group and does not create any type of rules or guidelines he wishes to place on the deliberation process. By doing this the foreman is playing...
Words: 1271 - Pages: 6
...Elizabeth Herrera April 23, 2014 Comm 151 12 Angry Men: Communication Analysis In the film, 12 Angry Men, viewers come across a group of men who display the different communication dynamics – both the positive and negative sides. Chapter 7 encompasses the idea of Group and Team Communication Skills and how one should communicate effectively among others. To help better understand, 12 Angry Men is centered on a jury’s deliberation in a murder case. A group of men are given the job to deliberate the life of a young boy who has been accused of murdering his father. With only a knife that’s been left behind in the murder scene and a few witnesses who claim they heard the boy scream and run out of the room; these 12 jurors will have to come up with a reasonable doubt in favor to spare the boys life or cast him guilty. Eleven of the jurors vote guilty while Juror 8 is the only one who votes “not guilty.” As the story starts to unfold, viewers get a glimpse of the juror’s personalities, communication approach, culture, preconceptions, and background and how theses factors influence their deliberation and their treatment towards one another. We can draw from the film that poor Conversational Style was used, the book notes, “Sometimes barriers are not in words but in how they are delivered” (145). These men were not respectful with one another when it came to speaking their turn due to their difference in opinions; which led them to lash out at one another. The book encourages...
Words: 787 - Pages: 4
...In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements. Juror 7 (Jack Warden) feel annoyed because he planned to watch a baseball game at the evening of that trial day Juror 10 (Ed Begley) explained to Juror 8 that he thinks the boy is guilty because he has a slum background, which people are from there are usually dangerous and dishonest Juror 5(Jack Klugman) did not know that the boy is from a slum until Juror 10 told the jurors Juror 8 said that the evidences that were showed in the trial is situational. The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade...
Words: 858 - Pages: 4
...12 Angry Men The 12 Angry Men movie was a perfect example of the Bruce Tuckman Scheme. Once the Jurors go in for deliberation they immediately start two get into the stages of the scheme. Once they are all in the juror’s room and get settled they start the storming stage. As soon as the juror’s get into the storming stage there is a lot of arguing. By the time they start the norming stage the juror’s are still arguing with one another but they are starting to listen to the people who are trying to show there opinion of reasonable doubt. By the end they all get to go home once they come to a unanimous decision. When the juror’s enter the room at the beginning of the movie they automatically start the forming stage to get each to know each other. When they first get into the jurors room most of them are ready to vote guilty and go home. When juror eight votes not guilty all the other jurors got really mad. At that moment they entered into the forming stage. Juror eight explains to the others why he felt that the defendant was not guilty. They all voted again and anonymously and one juror had changed his mind. After the second vote the other ten jurors got even more upset because they new they were going to be there even longer. The jurors entered into the norming stage as juror eight explained all the reasons why he had voted not guilty. As he explained each of his reasons for not voting the defendant guilty, one by the jurors started to change there opinion about convicting...
Words: 445 - Pages: 2
...12 Angry Men depicts the New York murder trial. The premise is the trial of a frightened, teenaged defendant accused of stabbing and killing his father. The judge advises the 12 jurors, that a unanimous decision needs to be made with fair and unbiased manner. If the jury decides unanimously that the boy is guilty he will be sentenced to death. However, if there is a reasonable doubt, the jury needs to reach a ‘not guilty’ decision, and the boy will be freed. A life and death decision needs to be made. The process whereby the difficult decision is reached illustrates a situation where a minority transforms the opinion of a majority by exerting persuasive tactics. The group is challenged by various opinions, intense frustrations, and lack of participation, stubbornness and indifferent attitudes. Throughout their deliberation, they fluctuate between difference, disagreement, controversy and contention. Their prejudices, personalities, cultural differences, weaknesses, priorities, socio economic, ignorance and fears often cause them to avoid the true issues of the case. This makes the jury find it difficult to reach its final verdict. At the beginning, The Judge gave the jurors a speech about their responsibilities in their deliberation. But he was not potent and forceful enough in his deliver, which was kind of boredom. This failed to convey to many of the jurors the importance of their role as a juror. When the deliberation starts, many of the jurors just want to quickly vote...
Words: 1019 - Pages: 5
...Summary The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The play opens to the empty jury room, and the Judge’s voice is heard, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. We learn that this is a murder case and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After these instructions, the jurors enter. The men file in and decide to take a short break before deliberating. They complain that the room is hot and without air-conditioning; even the fan doesn’t work. All the jurors presume the obvious guilt of the defendant, whom we learn has been accused of killing his father. Eventually, the twelve sit down and a vote is taken. All of the jurors vote “guilty,” except for the 8th Juror, who votes “not guilty,” which, due to the requirement of a unanimous jury, forces them to discuss the case. The jurors react violently against this dissenting vote. Ultimately, they decide to go around the table, explaining why they believe the boy to be guilty, in hopes of convincing 8th Juror. Through this discussion we learn the following facts about the case: an old man living beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard upstairs a fight, the boy shouting, “I’m gonna kill you,” a body hitting the ground, and then he saw the boy running down the stairs. The boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. A woman living across the street...
Words: 2482 - Pages: 10
...Who are "Those People"? The poor/underprivileged. Persuasive Methods: Logos: Appeal based on reason or logic. Logical reasons or examples/the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument. Juror 8: • asked the jurors to discuss this for just an hour; won’t “send a boy off to die without talking about it first” • made each small point of his persuasion very easy to accept and as logical as possible so none of the rest could easily object to it Juror 4: • a stockbroker who refuses to budge until he is presented with sound reasons for changing his mind Ethos: Appeal based on the reputation and character of the speaker. The source's credibility, the speaker's/author's authority Juror 8: • had the needed character/frame of mind to be credible. He walked in to the deliberation unprejudiced and open-minded about the evidence given during the trial Pathos: Appeal based on emotion. Emotional or motivational appeals to make your audience feel the way you want them to. Juror 8: • asked for an anonymous vote • couldn’t persuade the other jurors so asked to just take a vote Contrast: Make what you want someone to do more attractive by comparing it to another choice that is less attractive. Juror 8: • asks the jurors to imagine the accused was their child Know the audience and its predispositions: Know where your audience is coming from in order for you to know which angle you can...
Words: 1426 - Pages: 6
...The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18 year old boy for the first degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony which was heard in court. The group went through the common stages of group development as presented in the text; forming, storming, norming, and performing (Robbins, & Judge, 2010) while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. After a first vote, juror 8 is the only individual who would like to explore if there is a reasonable doubt in this case. The remainder of the jurors have expressed indifference and have conformed to the group belief that the boy is guilty without further discussion. They are irritable secondary to the environmental conditions, and they are eager to return to their personal responsibilities. In spite of the aggressive atmosphere caused by Juror 8’s decision he uses reason to try to delve deeper into the case and testimony. His use of reason forces the rest of the group, who have fallen victim to groupthink, to investigate other facts and points of view that were not presented in the courtroom. He has a sympathetic personality, and uses another method of appealing to higher values within the group to attempt to influence the members. The use of higher values and reason allows for more open discussion amongst the group and for the discovery of the personal biases...
Words: 766 - Pages: 4
