Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Decision-Making and Plagiarism

Decision-Making and Plagiarism

Complete a paper of a 2000 to 3000 words academic paper that incorporates your previous research,

including your essays on good decision making and plagiarism.

Note that much of the content for this assignment was completed in earlier modules; completing this
assignment consists largely of editing material that you have already authored.
By writing this essay please retouch on the same topic on order 113177, 113239, 113238.

In addition to the content for this paper, your paper should include the following:

1.An APA title page

2.A well written introduction and conclusion
3.An APA reference page



Decision-Making and Plagiarism

Decision-making is often a hard task yet people have to undertake it for their progress.
Decision-makers have to be responsible and accountable for their duties (THE MARKETING
SOCIETY, 2015). Choices could be right in certain situations, but they may not be appropriate in
others. Therefore, it is necessary that decision-makers expand their scope and not limit
themselves to predetermined approaches. In most cases, the process becomes most challenging
when there emerge conflicting interests. For example, when handling cases of plagiarism,
instructors should protect the reputation of their institutions by ensuring that students do their
work. The practice would be in accordance with the instructors’ duty of practice. However,
exerting the rules used against plagiarism might have detrimental effects on the students. As
such, instructors would be torn between protecting the students or the institutions.

Good Decision-Making

Good decisions must have desirable consequences to their subjects, especially in the long-
term. For decisions to be right, they must give solutions to particular problems that necessitate
them (FOX, 2014). Managers determine good decisions by focusing on giving the best to their
institutions and subjects. Also, good decision-makers should purpose to get information
regarding the choices they have. It is after evaluating all the necessary information that they
would then decide how to perform their tasks (ZENGER & FOLKMAN, 2014). When decision-
makers are informed, they are likely to experience fewer and less severe surprises that would
occur with some choices. Being informed prepares managers for multiple occurrences hence
equipping them with techniques of handling events (MYATT, 2012). However, decision-makers
should filter their information to have the necessary load only when deciding approaches to take


(WETHEY, 2013). Guidelines for making good decisions require people to have a well-defined
frame for their choices (FOX, 2014). Failure to have well-framed choices predisposes decision-
makers to give the right answers but to the wrong questions (KARELAIA, 2014). Frames ensure
that decision-makers do not give in to temptations that always accompany the process of
decision-making (PILLAY, 2014). Biases are likely to occur during decision-making, and their
happening impairs the rationale of choices that people take. Pillay illustrated that people are
likely to go by decisions that support their beliefs and theories. In the process, they would ignore
what could have been important considerations for their particular problems (PILLAY, 2014).
Decision-makers end up not having the right information, or having it but not utilizing it, and the
choices they make lose rationale and become faulty. The temptation to make biased decisions
comes in when stakeholders seek to confirm the appropriateness of their views instead of
addressing problematic issues per se. There are particular elements that decision-making
activities should entail. Among those that apply in addressing plagiarism is ethics. Good
decisions should promote rather than demean ethical principles. However, deciding what is
ethical or unethical presents a secondary complication in most situations. For instance,
instructors would find it challenging to determine whether exercising roles that would lead to the
dismissal of students from institutions following dishonest conduct would be ethical. While the
choice would be ethical from the perspective of responsibility, it could be unjustified from the
compassion and humanity viewpoints. On the other hand, instructors would be obliged to
discourage the practice, especially for long-term purposes. From such a conviction, they are
likely to uphold the necessary regulations and place their subjects to severe consequences. To
make the right decision, instructors should purpose to take an informed position and explore
factors such as the victims’ motive for the practice.



Decision-Making in Handling Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a dishonest undertaking, and most academic institutions would not tolerate it.
When it occurs, students rely on the grace of their instructors. Instructors need undertaking
various activities for them to stand a position to make the right decision. One of the commonest
strategies that instructors use in such situations is the A-B-C-D-E technique that entails
assessment, benefits, consequences/consultations, duty, as well as education (HUBER, 2015).
Incorporating each of the elements in decisions would standardize choices, and there would be
an increased chance of them being right and appropriate.
In the assessment, decision-makers would purpose to learn the person involved in the
malpractice, circumstances under which the occurrence took place, as well as the severity of the
situation (HUBER, 2015). For instance, decision-makers would assess the effect the accusation
has on the offender in terms of emotions. The emotional expressions that offenders show would
enable decision-makers evaluate the sincerity of apologies that such students give. In terms of
the situation, decision-makers would assess issues such as the student experiencing pressure to
pass their courses. Judges would also evaluate the impact that either approach would have on the
subject as well as the institution. Typical considerations include how far subjects are to their
graduation and the signal that either forgiveness or punishment would send to other students.
While it would be compassionate not to block the graduation of students who are at their final
stages, forgiving them would send an inappropriate implication to other learners. Therefore,
there would be a need to balance the two approaches to ensuring that the final decisions are
worth their consequences.


The benefits aspect entails considering the likelihood of harm vis-à-vis that of beneficence
(HUBER, 2015). Stakeholders should understand that punishment does not always cause harm,
nor does forgiveness always yield beneficence. There are multiple factors that would influence
the effect of either of the approaches depending on the situation at hand. Possible considerations
include the intensity of the impact of the actions that decision-makers take against students who
plagiarize. Parties that could be involved include the student, the instructor, the relevant school,
the institution administration, as well as the student’s family. Decision-makers should not
undermine any of the stakeholders for their decisions to be reasonable. As Fox put it, decisions
may not be right unless they fit the situation that they address (FOX, 2014). Therefore, regardless
of the pre-established mechanisms, judges should pay attention to the benefits and the
complications that would accompany their approaches.
Under consequences and consultations, decision-makers consider the legal, therapeutic,
ethical, and emotional impacts of their rulings (HUBER, 2015). For instance, they should let the
legal definition of the practice as unacceptable prevail and avoid creating an ethical implication
that cheating is acceptable. Therefore, decision-makers should be wise so that they uphold the
law when considering the consequences of their actions. Even if they forgive the offending
students, they should do it in a manner that other learners would not misinterpret as plagiarism
being acceptable under particular circumstances. Therapeutic and emotional impacts would
include sympathizing with the offenders and avoiding hurting their families.
The aspect of duty implies that both students and their instructors have responsibilities
expected for them to carry out. For instance, students would be expected to commit themselves
to their studies and do their learning diligently. They are supposed to perform their assignments
with utmost willingness and develop the skills that their courses are meant to impart in them.


Therefore, plagiarizing would amount to failure for them to undertake their roles. On the other
hand, instructors would have the duty to report cases of plagiarism to the relevant authorities. It
would be a failure if they fail to do so under whatever circumstances. Nevertheless, their
decisions should be the most appropriate for the case they are handling, and they should avoid
employing the right answer to the wrong question.
Education as in the model entails the understanding of students, instructors, and other
members of the faculty regarding plagiarism (HUBER, 2015). It is expected that members
involved in the education system understand what plagiarism is, and they also know the
regulations concerning it as well as the consequences of indulging oneself in the practice.
The model allows decision-makers to handle cases of plagiarism with ease and overcome
the challenges of conflicting approaches. Considering such elements does not only enhance
decision-making, but it also facilitates fairness as decision-makers can use a standardized method
of handling the issue. Plagiarism is unacceptable, and stakeholders should do their best to
discourage it, especially in academic institutions. However, every situation will present with its
variabilities, and it would depend upon decision-makers to determine the appropriate actions to
take for each scenario.

Accountability in Decision-Making

Accountability is crucial in decision-making, more so for persons in managerial and
executive positions. Employees should know the persons behind changes that take place in
institutions for them to implement them confidently. All stakeholders in institutions should
access decisions that are made to enhance transparency. Decisions made under opaque
circumstances are likely to attract suspicion, and they would cause conflict easily. Good


decision-making procedures should aim at promoting unity among stakeholders, and decisions
would be inappropriate if they cause divisions instead. A culture of accountability in
organizations promotes cohesiveness, and it enhances the adoption of appropriate choices as
decision-makers would fear the occurrence of undesirable consequences (THE MARKETING
SOCIETY, 2015). Also, the culture makes executives feel that they are under supervision and
they act carefully in decisions that they make. So as to maximize the appropriateness of their
choices, leaders seek requisite knowledge from specialists and experts. In most organization, the
appropriateness of decisions is proportional to the degree of accountability that such institutions
entail in their management.

Hindrances to Making Good Decisions

Right decisions lead to desirable outcomes. In healthcare, for instance, decisions should
result in improved patient outcome since it is the ultimate objective of the facilities (LEE &
EMANUEL, 2013, Pg. 7). On the other hand, wrong decisions would hinder the achievement of
desirable outcomes. As such, institutions would fail to meet their goals. Zenger and Folkman
wrote that laziness was the leading cause of making poor decisions among well-meaning persons
(ZENGER & FOLKMAN, 2014). The bloggers indicated that some decision-makers failed to
perform all the required activities that preside the derivation of conclusions. The resultant
decisions are poor as they are based on insufficient knowledge characterized by a few facts but
many assumptions (ZENGER & FOLKMAN, 2014). Other causes of failure in making correct
decisions in organizations include poor communication among stakeholders and making plans
that are inconsistent or inadequate (MANDELBERG, 2015). Lack of cooperation among
stakeholders is often a significant cause of limited communication in institutions. Failure of
stakeholders to anticipate challenges and failures also lead to poor decisions (ZENGER &


FOLKMAN, 2014). There are always shortcomings associated with every choice, and decision-
makers require preparing for them for them to push their choices to success. If such challenges
appear before decision-makers prepare for them, there are high chances of hindrance and failure.
Making decisions when under emotional influences also impairs decision-making leading to
biased choices (MANDELBERG, 2015). Such emotions as anger, malice, or extreme happiness
are likely to influence the reasoning that managers adopt. Managers should avoid making critical
decisions when under such influences. The execution strategies for decisions also affect the
appropriateness of choices. Decision-makers should ensure that they formulate strategies that
would see to the complete implementation of approaches.

Decisions are the drivers of progress and regress in organizations. Good decisions are the
correct answers to questions under consideration. Decisions might be right under certain
conditions but wrong in others. Often, decision-makers employ pre-established guidelines to
increase the speed at which they make choices. Such guidelines also enable decision-makers to
evaluate the appropriateness of their choices and to standardize their judgments and rulings.
Addressing cases of plagiarism in academic institutions is often a challenging task for
stakeholders. Instructors are the primary decision-makers when such events happen. They are
often torn between protecting students from severe consequences and upholding organizational
rules and regulations. The A-B-C-D-E decision-making technique offers a handy tool for
instructors. Accountability in decision-making enhances transparency, and it is a vital virtue of
decision-makers. There are always hindrances to making the right decisions. Decision-makers
should seek to attain the most informed positions before deriving conclusions.



Reference List

Fox, J. (2014, November 21). How to tell if you’ve made a good decision. Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Huber, N. (2015, May 9). Appropriate and fair use. Prezi.
Lee, E. O. & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). Shared decision-making to improve care and reduce costs.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 2013(368), 6-8.
Mandelberg, L. (2015). Good decisions, bad decisions. Evancarmichael.com.
The Marketing Society. (2015, May 16). Decision-making and accountability.


Wethey, D. (2013). Tips to help you make better decisions. The Marketing Society.
Zenger, J. & Folkman, J. (2014, September 1). 9 habits that lead to terrible decisions. Harvard
Business School Publishing.

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.