HRM522 Case Study 2: National Collegiate Athletic Association Ethics and Compliance Program

Questions/Business/ManagementHRM522 Case Study 2: National Collegiate Athletic Association Ethics and Compliance Program
Read “Case Study 6: National Collegiate Athletic Association Ethics and Compliance Program,” located on page 444 of the textbook.
Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you:
Determine the fundamental ways in which the NCAA’s ethics program failed to prevent the scandals at Penn State, Ohio State, and the University of Arkansas. Support your response with one (1) example from each of these schools’ scandals. Examine the principal ways in which the leadership of the NCAA contributed to the ethical violations of Penn State, Ohio State, and the University of Arkansas. Support your response with one (1) example from each of these schools’ scandals. Predict the key differences in the scenarios that occurred at Penn State, Ohio State, and the University of Arkansas if an effective ethics program was in place. Provide a rationale for your response. Postulate on two (2) actions that the NCAA leadership should take in order to regain the trust and confidence of students and stakeholders. Recommend two (2) measures that the HR departments of colleges and universities should take to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. Provide a rationale for your response. Use at least three (3) quality academic resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and other similar Websites do not qualify as academic resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length. The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
Describe the business ethics issues and definitions, theories, and frameworks important to organizational ethical decision making and the role of a human resource professional. Determine the role of stakeholder interests, the interrelationship of ethics and social responsibility, and the role of corporate governance in ethics. Analyze scenarios to determine the ethical character of decisions made and the related impact on the organization. Write clearly and concisely about issues in ethics and advocacy for HR professionals using correct grammar and mechanics. Use technology and information resources to research issues in business ethics and advocacy for HR professionals.

Join now or log in to start viewing answers.
Report DMCA

NITKKRA+ 1396 TUTOR Posted 3102. Sold 3556. Bought 3. Asked 5. Solution preview:

Attachments
HRM 522 Case Study 2 National Collegiate Athletic Association Ethics and Compliance Program.docx
*
INTRODUCTION
Football has bee a big revenue generator for many colleges as it ****** * **** ** *** ******* **** **** ******* ****** ******** **** **** ** broadcast **** ******* ******** ******** ******* ** **** popularity, *** importance ** ******** ***** *** increased ******* ****** ******** ******* ******** **** ***** ******** *** ** ***** activities **** encouraging ****** ** ****** ** ******** programs, ******* ***** ** *** ******* ***
**** popularity ** ******** **** ***** *** ******* ******* *** ******** *** **** *** **** * *** ** **** *** increased ***** *** ****** *** ***** ******** ******** administrators **** pressurised ** ***** ***** *** *** ***** **** ****** **** *** misconduct ** ******* ****** ******** ** ******** ******* ******** ** ** *** responsibility ** *** ******* administration ** **** *** misbehaviour *** inculcate ******* behaviour ** **** ****** **** (National ******* ******** Association) *** ****** ** ******** *** unethical practices ***** student-athletes
* Determine *** fundamental **** ** ***** *** ***** ****** ******* ****** ** ******* *** ******** ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ******* **** ******** **** *** *** ******* **** **** ** ***** ******* ********
****** ***** *** **** ***** *** regulations ** ***** ***** *** **** practices ** organisation ***** *** ** ***** embarrassment **** ****** ******* *** student-athletes ** ****** ***** **** ******* **** ******* *** **** ***** ** *** ******** *** *** ***** **** outsiders *** ***** restricted ******* **** ** **** ******* ******** ***** *** ****** **** ***** ** ******* **** ******* ** ******* *** ***** activities sometimes ***** *** ****** organisation ** **** *** ** ** ****** ** ***** *** (Schwartz, *****
Sometimes, investigators ** ******* *** **** ***** ** *** **** evidences *** * **** ****** ** ** *** ** *** ***** **** unethical ******** ** **** embarrassed *** ****** organisation *** **** **** ***** ** *** **** ******** ****** **** ***** **** ***** ** **** ******** Integrity agreement *** ******* ** **** ***** *** ****** ******* ** **** violations ** ******** *** *** ******** ** ***** ******* **** ***** ****** **** *** **** ***** *** regulations **** **** ****** *** situation ******** ******* Fisscher, **** ***** ** ** Arkansas, *** ******* ******** ******* ** misconduct ** **** ***** ** recruited * ******* *** ***** **** **** conflicts ** ***** ******** relationship ***** ** ******* *** ***** ** **** **** **** ***** *** ***** ** * ***** **** ** *** **** ** ** ** *** ****** *** *** ******** performance
* ******* *** principal **** ** ***** *** leadership ** *** **** contributed ** *** ******* violations ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ******* **** ******** **** *** *** ******* **** **** ** ***** ******* ********
***** *** evidences ***** **** **** ** organization ***** formulates ******* **** ** ******* ****** ******** ******* principles *** **** ****** *** **** ******* violation ** *** **** leadership Generally, *** ***** *** regulations *** implemented ** *** ******* ** organization ******* leadership qualities ** **** leadership contributes ** ******* violations, **** *** followers ******* **** ****** ** *** administration
**** ** ******* ******** ** *** **** ** **** ***** ******* ***** *** **** ** **** ******** *** ***** ** organization ** investigating * **** Similarly, ** *** ***** ** **** ****** *** *** ** Arkansas, leadership ** **** contributed ** ******* violations
* ******* *** *** differences ** *** scenarios **** ******** ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ** ** effective ****** ******* *** ** ***** ******* * rationale *** **** ********
** **** ***** ******** **** directors ******** ***** ***** *** ******* *** ** **** *** investigation ** *** **** **** ****** ******* ** *** ****** ** *** *** ******** sanctions ******* **** ***** ******** **** ******* **** corrective ***** *** ***** **** ***** ** **** ******** agreement ***** **** ** ** **** ***** corrective ****** recruitment ** ******* ******** ******** ** ******* ***** **** disclosure ******** ******** ******* ******** athletes’ **** ** ******** ******** *** education *** ***** ***** **** **** ** ****** ******* ** **** ***** **** internally *** externally
**** ******* ** *** ****** ** misconduct ** **** *** ***** *** *** student-athletes *** student-athletes ******** **** *** ******* **** ******* *** ** ** ******** restricted ** **** ***** *** ***** ******* *** ******* ****** ** ** ***** ** *** ***** ** **** ** ***** ** ******** **** **** ** *** ******** ******* **** **** *** ** **** *** incident, **** ***** *** ***** *** **** ***** cooperated **** **** ****** ***** responsibility *** ******* ** ** ******** ** **** ** *** ***** *** * student-athlete **** *** * ******** ** ***** ******** relationship ***** ******** *** **** *** ***** **** ***** *** ****** ** ** ***** *** *** ******** abilities
* Postulate ** *** *** ******* **** *** **** leadership ****** **** ** ***** ** ****** *** ***** *** confidence ** ******** *** stakeholders
******* ** *** ******* **** ** *** directors ** **** ** violating ****** ** **** *** ***** ***** ******** *** stakeholders (Schwartz, ***** **** ****** **** ******** *** ***** **** *** investigation ** *** ***** ** ** ******* ***** ***** *** regulations *** ** *** ** *** embarrassment ** *** ****** organisation *** ***** ** * **** ** **** ******* ** *** leadership ** **** confidence ** **** ******** *** stakeholders ***** confidence ** ****** essential *** *** ****** ******* ** *** organisation *** ***** ** **** **** **** ****** ** *** ******** ******* *** ******* **** ** ** ******* ***** confidence
*** ***** ****** **** ****** **** ***** ** **** leadership ** ** ******** transparency Transparency *** ****** ***** ** ** ***** *** *** investigation *** ***** ***** **** ** **** ****** ***** *** happenings ** *** organisation ****** * ** ******* * ** ***** *** ***** ****** **** *** leadership ** **** ****** **** ** maintaining ****** ** *** *** organisation **** ** ** maintains ****** ***** *** employees, ** *** ****** ******* restrictions *** ******* ***** ** *** ******** administrators, ******* *** (McKendall, ******* Jones-Rikkers ***** ***** **** motivates *** ******** *** ******* ** ****** ****** ** ***** **** ** *** ****** organisation ****** ** following ****
* ****** *** *** ***** **** *** ** departments ** ******** *** universities ****** **** ** ******* ******* incidents **** occurring ** *** ****** ******* * rationale *** **** ********
**** ******** ******** ** ******* ******** *** universities *** ** ** *** ******** Collegiate ******** Association **** ****** *** *** ***** *** regulations ** *** ******* *** ******* **** *** ******* ****** *** ******* ******* ** ***** ** ******** ******* ******* ** ******** ******* *** administrators ****** ***** *** **** ***** implemented ** *** organization *** ******* ******** ******** *** ***** ***** ******** ** ***** ****** (Cameron, ******* ****** ***** ****** administration ** ******** *** universities ****** **** **** **** ** implementing *** ******* *******
** ** ****** ** **** ******* **** *** cooperation ** **** ***** **** **** ** **** *** ******* ******* *** ****** *** ******** ** ** *** ** department **** ****** **** **** ***** ** ******* **** ******** **** occurring *** ** department ****** regularly implement **** ******* ******** ***** inculcates ****** ***** *** ******* *** ******* * ******* Sentencing Guidelines * ***** *** ***** **** ** ******* **** ******** ** ** co-operate **** ** *** investigation **** ******* **** **** *** organization cooperate ***** **** **** ** reluctant ** ******* **** ********
CONCLUSION
** *** ****** ** occurrence ** ******* scandals, ******* ******** ****** ** considered ** isolation ** *** **** ** *** organization (Schwartz, ***** ******* *** ******* ******** ****** ** implemented ** *** organization *** ** ****** ** maintained ** * **** ** ******* ******** ******** ***** **** integrated ******** ***** ** ****** performance ** *** organization *** ***** ** **** *** *** ****** ** *** ****** ******** Organizations **** **** *** ****** ** ***** ** * ****** ** **** ******** occurring ** ******* ***** **** ******** ****** ******* *** ******* ******* ** **** ** ****** appreciated *** ******* *** ** ** **** *** effective implementation
REFERENCES
******* * ******* “Writings ** ** ******* ******** ****** ******* Publishers * ******
******* Sentencing Guidelines ******* “Chapter * * **** * * Remedying **** **** Criminal”
******** * ****** *** Effective Corporate ***** ** ****** Perceptions ** **** ******** ******* ** ******** ****** *****–***
******* * ** ****** * ** ***** * * ***** ******* “Positive Organizational Scholarship Foundations ** * *** discipline”, *** Francisco Berrett-Koehler
***** * ** ******* * * ****** ******* ******** **** ** ****** Initiative **** differences ******* ****** *** practice”, ******* ** ******** ****** ********
McKendall ** ****** ** Jones-Rikkers * ****** “Ethical Compliance ******** *** Corporate Illegality ******* *** Assumptions ** *** Corporate Sentencing Guidelines”, ******* ** ******** ****** *****–***
****** ** ****** ** ******** ** **** * ****** “Mering *** Implementation ** ***** ** ******* ** Assessment ****** ***** ** * ******* ******** ** *** Responsible Organization”, ******* ** ******** ******* ****–**Price: $37.00

EVELYNF 10 TUTOR Posted 175. Sold 46. Bought 1. Solution preview:
Determine the fundamental ways in which the NCAA’s ethics program failed to pr***** *** ******** ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ******* **** ******** **** *** *** ******* **** **** ** ***** schools’ ******** ******* *** principal **** ** ***** *** leadership ** *** **** contributed ** *** ******* violations ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ******* **** ******** **** *** *** ******* **** **** ** ***** schools’ ******** ******* *** *** differences ** *** scenarios **** ******** ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ** ** effective ****** ******* *** ** ***** ******* * rationale *** **** ******** Postulate ** *** *** ******* **** *** **** leadership ****** **** ** ***** ** ****** *** ***** *** confidence ** ******** *** stakeholders ****** *** *** ***** **** *** ** departments ** ******** *** universities ****** **** ** ******* ******* incidents **** occurring ** *** ****** ******* * rationale *** **** ******** *** ** ***** ***** *** ******* ******** resources ** **** assignment **** Wikipedia *** ***** ******* ******** ** *** ******* ** ******** resources **** assignment **** ****** ***** formatting requirements

Attachments
Penn State and the University of Arkansas.doc
APA Format *th Edition TemplateAssignment Grading
Course Name

* Determine the fundamental **** ** ***** *** ******** ****** ******* ****** ** ******* *** ******** ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ******* **** ******** **** *** *** ******* **** **** ** ***** schools’ ********
***** **** ******* ******* *** ** ***** ******** ******* ******* *** ****** ** ******* *** ******** ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** * ****** **** ******* ** *** ***** **** ***** ** ** Arkansas, *** **** * ***** **** ** *** **** ** ***** *** ****** **** *** ****** **** *** ******* * ****** ** ******* **** ******** ** ***** institution couldn’t ******* **** *** situation ******** ***** ***** *** ******* ******** ** ***** ** ******** *** ****** ** *** Universities *** ** Universities ***** **** ** ***** **** **** *** **** ** ***** institution ***** ** ******* ** *** ****** ** inspection ** ***** *** ** *** *** ******* ***** *** ******** ******* policies, **** ****** November)
***** * ** explaining *** situation **** ******* **** considered ***** *** investigation; ****** **** ******* ** *** ******* **** **** ****** November), ******* *** ****** ** *** ******* ****** opportunities ** ******** **** displayed “totally disregard” *** ******** **** ***** victimized ** Sandusky, *** ******** **** ***** repeatedly portrayed ** *** group’s **** ******** ****** ****** * **** conference **** **** ***** **** **** ***** **** **** **** ** **** according ** ****** correspondence, **** ******** ******* * ***** *** ** ****** ******** ******** ******* policies”
******** ******* ***** **** *** ******** ***** **** ****** ** ******** executives ** ******** **** ****** November);
** **** ******** ******* *** inspection ** ***** ** ***** ** ****** **** Universities ** ******** **** **** following *** ******* ******** ** ****** ** ***** ****** *** education
** ***** **** **** awareness ** ******** ***** **** ******* practices; ** **** **** ***** * ***** ** ***** ******* *** ********
** ******** **** ******** doesn’t ******* ******* **** ** ******* **** considerable **** *** regulations ** ***** ** **** *** ******** *** ****** ** **** ****** *****
** ******* ** ******** leadership ** ***** **** **** leadership ***** **** associated **** ******** **** *** ***** **** ******** ** ******** ** ***** ** ******* *** anticipated *****
* ******* *** principal **** ** ***** *** leadership ** *** **** contributed ** *** ******* violations ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ******* **** ******** **** *** *** ******* **** **** ** ***** schools’ ********
***** *** **** ***** * ***** **** ***** **** ******* **** **** well-aware **** ***** ******** *** ******* ******** ** institutions ** universities, ******** *** **** ****** **** ***** ** **** ***** ******* ******** *** **** ******* ******** **** ***** ***** *** ******* ******** violation, **** **** **** ******* ******** ******** ** ***** institution *** ******** ****** *** **** ******* ** **** *** universities ******** **** **** ******* regulations, ** ***** *** ******** **** **** policies, ** decision-making ******** ***
Additionally ** * discussed ****** *** ******** ******** ****** contained ** ******** ******** addressing appropriate punishment *** concealing information regarding ***** ****** ***** ** *** * ******** ******* ** **** State’s leadership, **** ******** ******** ** ***** ****** * *** **** **** **** **** *** authority ** ** **** *** ****** ******* ** **** **** *** ******* ***** ******** ******** **** ****** November)
***** ******** ***** **** leadership ** ******** *** ******** determined *** officials’ unintelligibly **** **** decisions ***** ******* **** ***** ****** ** ***** ******** publicity **** ***** ****** *** ****** *** *** ******* **** State’s *** ******* ** reverence *** *** ******** ******* *** *** ****** **** ****** ******* ** *** protecting *** ******* ***** ** protecting underprivileged ***** **** ** **** ****** ****** ******** **** * ***** rapist”
* ******* *** *** differences ** *** scenarios **** ******** ** **** ****** **** ****** *** *** ** ******** ** ** effective ****** ******* *** ** ***** ******* * rationale *** **** ********
**** *** ******** ******** ****** ** ******** ******* regulations *** **** *** ******** regulations ** ******* practices ******** ***** **** *** differences ***** **** ******** ****** ***** ****** ** universities *** **** ****** November);
**** ***** Concerned ********
** ******** Concerned ********
**** *** *** ******** ** ******* ‘over-reaction’ ** ******** ***** *** ******* *** ******** ******** ******* ** **** *** ******** **** **** ****
**** **** ******** *** ** ******** ** **** ***** * *** institution ** **** ** enforcement ***** *** **** ******* ** **** **** ***** **** six-member ***** ** *** ****** initially considered **** **** ******* *** cooperative ******* disposition ******* ** ***** *** *** ******* ****** ** ******* ****** violations *** violation ******* ** ***** *** ***** ** *** ******* disposition ******
***** *** *** ******* ******** ** ***** violation
**** **** *** something ***** *** ******** ******* ******** ***** **** associated **** ******** **** ****** ** **** *** ******** *** *** ******
Leadership ******** ***** **** **** ****** ** introduced **** unethical practices
***** *** ****** ******** ***** *** ****** ** unethical practices
* Postulate ** *** *** ******* **** *** **** leadership ****** **** ** ***** ** ****** *** ***** *** confidence ** ******** *** stakeholders
******** Leadership **** ******** *** ***** ******* regulations ** ***** ** ******* **** situations couldn’t ***** ** ****** ** ******** *** ****** ** **** *******
***** * ** introducing *** ******* **** ** ******* **** **** ** initiated ** ****** ** ******** *** ***** ****** ** institutions;
******
** **** diversity *** ******* ******** *** ****** institutional education ********
** ******* assistance ** ****** *** ******** ** **** **** ***** ** **** ** ** ***** **** effectively
** Motivational recognition ** ****** *** ****** acplishment *** ********
** Effective ******** *** collaboration ** institutional *******
Efficient Management **** Integrity
** *** ******** ***** ** ****** ******* ** *** institution
** ******* ******* ***** *** regulation
Commitment ******* ****
** ****** ******** responsibility ** **** *** institutional mitments; ** accountable
Excellence
** ****** productivity, ******** ******* **** ******** practices *** merements
** ****** ******* *** *** ****
* ****** *** *** ***** **** *** ** departments ** ******** *** universities ****** **** ** ******* ******* incidents **** occurring ** *** ****** ******* * rationale *** **** ********
** Department ****** considered *** ***** directions ** ***** ******* **** **** incidences, *** ****** ** **** *******
** **** ***** **** *** *** ******** conflicts ** *** ****** *** **** ** leadership *** *** ** ******* ******** *** institution *****
** **** ***** *** ****** ******* regulations ** *** ******* ** ***** ** *** institutions
References
**** ****** November), ******** * Athletics Certification Self-Study ****** Washington ***** Retrieved **** Price: $15.00

  • We offer what we promise and unlike others our support staffs are online 24/7. We guarantee money back if you do not get value for your Money.
  • The calculator below shall help you compute your pay for this assignment or any other assignment.
  • WE OFFER 6 HRS URGENT ORDERS AS WELL

Use DISCOUNT CODE DISC15 to enjoy 15% Discount on all orders while at the order page.
Do you need any clarifications ?????????
Contact our support staff ONLINE NOW via the CHAT.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: