Week 5 — Fewer Positions, More Questions: A Laundry Weighs Automation

Assignment 5 of the term — count what an automation decision does to a workforce, weigh it from both positions on a corporation's purpose, and explain the debate to someone new to business.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, checkable analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the work you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Business Case Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put the net change in positions, the two positions on a corporation's purpose, and the ethical-reasoning questions together on one small case.

The task

The case is illustrative, built for this course and not real data. A commercial laundry washes and folds sheets and towels for hotels in its city. It is a corporation owned by stockholders, and it is weighing whether to automate its folding line. Like the appliance-parts plant in this week's chapter, the case has no named people and no verdict.

The laundry's counts, line by line:

• Employees before automation: 64 employees.
• Positions the folding machines would eliminate: 18 positions.
• Workers the laundry would retrain to run and maintain the machines: 7 of those 18 workers.

Work these two problems, showing every subtraction:

1. How many positions is the net change in positions if the laundry automates its folding line?
2. How many employees would the laundry have after automating?

Beside each answer, add a brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: explain why the net change is smaller than the 18 positions eliminated, using the term net change in positions, and name the stakeholders by role who gain and who give something up, at least two of each.
• Problem 2: state the strongest reason for the decision from the shareholder position, Friedman (1970), with both of its limits, and the strongest reason from the stakeholder position, Freeman (1984), without choosing between them; then run the three ethical-reasoning questions on one choice the laundry faces in how it tells its workers about the change.

Explain it to a non-expert

A relative who works at a hotel asks you, "Isn't a company only supposed to care about profits?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains the two positions on what a corporation is for, says that corporate social responsibility means more than giving to charity, and names one limit, including that the laundry case is illustrative and that this course gives no verdict on the debate. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible, and the message gives no legal advice.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a small bus company that switches to an app for ticket sales. Model answer: "Some people argue a company's managers work for its owners, so they should earn a profit for them, but only within the law and ethical custom. Others argue a company should be run for everyone its choices touch, like drivers, riders, and the town. Being responsible also means earning enough to stay open, obeying the law, and treating people fairly, not only donating. This is a made-up example, and reasonable people still disagree about which view is right."

Use that pattern for the laundry, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, both interpretations, and your message to the relative before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show each subtraction when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one number or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introduction-to-business course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about the net change in positions, the shareholder and stakeholder positions on a corporation's purpose, and the ethical-reasoning questions. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a quotation, or a fact about a real company, and never give me legal advice. The two positions are argued terrain: never pick a side for me.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The case: an illustrative commercial laundry, a corporation owned by stockholders, built for my course and not real data. In this course, the net change in positions is the positions an automation decision eliminates minus the workers retrained into new roles; the shareholder position is the view argued by Friedman (1970) that, within the law and ethical custom, a corporate executive's duty runs to the owners who employ them; the stakeholder position is the view set out by Freeman (1984) that a firm is managed for everyone who can affect it or is affected by it; and the ethical-reasoning questions are: is it legal, is it fair to everyone it touches, and would I be comfortable if it were public.
PROBLEM P1: In the illustrative commercial laundry, automating the folding line would eliminate 18 positions, and the laundry would retrain 7 of those workers to run and maintain the machines. How many positions is the net change in positions?
PROBLEM P2: In the illustrative commercial laundry, which has 64 employees, automating the folding line would eliminate 18 positions, and the laundry would retrain 7 of those workers to run and maintain the machines. How many employees would the laundry have after automating?
After the two answers, I must interpret each one: for P1, explain why the net change is smaller than the 18 positions eliminated, using the term net change in positions, and name the stakeholders by role who gain and who give something up, at least two of each; for P2, state the strongest reason from the shareholder position with both of its limits and the strongest reason from the stakeholder position without choosing between them, then run the three ethical-reasoning questions on one choice the laundry faces in how it tells its workers. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a relative explaining the two positions, that corporate social responsibility means more than giving to charity, and one limit, including that the case is illustrative and that my course gives no verdict. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct numbers (20 points), business reasoning (48 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing the work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 number points, 12 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 3 showing-the-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P2, not again with P1.
NUMBER UNITS: A correct amount = 2; an amount that is off because of one arithmetic slip or one missed line, with the work shown = 1; a missing amount or an amount with no work behind it = 0.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, BOTH the net change explained as positions eliminated minus workers retrained AND at least two stakeholders by role who gain and two who give something up = 2; exactly one of those parts = 1; neither = 0. For P2, BOTH positions stated at full strength, the shareholder position with its two limits, with no verdict, AND the three ethical-reasoning questions run on how the laundry tells its workers, plus a relative's message with the two positions, the point about charity, and a limit = 2. If full P2 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and using 18 as the net change, stating the shareholder position as anything goes, treating legal as the same as ethical, or reading corporate social responsibility as charity only is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to business, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P2 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-THE-WORK UNITS: For each problem, every subtraction written out with the lines it uses = 2; some steps shown but the amount cannot be fully rebuilt = 1; an amount alone or no work = 0. Visible work stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both answers and their interpretations AND written my message to the relative AND revised at least one number or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score and do not round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my numbers, work, and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both answers, their interpretations, and your message to the relative — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the laundry's positions before and after with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 5 skills — computing the net change in positions for an automation decision, naming stakeholders by role, presenting the shareholder and stakeholder positions with their reasons and without a verdict, and running the ethical-reasoning questions — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, both interpretations, and the message to the relative. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one number or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The numbers, the work, the reasoning, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and do not let it invent facts about the laundry, any real company, or any real scandal. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com