BSB250 – Week 1 Lecture & Discussion Notes

Lecturer opens by welcoming students to BSB250 and immediately plays a video whose key line is “Deception is not ethical.”
- Purpose of the video: provoke thinking about why a business‐citizenship course should start with an ethics clip.
- Immediate discussion prompt: “What possible relevance does that have?” Students are asked to chat with peers.

A single decision in business can be judged on three separate dimensions:
- Legal: Is the action permitted by law?
- Ethical: Does the action align with moral principles?
- Economic: Is it financially prudent?
A choice can satisfy one or two dimensions while failing the third (e.g.
- Legal + ethical but financially unsound;
- Profitable + legal yet unethical, etc.).
The course will focus primarily on building a framework for the first two non-economic dimensions:
- Understanding legal reasoning (agency law, vicarious liability, organisational structures).
- Understanding ethical reasoning at scale inside organisations.
Explicit statement: “None of this is going to be trying to change your ethical perspective.”
- Ethics is acknowledged as a belief system, not an empirically provable fact.

Modern business = working in and through organisations.
Key question: How do you scale both legal compliance and ethical behaviour?
- Legal scaling: use of formal structures, documented responsibilities, agency relationships.
- Ethical scaling: creation of values statements, codes of conduct, culture, training.

Readings + Podcasts will supply much of the knowledge transfer so in-class time can be interactive.
Lecturer repeatedly asks questions for two main reasons:
1. Brain activation – forces immediate processing.
2. Practice testing – one of the most effective evidence-based study techniques.
Recommended study cycle includes multiple exposures to material; a rough sequence: \text{Exposures} = {\text{Reading} \rightarrow \text{Lecture} \rightarrow \text{Tutorial Prep} \rightarrow \text{Tutorial} \rightarrow \text{Reflection}}
- By exam time, additional cramming should be minimal if exposure cycle is followed.
In-class peer discussion (“turn to the person beside you”) provides the same cognitive benefits as answering publicly but lowers anxiety.
Time management inside a 1-hour lecture: ethical obligation to balance lecturer’s material with student contributions.

Prompt: Which relationships help more with career success—close friends or acquaintances?
- Consensus: Acquaintances (weak ties) are often more valuable for finding opportunities (e.g. first jobs).
Concepts introduced:
- Loose ties: people you kinda know; they possess non-overlapping information.
- Structural holes: gaps between social groups (e.g. Business School vs Mathematics faculty). Bridging these yields novel information and opportunities.

One student is crocheting a glow-in-the-dark top for a November Addison Rae concert.
- Crafting described as good for mental health and memory—parallel drawn to studying benefits.
Another student recently took up sewing; class camaraderie around creative hobbies fosters informal networks.
Students debate benefits of in-lecture participation vs. respect for limited class time—ties back to ethical decision-making about fairness.

Student voices: Ethics is “situational,” “fluid,” “an opinion,” varies by culture, country, faith.
Wish expressed for a universal standard, quickly critiqued as impractical by peers (“Freaking idiot argument” said tongue-in-cheek).
Lecturer hints most moral theorists recognise absolute standards can exist, yet expressions vary contextually.

Complete assigned readings before lectures to maximise the effectiveness of practice testing.
Seek or create multiple exposures (>5) to each key concept—reading, listening, speaking, writing, reflecting.
Build professional networks by bridging structural holes; actively connect with acquaintances beyond immediate friend group.
Reflect on legal vs ethical vs economic dimensions in any business scenario; practice classifying real-world decisions accordingly.