How to Identify the Type of Ethical Dilemma in WGU C717 Task 2
Reading Time: 6 minutes
How to Identify the Type of Ethical Dilemma in WGU C717 Task 2
By Dan Palmer, MBA
Section A of WGU C717 Task 2 asks you to name the ethical dilemma in your scenario before you analyze it — and this is the step where I see students lose points on an otherwise strong paper. Not because they can’t write about ethics generally, but because they label the dilemma too broadly (“this is an ethics problem”) instead of naming the specific category the rubric is actually checking for.
Here’s how to pin down the category correctly, using the Markkula Center’s framework as a working tool rather than just a definitions list.
Why “there’s an ethical issue here” isn’t specific enough
A common first draft looks like this:
There is an ethical issue in this scenario because the manager’s decision could be seen as wrong.
That sentence is true but does no analytical work. The rubric wants you to name the category of ethical issue — conflict of interest, favoritism, breach of confidentiality, discrimination, retaliation — because the category determines which employee right or employer responsibility you’ll connect it to later in the paper. Get the category vague, and everything downstream gets vague with it.
The four categories that show up most often in C717 Task 2
Conflict of interest — a decision-maker has a personal stake (financial, relational, or otherwise) in the outcome of a decision they’re supposed to make impartially. The procurement-manager-and-friend’s-bid scenario is a textbook example: the manager’s friendship creates a stake in the outcome that competes with their duty to evaluate bids on merit.
Favoritism in advancement or treatment — an employee receives (or is denied) an opportunity, promotion, or benefit based on a personal relationship or bias rather than merit. This is distinct from conflict of interest in that it’s about an outcome being unfairly influenced, not necessarily about a formal decision-making role being compromised.
Breach of confidentiality or trust — information that should have stayed private (personnel decisions, performance discussions, disciplinary matters) is exposed or overheard in a way that damages trust or violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Retaliation or unsafe reporting environment — an employee faces (or fears) negative consequences for raising a legitimate concern, which connects directly to the whistleblower-protection right most C717 Task 2 rubrics expect you to reference.
A single scenario can genuinely raise more than one of these — the promotion/overheard-conversation scenario, for instance, often touches both favoritism and breach-of-confidentiality at once. When that happens, name the primary dilemma clearly in your first sentence, then acknowledge the secondary issue explicitly rather than blending them into one vague description.
Applying the Markkula framework to name it precisely
The Markkula Center’s ethical decision-making framework starts with a deceptively simple question: “Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient?” Asking that question of your specific scenario is usually enough to separate a true ethical dilemma from a simple policy violation. A procurement manager violating a written no-favoritism policy is a compliance issue; the ethical dilemma underneath it is the conflict of interest that made the policy necessary in the first place. Naming the ethical dilemma, not just the policy violation, is what the rubric is actually checking for.
A worked example
Using the fictitious Crestview Regional Hospital scenario style consistent with other Gradevia guides — a facilities manager who oversees vendor contracts learns that his brother-in-law’s company has submitted the lowest-cost bid for a maintenance contract:
Vague (avoid this):
This is an ethical issue because it doesn’t look good for the manager to choose his brother-in-law’s company.
Specific (aim for this):
This scenario presents a conflict of interest: the facilities manager has a personal relationship with a bidder that creates a competing incentive to his professional duty to evaluate vendor bids objectively, regardless of whether the brother-in-law’s bid is, in fact, the most cost-effective option.
Notice the second version names the category (conflict of interest), identifies the specific competing incentive (personal relationship vs. professional duty), and explicitly separates the ethical question from the factual question of whether the bid itself is legitimate — a distinction the rubric rewards because it shows you understand that a conflict of interest is a problem regardless of whether the outcome happens to be fine.
Common mistakes that blur the category
- Naming the emotion instead of the dilemma — “this makes employees feel bad” describes an effect, not the ethical category causing it.
- Jumping straight to the resolution — recommending what the manager should do before you’ve clearly named what the dilemma is tends to produce a resolution that doesn’t fully address the actual issue.
- Treating “unethical” as the category — it’s a conclusion, not a classification. The rubric wants the specific type of issue, not just a judgment that something is wrong.
- Ignoring the secondary issue when a scenario raises two — if your scenario touches both favoritism and confidentiality, addressing only one leaves half the analysis on the table.
Third-Party Resources
- A Framework for Ethical Decision Making — Markkula Center for Applied Ethics — the six-lens framework (rights, justice, utilitarian, common good, virtue, care) this guide draws on for separating ethical categories from policy or legal questions.
- Government Ethics: Conflicts of Interest — Markkula Center for Applied Ethics — a deeper look at conflict-of-interest as a distinct ethical category, useful if your scenario centers on a decision-maker with a personal stake.
Frequently Asked Questions
What if my scenario doesn’t clearly fit any of the four categories above? These four cover the categories that show up most often in circulated C717 Task 2 submissions, not an exhaustive list. If your specific scenario is genuinely different, apply the same underlying test — ask what competing interest, relationship, or informational imbalance is creating the ethical tension — rather than forcing it into one of these four labels.
Do I need to name the dilemma using this exact terminology (e.g., “conflict of interest”)? Using the standard terminology helps signal to the evaluator that you understand the category precisely, rather than describing it in only informal terms. It’s not about using jargon for its own sake — it’s about precision.
How long should the dilemma-identification section be? Usually a short paragraph is enough — one or two sentences naming and defining the category, followed by a sentence connecting it to the specific facts of your scenario. This section sets up the rest of the paper; it doesn’t need to carry the full analysis itself.
For the complete rubric breakdown and a fully worked sample, see the WGU C717 Task 2 guide. To confirm which scenario variant you’re working with first, see FZP1 vs. EKP1: Which WGU C717 Task 2 Scenario Do I Have?. For sourcing your analysis, see How to Cite Sources for WGU C717 Task 2.
Not sure which category fits your specific scenario? Message me on WhatsApp and I can help you think it through.
Dan Palmer, MBA, writes WGU MBA course guides for Gradevia, focusing on the quantitative and analytics-heavy courses (C200, C207, C211, C213, C214, C717).