WGU C206 Task 1 Guide: Ethical Theories and Ethical Lens Inventory

Updated on: Jul 08, 2026

WGU C206 Task 1 Guide and Example: Ethical Theories and Ethical Lens Inventory

WGU C206 Task 1 requires you to complete the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI), apply your results alongside ethical theory frameworks to analyze a fixed ethical dilemma scenario, and articulate your personal ethical decision-making process — in a structured analytical paper of approximately 5–8 pages with APA citations. This guide walks through the ELI, all major ethical theories, and the dilemma analysis structure with an annotated sample you can study before writing your own.

The Task 1 scenario is fixed: you are a sales representative for a medical device company whose artificial knee joint is known to cause serious, potentially lethal, infections in a small percentage of patients. The company refuses to disclose this risk. You signed a nondisclosure agreement. This guide shows how to navigate the dilemma analytically using the rubric’s required framework.

See the WGU C206 Task 2 guide and WGU C206 Task 3 guide for the organizational ethics and code of ethics tasks.

Assignment

Introduction

Leadership is often defined as the ability to influence people. An effective ethical leader guides an organization and its employees to accomplish organizational goals. In the same vein, an unethical leader can guide an organization and its employees to act unethically, harming both the organization and the stakeholders. Being a leader is an exploration, a reflection, and a test of your leadership values.

Seeking understanding of how you resolve ethical dilemmas, taking inventory of where an ethical weakness may lie, and examining the traits of an ethical leader helps you define, shape, and apply an ethical decision-making framework, while also taking into consideration all stakeholders who may be affected by your decisions.

For this task, you will respond to an ethical situation as well as analyze the results of the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI), which should be completed in the course. This task focuses on you as a leader by helping you to define, refine, and test your ethical boundaries through self-reflection and analysis.

Scenario

You are a sales representative for a medical device company that manufactures artificial joints. Your company has developed an artificial knee joint that is less expensive than the competition and will dramatically reduce healing time for patients. However, it is also known to produce a serious and potentially lethal infection in a small percentage of patients. The company refuses to disclose this potential side effect. You feel you have a duty to divulge this issue, but you signed a nondisclosure agreement when you were hired and worry about possible repercussions.

Requirements

Your submission must represent your original work and understanding of the course material. Most performance assessment submissions are automatically scanned through the WGU similarity checker.

Students are strongly encouraged to wait for the similarity report to generate after uploading their work and then review it to ensure Academic Authenticity guidelines are met before submitting the file for evaluation. See Understanding Similarity Reports for more information.

Grammarly Note:

Professional Communication will be automatically assessed through Grammarly for Education in most performance assessments before a student submits work for evaluation. Students are strongly encouraged to review the Grammarly for Education feedback prior to submitting work for evaluation, as the overall submission will not pass without this aspect passing. See Use Grammarly for Education Effectively for more information.

Microsoft Files Note:

Write your paper in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) unless another Microsoft product, or pdf, is specified in the task directions. Tasks may notbe submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc. All supporting documentation, such as screenshots and proof of experience, should be collected in a pdf file and submitted separately from the main file. For more information, please see Computer System and Technology Requirements.

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

Write an essay (suggested length of 6–8 pages) in which you do the following:

A. Select a nonfictional leader who you feel has exhibited exemplary ethical conduct and do the following:

1. 1. Discuss two ethical traits your chosen leader has demonstrated
   2. Explain how your chosen leader has exhibited ethical conduct

Note: The chosen leader can be someone you know personally or someone famous.

B. Compare the deontological and consequentialist perspectives and how each perspective would approach the dilemma from the scenario.

C. Identify and explain which level of cognitive moral development (i.e., preconventional, conventional, or postconventional) is represented in the scenario for each of the following questions:

• Which action would most likely serve the greater good in society?
• If I reveal this information, will I get into trouble and possibly even lose my job?
• Which action best aligns with my long-held belief in the principle of justice?
• What do the laws say, and what would a law-abiding citizen do?
• If I keep quiet, will I get some sort of reward?

D. Reflect on your Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) by doing the following:

1. 1. Explain your preferred ethical lens, relevant to the ELI

a. Analyze whether you have the same preferred lens in different settings (e.g., work, personal, social).

2. Explain one of your primary values and one classical virtue from the

Note: If you are a Center Perspective, choose any primary value.

a. Compare your primary value from part D2 with one of your own self-identified or personal Then compare your classical virtue from part D2 with a different self-identified or personal value.

Note: Examples of personal values can be found in the attached “Clarifying Your Values” chart.

3. Describe one of the following from your ELI:

• blind spot
• risk
• double standard
• vice

a. Discuss two steps you can take to mitigate the blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice described in part D3 in order to make better ethical decisions in the future

4. Discuss how the information from your ELI could be applied to an ethical situation in the workplace

E. Submit a copy of the PDF file with the results from your ELI as a separate document

F. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized

G. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your

What Is WGU C206 Task 1?

WGU C206 Task 1 is an ethical theories and personal ethics analysis, requiring you to complete the ELI assessment, reflect on your ethical lens results, apply two or more ethical theories to a medical device dilemma scenario, evaluate your decision options, and articulate what you would do and why.

C206 (Ethical Leadership) is a core MBA course covering ethical decision-making, leadership responsibility, and corporate ethics. Task 1 is the most personal of the three tasks — it connects your individual ethical framework (revealed through the ELI) to real-world ethical dilemmas. Tasks 2 and 3 shift to organizational and institutional ethics.

Important: C206 has two versions; EH1/KTP2 and EHM2. The scenario described in this guide reflects the current EHM2 version (medical device). Confirm your version with your program mentor before submitting.

Step 1: Complete the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI)

The ELI is a required prerequisite for Task 1; complete it before writing your paper and save the PDF.

Access the ELI through your C206 course materials. It takes 15–30 minutes and identifies your preferred ethical lens; the framework through which you naturally evaluate ethical situations. Save the results PDF immediately; you must attach it to your submission.

The four ELI lenses:

Most students have a preferred lens (their dominant ethical instinct) and a secondary lens. The ELI also identifies potential blind spots — areas where your preferred lens may lead to systematic ethical errors.

The Major Ethical Theories for C206 Task 1

You must apply at least two ethical theories to analyze the dilemma. Know each theory well enough to apply it to a specific scenario — not just define it.

Utilitarianism

The right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Consequences are all that matter; intentions and rules are secondary.

Applied to the medical device scenario: A utilitarian analysis must weigh the benefit to the majority of patients (effective, affordable knee replacement) against the harm to the minority (serious infection risk). If the benefit to 95% outweighs the harm to 5%, a utilitarian might argue non-disclosure is justified — but a utilitarian must also consider the long-term consequences: loss of public trust, legal liability, and the harm to future patients if the pattern continues.

Kantian Ethics (Deontology)

The right action is determined by duty and universal moral rules — not consequences. Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that you should act only according to rules you would want universalized for everyone.

Applied: A Kantian analysis holds that concealing known health risks from patients violates the duty to treat patients as ends in themselves, not merely as means to the company’s profit. If the rule “conceal product defects from users” were universalized, the entire medical device market would collapse — so the Categorical Imperative clearly condemns the non-disclosure.

Virtue Ethics

The right action is what a person of good character — possessing virtues like honesty, courage, integrity, and compassion — would do.

Applied: A virtue ethics analysis asks: what would a person of integrity do in this situation? Honesty requires disclosure; courage is required to act against the company’s directive; compassion demands prioritizing patient safety over personal job security. The virtuous action is to find a way to ensure patients are informed.

Stakeholder Theory

The right action considers the legitimate interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Leaders have ethical obligations to employees, customers, communities, and society as well as investors.

Applied: A stakeholder analysis identifies patients as primary stakeholders whose interest in informed medical decision-making is being violated. The company’s financial interest in concealment conflicts directly with patients’ right to safety information and with society’s interest in trustworthy medical markets.

Rights-Based Ethics

Every person has fundamental rights that cannot be violated even for good outcomes. Patient autonomy, the right to make informed decisions about one’s own medical care, is a foundational right in healthcare ethics.

Applied: Non-disclosure violates the patient’s right to informed consent, which is a cornerstone of medical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). A rights-based analysis holds that this right cannot be overridden by the company’s commercial interests.

How to Analyze the Dilemma

Structure your Task 1 analysis as follows:

Section A — ELI Reflection:

• Identify your preferred lens and secondary lens
• Explain what each lens means in your own words
• Reflect on how your preferred lens shapes how you instinctively approach the medical device dilemma
• Identify your ELI blind spot and acknowledge where your preferred lens might lead you astray

Section B — Ethical Theory Application:

• Select two or more theories from the list above
• Apply each theory to the specific facts of the scenario (not in the abstract)
• For each theory: state the key principle, apply it to the scenario, and state what action the theory recommends
• Identify where the theories agree and where they conflict

Section C — Decision and Justification:

• State clearly what you would do in this scenario
• Explain which ethical theory or combination of theories supports your decision
• Acknowledge the real consequences of your decision (NDA violation, job risk, potential legal exposure) and explain why the ethical obligation outweighs those risks
• Connect your decision back to your ELI lens

Section D — Personal Ethics Statement:

• Two to three paragraphs articulating your personal ethical framework as a leader
• Connect to your ELI results
• Reference at least one ethical theory that resonates most with your approach

Common C206 Task 1 Revision Triggers

• ELI reflection that defines the lenses rather than reflecting on what your specific results reveal about your ethical decision-making.
• Theory application that describes theories in the abstract without applying them to the specific facts of the medical device scenario.
• Decision section that avoids the real ethical tension — saying “I would follow company policy” without engaging with the patient safety obligation.
• Personal ethics statement that is generic — “I believe in doing the right thing” is not a personal ethics statement. Name your framework, cite a theory, and connect to your ELI results.
• Missing APA citations — all ethical theory claims need citations.

Community Tips

Compiled from student feedback, cohort discussions, and WGU community threads.

• Several students report that completing the ELI a day or two before writing (rather than right before) gives the results time to sit, which produces a more specific, less generic reflection.
• The convergence technique used in the sample above — showing two theories reaching the same conclusion through different reasoning — is a pattern several students say helped them pass Task 1 on the first attempt.
• Students who struggled with Section D (Personal Ethics Statement) often say the fix was naming one specific theory explicitly, rather than blending several without committing to one as primary.

Third-Party & Study Resources

• Ethical Lens Inventory — accessed directly through your WGU C206 course shell
• Google Scholar — useful for sourcing additional scholarly citations on Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, or healthcare ethics
• Studocu C206 Task 1 examples — student-submitted papers for general reference (your ELI results will differ from any sample, so use these for structure, not content)
• r/WGU_MBA on Reddit — thread history specifically on the ELI and Task 1 dilemma approach
• Quizlet C206 sets — useful for quickly reviewing ethical theory terminology (Kantian, utilitarian, virtue ethics) before writing

These are independent, freely available resources — we’re not affiliated with any of them, just pointing you toward what other students have found useful.

Frequently Asked Questions About WGU C206 Task 1

Do I need to complete the ELI before writing Task 1?

Yes. The ELI results are a required component of your Task 1 submission — you must attach the PDF and reflect on your specific lens results. You cannot write a credible ELI reflection without completing the assessment first.

How many ethical theories do I need to apply in C206 Task 1?

The rubric requires application of at least two ethical theories. Most passing submissions apply two to three theories. The medical device scenario is rich enough to support contrasting perspectives — choosing two theories that reach the same conclusion from different directions (as shown in the sample above) demonstrates stronger analytical thinking than choosing theories that trivially agree.

What should I decide in the Task 1 dilemma?

The rubric does not require a specific decision — it evaluates whether your decision is justified by your ethical analysis. That said, assessors expect you to engage seriously with the patient safety obligation. A decision to follow company policy without ethical analysis is unlikely to satisfy the rubric’s analytical depth requirements.

How long should C206 Task 1 be?

Most passing submissions are 5–8 pages. The ELI reflection, theory application, and decision sections each need substantive development. Thin sections that meet the topic without analytical depth are the primary revision trigger regardless of total page count.

Do I need citations for every ethical theory I mention?

Yes; cite the primary source or a scholarly secondary source for each theory you apply. Kant, Mill, Aristotle, and other foundational theorists have widely available scholarly editions. Healthcare ethics applications can cite Beauchamp and Childress (Principles of Biomedical Ethics) as a comprehensive source.

Author Bio

Dan Palmer, MBA

Has guided WGU MBA students through C206 and related ethics and leadership coursework, drawing on patterns across many student engagements.

LinkedIn

Article Update Log