Hopkins's Partnership To The Company example essay topic

Ann Hopkins Adianice Correa November 4, 2002 Ann Hopkins When an individual is qualified for a particular position in business, it is readily assumed by most people that this individual should be equally considered as other candidates, for the position in question. The most acceptable reason for Ann Hopkins to be made partner has to do with her credentials and experience. Price Waterhouse's Office of Government Services in Washington, D.C. had honored Hopkins for her "outstanding performance", and that "no other candidate's record for securing major contracts was comparable". (1) This nomination for Hopkins proved to show that she was equally if not more qualified for candidacy in favor of partnership that year. Hopkins has a clear interest in being facilitated with equal opportunity rights by means of being offered partnership to the company. Therefore, she feels that what is "morally right" for her is "morally right for others", where "everyone is of equal value".

(2) This has to do with the level of fairness as to how candidates are selected to become partners. After Hopkins initially learned that she was not going to be promoted, she discovered that one reason for her rejection towards partnership was for the reason that she "had irritated some senior partners", and that she "should look more toward appearing more feminine" and "dress less in 'power blues. ' " (3) If one were to rightfully oppose Hopkins from becoming a partner in Price Waterhouse, the reason would have to be that interference as to who does and doesn't become a partner in the company should not be acceptable. When Hopkins was informed that she was denied partnership, she decided that she was left with four options: leave the firm, join the international area to hopefully be proposed for partnership the year after, continue her work at Price Waterhouse, or sue the company with sex discrimination.

(4) The reason for this would be that she is acting upon her own self-interests. In accordance to Kant's theory on the second categorical imperative, "people should not be treated as objects incapable of free choice". (5) Here, the company should be free or have the right to choose who will become partner of their corporation or not. I believe that the result of Hopkins's case was justified.

The process of choosing and deciding partnership into the company was conducive to company regulations and standards. It was understood that the company's ethical standards were high for partnership candidates. They were primarily looking for potential partners that were exemplary of standards such as loyalty to the company and staff that also exercised high levels of integrity and professionalism. It is my opinion that the company should use ethical reasoning for declining Hopkins's partnership to the company. Integrity and loyalty to the company staff is unquestionably critical in business or working environments.

In Ann Hopkins's case, however, the short and long forms that described her in the working environment, displayed numerous accusations of her lack of interpersonal and communicational skills. In the partnership admission process, there are great risks involved in the granting of partnership to potential candidates. This is mainly because partners are "more tenured and therefore people that have a likelihood or potential of abusing authority can cause serious long-term problems for the firm". (6) It was later stated that interpersonal skills were taken into great consideration in the process of admission. That is, where the firm had "consistently placed a high premium on a candidate's ability to deal with subordinates and peers on an interpersonal basis and to promote cordial relations within a firm which is necessarily dependent on team effort".

(7) My reflection fits with my ethical theory in that ethical standards are essential in any environment, especially in business. I feel that it would be negligent for one to claim that ethics should not be part of an admission process. In essence, job qualifications ought to only be considered as part of the admission or hiring process, and not be the sole consideration as to whether or not one is accepted in a program or position.

Bibliography

1. Ilyse Barkan, J.D., Ann Hopkins (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991), p.
4.2. Manuel G. Velasquez, Business Ethics: Concepts And Cases, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2002) p.
100.3. Ilyse Barkan, J.D., Ann Hopkins (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991), p.
11.4. Ilyse Barkan, J.D., Ann Hopkins (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991), pp.
1-2.5. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2002) p.
100.6. Ilyse Barkan, J.D., Ann Hopkins (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991), p.
3.7. Ilyse Barkan, J.D., Ann Hopkins (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991), p.