DEPAUL UNIVERSITY

Decision Paper
ECO 395 Kallen
Peter Drogos, Yasmeen Ghazal, Zachary Bennett, Arvin Hosseini 2/25/2014

The Best of Intentions: The issue faced in this paper is whether or not Catherine, overseer of the Arkansas District, should hire Steve Ripley (a black man) as a sales representative for that district. The problem that arises is that AgFunds customers are white who, according to Catherines boss, wouldnt feel comfortable working with a black man. She is advised not to hire him by her manager, Peter. He does not want to set up Steve up for immediate failure, as it will be difficult to promote him later on. They do not want to sacrifice losing AgFunds profits and clientele. Catherines boss continues by saying, If our customers wont buy from Steve, it hurts the stakeholders, it hurts Steve, it hurts you. Okay? How is that a good thing? (33). Catherine, who was a victim of discrimination early in her career as well, must decide whether or not to hire Steve Ripley, knowing full-well her decision will either make or break his career at AgFunds. Resolution: Catherine should not hire Steve Ripley. With Catherine deciding to not hire Steve, she is not furthering the existence of racial discrimination in the workplace. Rather, she is giving Mr. Ripley a fighting chance to succeed and prosper in the company by taking a job in another district where blacks have done well. After Mr. Ripley shows his strength in other district, he will be able to move on to bigger and better things in tougher districts. He sees himself working with the company, and the company definitely seems to have invested much time in grooming him. Mr. Ripley says it best by saying, I dont mind long odds, but I dont want impossible odds. Pros:

Mr. Ripley is not given impossible odds working in the white, Arkansas district. Steve would be able to work in other areas with much better track records for African Americans, allowing him to show off his expertise and sales rep skills. AgFunds: Every corporations goal is to maximize shareholder value, maximize corporate profits, and maintain clientele relations. Not hiring Steve will meet these objectives. Cynthia: Cynthia faces a tough position because she was in a similar situation. She was hired over a lesser-qualified male co-worker. It was tough for her at the time to concede, but she bit the bullet and things for her turned out quite well. She still needed to prove herself along the way, but her misfortunes set her up to succeed. She realizes this, but wishes to stand up for Steves situation. She is right in admitting to him her thoughts by laying everything out on the table, a rare move. Mr. Ripley is the most qualified trainee in his class. Not giving him the Arkansas sales representative position means the best candidate would not be given the job and the company, if they are not able to relocate Mr. Ripley, could lose a valuable asset. AgFunds is allowing their bigot customers to control who they hire in certain districts. This is turning AgFunds into bigots themselves. If AgFunds continues to allow this to happen, the cycle will be repeated continuously. Peter, Catherines boss at AgFunds, received his information about whether Mr. Ripley would be a good fit from the past District Manager of Arkansas, who ran the district into the ground. Why would Peter fire the past director, but then take his word on who to hire? The past director was fired do to his complacent nature and inability to makes sales. Listening to him about not hiring Mr. Ripley would continue the cycle of poor numbers.

Cons:

The Madison Group, Inc. Real Issue: The real issue is whether or not the Madison Group, Inc. should terminate their customer relationship with a significant client because it wishes not to work with Veronica for a consulting project. Veronica is a woman and currently serves as the lead position on the project. Should the Madison Group, Inc. take a stand for women, after they created a new mission statement that prohibits discriminatory activity for women and minorities? Resolution: Due to the company creating a new mission statement that says they will not tolerate harassment of any form and will allow no discriminatory activity on the basis of race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation, the executives at Madison Group must take a stand against this discriminatory pressure by the new client (1). Madison Group should not continue to work with this older company because the company objects to a woman heading their project. Veronica Harris should remain the lead role on the project based on her hard work and contributions to the team. The new corporate motto that states We are committed to the hiring and development of a diverse workforce and will actively seek to hire women and minorities (1). This statement provides further incentive to keep her, even if they dont want to, because its already written in the motto. Pros:

The company is strengthened by standing by their strong mission statement that hails the fair treatment of all. Standing up to the client and refusing to work with them because of their sexism might work to Madison Groups favor, as it would be breaking new ground on gen der issues. This would be especially important, this publicity move would change add development to the idea of management consulting, which is the practice of improving companies performances and organizational abilities. This move may inspire other companies to strengthen their mission statements and alter gender-working-environment relations. The company may experience a rise in clientele having stood up against discriminatory practices.

Cons:

By choosing to walk away from this project, Madison Group loses a significant player in its industry (1). Standing up to the client may have disastrous results for Madison Groups shareholder value, profits, and/or future client relations. That being said, we do not know the size of Madison Groups portfolio, so its possible they have other large clients. Writing the new value statements are important, but considering that the surge in ethical behavior fizzled out shortly after 2008, standing up for value statements may be a trend not worth pursuing. Business as usual now seems to be the running motto again in business industries.