8/12/2019 Decision Paper, Eco 395

1/3

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY

Decision Paper

ECO 395 Kallen

Peter Drogos, Yasmeen Ghazal, Zachary Bennett, Arvin Hosseini

2/25/2014

8/12/2019 Decision Paper, Eco 395

2/3

The Best of Intentions:The issue faced in this paper is whether or not Catherine, overseerof the Arkansas District, should hire Steve Ripley (a black man) as a sales representativefor that district. The problem that arises is that AgFundscustomers are white who,according to Catherines boss, wouldnt feel comfortable working with a black man.She isadvised not to hire him by her manager, Peter. He does not want to set up Steve up forimmediate failure, as it will be difficult to promote him later on. They do not want to sacrificelosing AgFundsprofits and clientele. Catherines boss continues by saying, If ourcustomers 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 hercareer as well, must decide whether or not to hire Steve Ripley, knowing full-well herdecision will either make or break his career at AgFunds.

Resolution: Catherine should not hire Steve Ripley. With Catherine deciding to not hireSteve, 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 takinga job in another district where blacks have done well. After Mr. Ripley shows his strength inother 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 investedmuch time in grooming him.Mr. Ripley says it best by saying, I dont mind long odds, but Idont 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 AfricanAmericans, allowing him to show off his expertise and sales rep skills.

AgFunds: Every corporations goalis to maximize shareholder value, maximizecorporate profits, and maintain clientele relations. Not hiring Steve will meet theseobjectives.

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 toconcede, but she bit the bullet and things for her turned out quite well. She stillneeded 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 inadmitting to him her thoughts by laying everything out on the table, a rare move.

Cons: 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 joband the company, if they are not able to relocate Mr. Ripley, could lose a valuableasset.

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 thedistrict into the ground. Why would Peter fire the past director, but then take his wordon who to hire? The past director was fired do to his complacent nature and inabilityto makes sales. Listening to him about not hiring Mr. Ripley would continue the cycleof poor numbers.

8/12/2019 Decision Paper, Eco 395

3/3

The Madison Grou p, Inc.

Real Issue: The real issue is whether or not the Madison Group, Inc. should terminate theircustomer relationship with a significant client because it wishes not to work with Veronicafor a consulting project. Veronica is a woman and currently serves as the lead position onthe project. Should the Madison Group, Inc. take a stand for women, after they created anew mission statement that prohibits discriminatory activity for women and minorities?

Resolution: Due to the company creating a new mission statement that says they will nottolerate harassment of any form and will allow no discriminatory activity on the basis ofrace, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation, the executives at Madison Group must takea stand against this discriminatory pressure by the new client (1). Madison Group shouldnot continue to work with this older companybecause the company objects to a womanheading their project.

Veronica Harris should remain the lead role on the project based on her hard workand 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 andminorities(1). This statement provides further incentive to keep her, even if they dont wantto, because its already written in the motto.Pros:

The company is strengthened by standing by their strong mission statement thathails the fair treatment of all.

Standing up to the client and refusing to work with them because of their sexismmight work to Madison Groups favor, as it would be breaking new ground on genderissues. This would be especially important, this publicity move would change adddevelopment to the idea of management consulting, which is the practice ofimproving companies performances and organizational abilities.

This move may inspire other companies to strengthen their mission statements andalter gender-working-environment relations.

The company may experience a rise in clientele having stood up againstdiscriminatory practices.

Cons:

By choosing to walk away from this project, Madison Group loses a significantplayer 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 notknow the size of Madison Groups portfolio, so its possible they have other largeclients.

Writing the new value statements are important, but considering that the surge inethical behavior fizzled out shortly after 2008, standing up for value statementsmay be a trend not worth pursuing. Business as usual now seems to be therunning motto again in business industries.