Ann Hopkins was described in our Harvard Business Review case as hard-working, strong, intelligent, and aggressive. She rose through the ranks in many impressive positions: mathematician at IBM, IT manager and account utilization manager at NASA, and systems management consultant at a major accounting firm, Touche Ross. She took her work seriously and when it was time to become a partner in her most impressive job to date as a management consultant at Price Waterhouse, Hopkins and many others thought she was a strong candidate who would be sure to become associated. However, a series of surprising events left her on permanent hold, doubtful of ever becoming a partner. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay1. Why wasn't Ann Hopkins made partner? In 1982, 32 Price Waterhouse associates, all men, evaluated 88 associate candidates, of whom Hopkins was the only woman. Only 13 out of 32 partners supported the decision to become a partner at the time of the evaluation. Ann had logged more hours and generated more business for the company than any other candidate that year. So she and her colleagues immediately understood why she hadn't been promoted. According to company president Joseph Connor, Ann needed to “relax and take charge less often” (Badaracco, 2001). Thomas Beyer, the Office of Government Services associate who made the initial recommendation for her application, had already told her to make her appearance more feminine by using makeup, more muted colors and a hairstyle. Again, after his application was denied, Beyer suggested that making his demeanor more generally feminine might allow him to advance to the partner position. Shortly after, she lost the support of her OGS partner and subsequently her appointment as partner (Badaracco, 2001). Ann Hopkins definitely should have made partner. But instead of valuing her experience, talent, credentials and skills that should have earned her her partnership, those evaluating her judged her on her unladylike style and mannerisms. While other male candidates were deemed aggressive and authoritarian and praised for their promotion, the male-dominated evaluation committee decided that Hopkins' aggressive and authoritarian behavior was over the top. In other words, those traits that might be considered an asset by men for this difficult profession were considered bad for a woman. In HR3, DeNisi and Griffin explain that this type of discrimination is called disparate treatment, defined as "differential treatment based on different treatment." on race, gender, religion, age, national origin, or disability status” (2016). In Hopkins' case, the disparate treatment would be based on gender. Hopkins evaluators treated her differently because she was a woman, whereas if she were a man, her hair, carrying a briefcase or aggressive nature would not be considered. She was expected to behave in a certain way that her evaluators deemed acceptable for a woman, and because she did not do so, she was denied a promotion. Apart from this, one could consider that the male-dominated partnership at Price Waterhouse was intended to remain male-dominated by taking steps to prevent female partnerships. Vincent Roscigno describes this as a “social closure” orwhen a “status group” enjoying certain benefits and advantages voluntarily intends to remain closed to other groups by prohibiting their acceptance (2007). This means that even if Hopkins had changed her hair, makeup and made herself more feminine, what would they demand of her next? Learn to juggle? Where would the instructions end? Or is their intention to never stop? Later in her book, Roscigno goes on to describe that women in particular may have difficulty specifically when being considered for promotions because they are held to "higher standards" (2007). ). In Hopkins' case, this is most certainly a problem because his list of expectations seemed much longer than those of other candidates who had even less experience and talent.2. Was the problem avoidable? If yes, how? In 1982, even this large company was not entirely accustomed to women in high positions of power. Ann Hopkins was reportedly among the first female candidates for partnership at Price Waterhouse. This is not an excuse for his treatment, but it does help explain why the Partner Review Committee was so oblivious to the practice of equal treatment in the hiring process. However, since the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, ignorance is no longer acceptable. Especially in a company like Price Waterhouse, this type of discrimination can be avoided through proper human resource management procedures, education, and protocols. In this case, I believe that proper education of all staff could have avoided this problem. If everyone involved in consulting at Price Waterhouse were to take a short course on discrimination and the hiring process, for example, they would know that asking a woman to act more feminine is not acceptable advice regarding promotion or advancement. They would also know to spend more time paying attention to general aptitude for the profession rather than gender norms that the candidate may or may not adhere to. Beyond education, Price Waterhouse demonstrates a corporate culture of discrimination, making the hiring process unhealthy and illegal. . One of the hardest things to change in a company is culture, because it is a fluid social event that governs virtually everything that happens in the workplace. At Price Waterhouse, the discriminatory work culture accepted a committee's decision not to hire based on sexist expectations. In a male-dominated company, this can be all too common (especially in the context of the practice of social closure mentioned above). Understanding that work culture can be toxic and lead to problems like this, Tristin Green cites in her article "Work Culture and Discrimination" that this is all the more reason for companies to create "reform" initiatives. Conscious Business (2005). She explains that this is why some violations can be difficult for companies to identify from a single action; it is difficult to recognize this kind of cultural problem in a company. In this case, the deceptive nature of the work culture only adds to Hopkins' frustration. Without being properly informed about what sex discrimination might look like, she might view the decision to deny her promotion simply as a bad decision by the evaluation committee rather than as a serious discriminatory offense.3. Clearly, some aspects of Hopkin's behavior were inconsistent with the.