No sources, needed.
Read the following journal:
https://hbr.org/2002/07/the-best-of-intentions
Here are the questions that need to be answered: I want you to assume that Steve was hired, and he performed poorly through no fault of his own and you now have the decision to terminate or not terminate. I want the pros and cons and implications and consequences of each decision. And then, is there anything in between there? If well, that you would consider, and I want you to defend your decision making. And when I say, defend your decision making, show me how what you’re doing does not violate your fiduciary responsibility.
Here are emails sent from the professor:
Good morning class. A few more thoughts about The Best of Intentions case this morning. I have mentioned that expedient decision makers often use faulty heuristics to make assumptions that underpin decisions. Let me give you an example. When I use this case in class, I usually have several students who will quickly label Agfunds and its leadership as bigoted. Not true. This was the best managed and most equitable organization from my career experience and the characters in the case did have Steve’s best interest at heart. Plus, it’s not that difficult to make decisions if we have employees who are bigoted because we have legitimate authority in the organizational context. But what if it comes from customers? Emerging from an understanding of the marketing concept, we are taught to find out what customers want and give it to them. But surely there must be a limit. Where’s the line? Think this through and let me see your thoughts play out on paper.
One more thought for your consideration about the Best of Intentions case today. Truly decisive decision makers look at managerial decision-making opportunities from every angle and from multiple perspectives. Moreover, they examine their own motivations and potential biases underpinning a potential decision. Does social identity theory come into play in this case? How? In the Best of Intentions case, did Cynthia’s managerial baggage, as a heuristic, lead her to put Steve in a bad spot? Or does her past experience provide a foundation that can lead her to being a more inclusive decision-maker? Are the two mutually exclusive? Much to think about and evaluate.
Now, on to The Best of Intentions. As always, don’t reach a conclusion first. Consider all of the issues the case raises from multiple perspectives, including Peter’s, Cynthia’s, Steve’s, customers, colleagues, etc. Remember, smart people of good will can have differing perspectives. There are many questions to address, and I want to see your decision-making processes play out on paper. Let me see it all. Start by thinking through these questions. What should Cynthia do? Should she hire Steve? Is it ever okay to discriminate against an individual for their own good? Is it Cynthia (or Peter’s, etc.) place to decide what’s in Steve’s best interest? If she hires Steve knowing that the customers might be resistant, and he performs poorly, wouldn’t that mean Cynthia violated her fiduciary responsibility? On the other hand, if she does not hire Steve, wouldn’t it be because of racial discrimination? And when he wins the big lawsuit, wouldn’t that also be a violation of Cynthia’s fiduciary responsibility? Do managers fiduciary responsibilities require them to sometimes make decisions in the best interest of the organization that violate their personal ethics? Many, many questions, Great decision-making requires great THOUGHT. And I’ll have more specific guidance and questions in the coming days.
And I’m going to ask you to approach this case in multiple ways. I’m going to ask you to first address it from a bimodal decision – hire or not hire – based upon pros and cons and implications and consequences, and then defend your decision. I’m then going to ask you if there could be a decision between the hire/don’t hire decision and, if so, describe that. I am then going to ask you to make an assumption that Steve was hired and failed to perform (which was the original case), albeit not because of his lack of abilities/work ethic. The decision then is to terminate or not to terminate, and I’ll want you to consider pros and cons and implications and consequences of your action. And then defend that decision. Also, read this case carefully multiple times and let it ruminate in your brains. At first blush, students often think this case is about racial discrimination. While there is an element of race/difference in the case, the inclusion dilemma is much more complicated, and the overriding issue is not violating your fiduciary responsibility.
