Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Management

This debate-style reader is constructed to introduce students to controversies in business management through paired pro and con articles on such issues as corporate responsibility; organizational behavior; strategic planning; and environmental and International management. For additional support for this title, visit our student website: www.dushkin.com/online.

PART 1. Ethical Issues for Managers

ISSUE 1. Do Corporations Have a Responsibility to Society that Extends Beyond Merely Maximizing Profit?

YES: Robert D. Hay and Edmund R. Gray, from “Introduction to Social Responsibility,” in David Keller, man. ed., Ethics and Values: Basic Readings in Theory and Practice (Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002)

NO: Alexei M. Marcoux, from “Business Ethics Gone Wrong,” Cato Institute, (July 24, 2000)

Robert D. Hay and Edmund R. Gray believe that corporations should be held accountable for more than profit maximization. Their argument is based on stakeholder theory and is presented in the form of an historical account of the evolution of managerial thinking on this important topic. In answering "no" to this question, Alexei Marcoux presents a frontal attack on stakeholder theory. Consistent with the views of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, Marcoux argues that the very nature of stakeholder theory is immoral and can only lead to disastrous results for all involved.

ISSUE 2. Is the Corporate Strategy of Downsizing Unethical?

YES: Larry Gross, from “Downsizing: Are Employers Reneging on Their Social Promise?” CPCU Journal (Summer 2001)

NO: Joseph T. Gilbert, from “Sorrow and Guilt: An Ethical Analysis of Layoffs,” SAM Advanced Management Journal (vol. 65, 2000)

Larry Gross contends that downsizing violates the psychological and social contracts implicit in the employer-employee relationship since there is an implied sense of job security afforded the employee as long as he or she is productively advancing the goals of the organization. Downsizing productive employees is a clear violation of this contract and, therefore, immoral. Professor Joseph Gilbert analyzes the ethicality of downsizing through the application of three prominent approaches to the study of ethics: utilitarianism, rights and duties, and justice and fairness. Gilbert concludes that, with one notable exception, downsizing is an ethically valid and morally responsible corporate behavior.

ISSUE 3. Is Bluffing During Negotiations Unethical?

YES: Chris Provis, from “Ethics, Deception and Labor Negotiation,” Journal of Business Ethics (Kluwar Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2000)

NO: Fritz Allhof, from “Business Bluffing Reconsidered,” Journal of Business Ethics (Kluwar Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2003)

Ethics scholar Chris Provis examines bluffing within the context of labor negotiations and concludes that it does indeed constitute unethical behavior. Bluffing, he argues, is deception and therefore, unethical, regardless of whether it occurs in or out of the negotiation process. University of California, Santa Barbara philosopher Fritz Allhoff presents a clever and unique defense of bluffing in business negotiations. The central tenet in Allhoff’s position is that certain roles that we are required to assume allow us to morally justify behaviors that might otherwise be considered immoral.

ISSUE 4. Are Corporations Accused of Wrongdoing Protected by the First Amendment?

YES: Joyce L. Kennard, from “Majority Opinion, Marc Kasky v. Nike, Inc. et. al.,” California Supreme Court (May 2, 2002)

NO: Janice Brown, from “Dissenting Opinion, Marc Kasky v. Nice, Inc. et. al.,” California Supreme Court (May 2, 2002)

Justice Joyce Kennard, writing for the majority, argues that Nike’s public response to charges they operated sweatshops overseas constituted "commercial" speech and, therefore, is not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Janice Brown contends that the U.S. Supreme Court has not provided the courts with an unambiguous definition of commercial speech and, consequently, part of the foundation of the majority’s position is undermined. She also calls into question whether there should be a distinction between commercial and non-commerical speech in the first place.

ISSUE 5. Should Insider Trading Be Legalized?

YES: Robert B. Thompson, from “Insider Trading, Investor Harm, and Executive Compensation,” Case Western Reserve Law Review (Winter 1999)

NO: Stephen Bainbridge, from “Why Regulate Insider Trading?” Tech Central Station (September 8, 2004)

Legal scholar Robert B. Thompson presents Manne’s argument on insider regulation. Thompson then provides us with an analysis of the status and relevance of Manne’s position three decades after the publication of his seminal text. UCLA professor of law Stephen Bainbridge does not accept Manne’s arguments. Bainbridge believes that insider trading ultimately causes inefficiency in the markets and, therefore, must be subject to regulation.

PART 2. Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

ISSUE 6. Has Affirmative Action Outlived Its Usefulness in the Workplace?

YES: Walter E. Williams, from “Affirmative Action Can’t Be Mended,” Cato Journal (Spring/Summer 1997)

NO: Wilbert Jenkins, from “Why We Must Retain Affirmative Action,” USA Today Magazine (September 1999)

Cato Institute research fellow Dr. Walter Williams argues that affirmative action is no longer useful in the workplace. He likens affirmative action to a "zero-sum" game where one group benefits at the expense of all other groups. Dr. Wilbert Jenkins presents, and then rebuts, the major points critics of affirmative action typically raise. He also provides a discussion on the relationship between affirmative action and diversity in the workplace. He argues that since diversity is good business, and affirmative action encourages diversity, then affirmative action is good business.

ISSUE 7. Is the Control of Drug Abuse in the Workplace More Important than Protecting Employee Privacy?

YES: Michael A. Verespej, from “Drug Users—Not Testing—Anger Workers,” Industry Week (February 17, 1992)

NO: Jennifer Moore, from “Drug Testing and Corporate Responsibility: The ‘Ought Implies Can’ Argument,” Journal of Business Ethics (vol. 8, 1989)

Michael Verespej notes that for many employees, it is the drug users who are problematic, not the testing. He points out that both employees and managers are becoming increasingly intolerant of drugs in the workplace and, as a result, actually welcome drug testing. Scholar Jennifer Moore presents a philosophical discussion of why the individual rights of the employee trump the corporation’s right to protect itself. In so doing, she reaches the conclusion that drug testing cannot be justified as a legitimate corporate policy.

ISSUE 8. Does Workplace Diversity Result in a More Productive Firm?

YES: Mary F. Salomon and Joan M. Schork, from “Turn Diversity to Your Advantage,” Research Technology Management (July/August 2003)

NO: Thomas Kochan, Katerina Bezrukova, Robin Ely, Susan Jackson, Aparna Joshi, Karen Jehn, Jonathan Leonard, David Levine, and David Thomas, from “The Effects of Diversity on Business Performance: Report on the Diversity Research Network,” Human Resource Management (Spring 2003)

Mary Salomon and Joan Schork answered "yes" and provided a detailed argument built on the idea that there is a business case for diversity. During the course of their article, the authors consider several commonly accepted arguments supportive of workplace diversity. Researcher Thomas Kochan and his colleagues reported findings from their complex, sophisticated research project. Despite their initial expectations, the researchers failed to find support for the effects of diversity on performance and, thus, provided this issue with its "no" response.

ISSUE 9. Is Gender Discrimination the Main Reason Women Are Paid Less Than Men?

YES: Stephen J. Rose and Heidi I. Hartmann, from “Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2004)

NO: Naomi Lopez, from “Free Markets, Free Choices II: Smashing the Wage Gap and Glass Ceiling Myths,” Pacific Research Institute (1999)

Stephen J. Rose and Heidi I. Hartmann, scholars at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, argue in their 2004 study that discrimination is still the main reason for the persistence in the gender gap. Naomi Lopez, director of the Center for Enterprise and Opportunity at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, provides evidence that the wage gap is a function of several different variables beyond gender discrimination. She concludes her analysis with the observation that we may never reduce the wage gap entirely and that such an outcome is not necessarily undesirable.

ISSUE 10. Is Blowing the Whistle an Act of Disloyalty?

YES: Sissela Bok, from “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility,” New York University Education Quarterly (Summer 1980)

NO: Robert A. Larmer, from “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty,” Journal of Business Ethics (vol. 11, 1992)

In presenting her view that whistle-blowing is u sually a form of disloyalty, business ethics scholar Sissela Bok examines the nature of the whistle-blowing act itself as well as the motives of the individual exposing the wrongdoing. In contrast with Bok, University of New Brunswick phil...