Ann Hopkins Case Study
Give Examples of Events That Contributed to her Being Passed Over.
Ann Hopkins was passed over for partnership for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons were valid areas of concern, however much of the Justification “had sexual overtones” (Weasel, 1991, p. 2). Although Thomas Buyer supported Hopkins nomination for partner and supported with what seemed to be a very well-written and strong proposal, of the 32 evaluations by other partners almost 50% suggested that she either be put on hold or denied.
According to Exhibit in the case study (Obduracy, 2001, p.
25), Hopkins received more no votes than all but two of the 88 candidates that year. Hopkins lacked support for partnership proposal partly because of her lack of interpersonal skills and unprofessional demeanor. Robert Kaplan referenced incident where Hopkins got into a valid argument in which she was “screaming obscenities at him for about 45 minutes” (Obduracy, 2001, p. 5). There was another incident where Ann.’s BIB work Nas reviewed by a partner in 1980.
There was approximately $35,000 discrepancy between the proposed fees billed fees and actual in the WIPES. When confronted about the issue Hopkins insisted that there was no discrepancy. Later, Hopkins tried to play down or explain away the discrepancy, but after further investigation it was determined that the discrepancy was a result of Hopkins having a senior consultant Nor on a project “12 to 14 hours per day but only charge 8” (Obduracy, 2001, p. 5). Hopkins later admitted there was a problem, however this issue brings into question her honesty and integrity.
There are also several other instances where Hopkins did not model the example of professionalism expected from partners. Understanding that partners effectively become lifelong employees, it is important that the selected individuals mesh well with the company and be beyond reproach. What Aspects of This Case do you Find Most Troubling, and why? After reading through the Ann Hopkins case, I found that I disagreed with the Price Waterholes decision to deny Hopkins partnership proposal. Understanding that these events took place in the late sass and early sass I do see some problems in the way that the decision was made.
By using the written evaluations and correspondence from peers, coworkers, ND partners, there becomes an issue of sexism rearing its head in a male- dominated culture and environment. Throughout the case there are many stories of Hopkins not only meeting but exceeding the expectations of her clients and her employer.
She was able to do this because of her high intelligence, work ethic, and ability focus on the task at hand. Hopkins was a hard driver that did not accept failure as an option. In her partnership class, there were no other candidates who had brought in the kind of business that she had over her tenure with the firm.
From purely business perspective, Hopkins was an excellent employee. Unnaturally, it seems that the individuals accepted as partners within this firm during this time in the company’s history were accepted more based on friendships and casual appeal rather than performance as an employee. Furthermore, when the written evaluations that are used to determine her acceptance or denial is partner reference her dress and appearance or masculine demeanor, it becomes quite evident that the evaluator’s harbor some resentment toward Hopkins because she is a woman.
Clearly, There Were Aspects of Hopkins’ Behavior That Clashed With the Accepted Norms, Particularly Those Applied to Women, at Price Waterholes. Why Didn’t the Company Raise These Issues With her Sooner? Why Didn’t she Make a Stronger Effort to Change When she did, Finally, Receive Some Feedback? Indeed there were aspects of Hopkins behavior that clashed with the accepted norms of the time that were applied to women. It is my opinion that Price Waterholes did not bring these to her attention sooner because she was not initially considered partner potential.
I would go as far as to say that Price Waterholes may have even felt like they did her a favor in giving her a Job to begin with. It was noted in the case study that “the day before Hopkins was to start work, the partner who hired her called and said that the firm policy prohibited hiring anyone who is married to a partner or had a close relationship with a partner in a national accounting firm” (Obduracy, 2001, p.
5). It is of my opinion that the firm was happy to accept all of the business that Hopkins brought in, but they never had any intention of allowing her to become a partner.
Hopkins knew how valuable she was to Price Waterholes, and I believe this combined Ninth her extreme type A personality, caused her to ignore any suggestions for improvement. In reading the case, it became quite evident that Hopkins didn’t take suggestions very well, if at all. She very difficult to deal with when things did not go her way.
What do you Make of Thomas Buyer’s Behavior? Although he was an Advocate of Hopkins’ Partnership, he Made Some Remarks to her that Could be Construed as Sexist. Still, he was Trying to Help. Do you Think his Advice was Good?
Nas it Appropriate and Realistic, Even if it was Painful for Hopkins to Hear? Or was Buyer Just Insensitive? Thomas Buyer was without question Hopkins biggest supporter. He went through quite a bit to put her proposal together in a way that Mould show her in the very best light. I believe he knew some of her shortfalls and did all that he could to mask them with highlights of her stellar performance and ‘alee to the company.
I do believe that some of Buyer’s comments could be seen as sexist, however I do not believe them to be sexist simply because he was the person No proposed Hopkins for partner.
I do believe however that some of Buyer’s advice Nas good, and should have been taken, and acted upon by Hopkins. Although it should not matter that Hopkins did not wear Jewelry or well styled hair, in the environment that they were in the appearance of professionalism and value is important. Much more to the point, Hopkins should have adjusted and addressed her lack of interpersonal skills as well as her demeanor toward other employees and coworkers. I do not believe Buyer was being insensitive to Hopkins by telling her what she could change to improve her chances of becoming a partner.
It seems to me that t was in his full intention to get her an appointment as a partner in Price Nuthouses.
What if a Woman had Told Ann Hopkins What Buyer Told her? Would rant Have Been Sexist? It a woman and told Ann Hopkins what Buyer told near I do believe that it would have been Just as sexist as Buyer saying it. The difficulty of the time for women was in trying to fit into a male-dominated environment. Although other women may have made the transformation more easily, and accepted their position as lesser employees in the firm, it does not mean that the comments received from woman or man are any less sexist.
Throughout the case study there are many events that include women as employees, however only two women have become partners. This indicates that in order for these women to move forward in their careers they had to cater to the stereotypes that were placed upon women Marketplace. This in itself shows the nature of sexism in the workplace at Price Nuthouses.
What Advice Would you Give to Ann Hopkins now? I applaud Ann Hopkins for standing her ground and working hard to change the opinions of women in the workplace.
I realize that this must have been a very daunting task for her because it cost her so dearly. However because of women like Ann Hopkins, my daughter has the ability to go out into the workplace here in 2014 and find a Job that will not discriminate against her because of her gender. Hopkins Nas not perfect as evidenced by many of the details of the case, however there was a cord of candidates with worst evaluation records being appointed as partners at Price Waterholes.
