ANN HOPKINS CASE STUDY

The fundamental aspect of this narrative is to elaborate and expound on the many barrier that

organizations or members face with close relation to the diversity exhibited by the management

levels as well as the individual members who form the working units of the organization. Of key

interest in this case study is the Partnership dismissal and denial of Ann Hopkins and the

underlying factors that are seen to be driving and pushing factors as to why she missed out on

becoming a partner at Price Water House firm yet she arguably held all requisite credentials that

befit promotion to partnership status.

Assignment Questions

Q1. What caused the Problems described in the case?

A significant part of the problematic overview of the case description is the perceived

Partnership selection and nomination process. From this perspective, Ann Hopkins is the center

of attraction as she is denied a life -long dream of making partnership yet she is the force behind

the resounding growth of Price Water House firm. Secondly, the aspects and factors of sex

discrimination also form a parameter of the problem which relevantly resonate on the prime

principles- Ann Hopkins, Beyer and the OGS senior partners. Primarily, the core factor that

builds up and frameworks the case at hand is the turmoil and predicament being experienced by

Ann Hopkins in her sole bid to get partnership status but she is met with barriers on the basis of

what she perceives as feministic and chauvinistic discrimination.

Q2. Was the Problem (s) avoidable?

Based on the prospects and avenues that Ann Hopkins had immediately after experiencing the

first set back to her partnership nomination, it is worth saying that the problems related to the
case would have been easily avoided and even possibly settled amicably. Relevantly, Ann

Hopkins as the main plaintiff and assumed afflicted had some distinct avenues that she would

have used: She would have simply quit and left Prime Water House and moved on to the

international sea where though difficult she would have been granted partnership status within

one year. Additionally, she had Beyer and KrulWich who had gone an extra mile to advice

Hopkins on the prerequisites she needed to ensure her Partnership status.

Q3. What Should Ann Hopkins do now?

As a matter of concern, it would be entirely lame and a professional suicide if she opted to

remain at Price Water House since unless a new regime set sail there she will constantly be

placed on her past nature, character and presumably gender. Secondly, She has the option of

rallying a formidable law suit against the firm on the basis she feels most potent.

Q4. Why Hopkins wasn’t made partner?

There are broad arrays of factors that can be related to as to why Ann Hopkins failed to get

partnership status. However, the cutting edge factor is that she received underrating reviews and

opinions from the main stakeholders and admissions panel hence she was placed on hold.

Furthermore, as a ‘read between the lines’ aspect, the struggle of sex discrimination was also a

factor since basing from Beyer’s recommendations to Hopkins, she was an emblem of woman

power and this threatened a lot of men in the firm who saw her as too overruling and ambitious.

Q5. What are some examples from the case of her problems in this regard?

First, Ann Hopkins and Beyer are the core prospects in this area, since from Beyer’s

recommendations to Hopkins, the latter is unable to distinguish or discern the true intentions of
Beyer who in my view tries to offer professional counseling to her to expand her chances of

making partner. However, she sees this as sexists and gender discrimination. Additionally, is the

perception her co- workers have of her? According to elements such as Patricia Bowman and

Karen Nold they see Ann Hopkins as very critical and overbearing while in some sense Hopkins

is just a perfectionist and abides to her managerial demands.

Q6. What about Hopkins treatment makes you believe she was discriminated against? Or

Primarily, the most fundamental argument worth drawing in this case is that Ann Hopkins by

virtue and nature had the most qualification credentials and prospects as compared to all other

candidates. For instance, her billing hours was incomparable to any other e.g. she had 2,442 in

1982 while in 2,507 in 1981. This by all means passes for discrimination of the highest level.

Q7. What aspects of this case most troubled you?

Personally, I find the entire partnership admission process a hoax and mockery of institutional

ethics since the process is well articulated in evaluation and interview parameters but fails to

simply award the purposeful candidates admission on lame and probably uncouth grounds.

Moreover, the life battle of Ann Hopkins is a significant prelude of the real situation in most

organization where the success of a woman becomes a night mare for men who see them as

lethal competition. It goes without saying, if a man was in the same position as Ann Hopkins, I

highly doubt he would have faced the scrutiny she faced.

Q8. Which do you think was a greater contributor to Hopkins being placed on hold,

“stereotyping” or “fit?”
The most rallying factor that perceivably contributed a great deal to Hopkins being placed on

hold is the stereotyping aspect. The belief and assumption of aspects about a certain group of

people is what best describes stereotyping. Ann Hopkins is stereotypes by the partnership

committee and other principles that just generally see that she is not ready for partnership status.

Q9. If you were a partner at the Co. would you have voted to approve, deny or hold

Hopkins candidacy, explain

On the basis of merit, and this should have been the core benchmark of evaluation, I would have

genuinely approved Ann Hopkins candidacy. The visceral issues that made her be placed on hold

are entirely very trivial since any organization has depends on performance of its unit holders

and therefore if the end justifies the means, well and good. Ann Hopkins was the most potent

asset of the firm since she provided valuable profits in terms of revenue with over $35million

accredited to her efforts.

Q10. Why didn't the company raise these issues with her sooner?

Considerably, it is clear that there existed a lack of proper leadership channel and managerial

proficiency since at no point did the firm caution or warns Ann Hopkins based on the issues

leveled against her. However, a cutting edge fact is that it proves that all the accusations leveled

against Hopkins prove to be stereotyped and hence hold no water.

Q11. Why didn't she make a stronger effort to change when she did, finally, receive some

feedback?

Hopkins has one remarkable character that by all means justifies her actions- she is principled

and stands for what she believes in. Likewise, the fact that she doesn’t make efforts to change
simply shows that it is her in born character to rally for perfection and the qualities she bears

articulate to her managerial standards.

Q12. What do you make of Beyer’s behavior?

Beyer is an emblem of true friendship and organizational union since from the start he makes it

his personal goal and mission to educated Ann Hopkins on the areas she needs to perfect on in

order to get partnership approval. His remarks that touched on Ann Hopkins feminism were

entirely based and anchored on the need to enumerate the areas he felt needed polishing

Q13. Do you think his advice was good?

It is my awareness that partners are in more or less terms like the ambassadors of a firm and

hence they integrate with the high and mighty on behalf of the company. Subsequently, Beyer’s

advice to Hopkins was very good since he was primarily elaborating the need for Hopkins to

look the part.

Q14. Was it appropriate and realistic, even if it was painful for Hopkins to hear? Or Was

Beyer just insensitive?

The advice from Beyer cannot be utterly claimed to be insensitive on the grounds that it was a

man saying the facts to a woman. At no point did Beyer articulate his male chauvinistic character

to implicate discrimination but he fundamentally stuck to showing Hopkins how different she

would be perceived if she made some changes with a comparison and example to Sandy Kinsey.

Q15. What if a woman had told Hopkins what Beyer told her? Would that have been

sexist?
In perfect view, if a woman was to assume Beyer’s stand then it would not have been considered

as sexiest since both parties would have been feminine and hence share similar portfolio thereby

it passes as simply a feminine talk or advice.

Q16. Since you want Hopkins to get promoted, would you mention these things to her as

well?

Very much so yes! Beyer is like a mentor to Ann Hopkins and therefore he has the obligation to

point out areas of concern that paramount her candidacy chances. Instead of lavishing in

complaining with KrulWich about her drinking problem and other concerns Beyer best had told

Hopkins about them in order for her to reform and heighten her chances of partner admission.

Q17. If you were Hopkins how would you respond to Beyer’s comments?

Basing on the fact that in the long run Beyer was only intending to help her rebrand herself for

partner status, if I were Hopkins I would probably take his advice positively and meet them with

immediate efforts to change as advised since they were very potent in determining her partner

admission.

Q18. What recommendations would you make to Price Waterhouse?

First of all, the client opinions however much welcomed by the firm should be done in a modest

way and by all means a feedback and evaluative scheme should be established to confirm all

views and opinions eligibility.

Secondly, the partnership mentorship is a very core and fundamental aspect in firm development

hence aspects of compatibility and transparency should be reverted to the process to ensure full

success. Primarily, the areas of charm school and sensitivity training are vital to ensure that the
organization’s workers have a good understanding of all elements that pertain to emotional

perception. Relevantly, the women in the evaluation process must be given the freedom to fully

represent themselves and purposefully have no discrimination leveled against them thereby

serving legal implications to follow suitable pathways.

 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS

 What caused the problems described in the case?

The aspect and issues of Ann Hopkins denial of partnership admission yet she had all
qualifications
 Was the problem avoidable? If so, how?
Ann Hopkins had the power to either sort alternative partnership elsewhere or follow
legal process on basis of discrimination
 What should Ann Hopkins do now?
She should consider seeking legal help to sue the firm for sex discrimination as well as
move away from the firm
 Why Hopkins wasn’t made partner?
She failed to meet the expectations and cut off and majorly she had more NOs than Yes
 What are some examples from the case of her problems in this regard?
Ann Hopkins was accused of being overruling and too demanding with several cases of
discrepancies.
 What about Hopkins treatment makes you believe she was discriminated against? Or
What aspects of this case most troubled you?
Primarily, the fact that Hopkins had been the most profitable agent and she had all
qualifications needed but failed.
 Which do you think was a greater contributor to Hopkins being placed on hold,
“stereotyping” or “fit”
Stereotyping is the assumption people have of things or people. Ann Hopkins had been
stereotyped by her colleagues and hence lost her chance at partnership
 If you were a partner at the Co. would you have voted to approve, deny or hold Hopkins
candidacy, explain
Approved! Since however much she is stereotyped she has all necessary qualifications
 Why didn't the company raise these issues with her sooner?
The firm had to first conduct an evaluation process to prove the truthfulness of the issues.
 Why didn't she make a stronger effort to change when she did, finally, receive some
feedback?
Ann Hopkins did not have to change since she believed she was on the right and hence
had no need to change due to their demands.
 What do you make of Beyer’s behavior?
He is majorly trying to be a mentor to Hopkins and his behavior is a sign of good will.
 Do you think his advice was good?
 Was it appropriate and realistic, even if it was painful for Hopkins to hear? Or
It was very appropriate and realistic since Beyer was making Hopkins become aware of
the factors that she needed to land partner.
 Was Beyer just insensitive?
Beyer had a mentor’s role and hence he is not insensitive since he was just trying to do
his role in advising Hopkins

 What if a woman had told Hopkins what Beyer told her? Would that have been sexist?
 The side of men and women as compared to Beyer’s stand, if a woman was to be in the
place of Beyer she would not have been seen as sexist due to the fact that she will be seen
as a casual relation talk.
 Since you want Hopkins to get promoted, would you mention these things to her as well?
Very much yes! Since it is a mentor’s role (Beyer) to direct, it is very vital to make
Hopkins aware of all aspects that go for and against.
 If you were Hopkins how would you respond to Beyer’s comments?
Positively! And in an active way hence ensure that his recommendations are considered
to benefit me.
 What recommendations would you make at Price Waterhouse in regards
The legal implication process- this implies that a good and well –structured be put in
place and followed in case of any discrimination or poor treatment issues.
The client’s opinions should not be biased to shut down those others but should be a
building and stepping step of evaluation.
Women in evaluation process- the women in the cooperate world have a lot to deal with
and hence it should be leveled out to be equally opportunities for all people
Sensitivity- the fact that everyone must be able to understand the true levels of
discrimination and other emotional aspects is vital to ensure full awareness