School Debate

Debates will be conducted in the following manner:

Coin flip will determine who goes first

Team A presents opening argument (5 min.) w/slides

Team B presents opening argument (5 min.) w/slides

Team A poses Question #1

Team B responds (2 min.)

Team B poses Question #1

Team A responds (2 min.)

Team A poses Question #2

Team B responds (2 min.)

Team B poses Question #2

Team A responds (2 min.)

Team A presents closing argument (3 min.) w/ slides

Team B presents closing argument (3 min.) w/ slides

Class/Instructor Questions (5 questions max.)

 DEBATE TOPICS
1. INDIVIDUAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES IN REWARD SYSTEMS
(1) EMPHASIZE INDIVIDUAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES:
To control labor costs and improve productivity in an era of intense global competition,
American firms increasingly emphasize individual incentive systems and pay-for-performance
programs. During business downturns, companies can thus avoid paying bonuses or incentives,
while not having to lay off personnel. Besides lowering fixed labor costs, pay-for-performance
plans best stimulate productivity as well as motivate employees to pursue business objectives by
aligning employee interests to company goals. Given American success with such schemes,
European and Asian corporations have increasingly introduced pay-for-performance plans.

(2) DE-EMPHASIZE INDIVIDUAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES:

Though incentive programs are fashionable in American firms, many critics argue that these
programs have many hidden costs that often offset their supposed benefits. For one,
overemphasis on incentives can make employees devalue their work. Alfie Kohn ("Punished by
Rewards," 1993 [Houghton-Mifflin]) cited amazing (but overlooked) scientific research showing
how pay-for-performance schemes can kill intrinsic motivation toward work ("turning work into
drudgery") and creativity (Deci, Ryan, & Koestner, 1999 Psychological Bulletin). Rather, Kohn
advocated alternative methods, such as job enrichment and participative management, rather than
using carrots (and sticks) to induce employees to work harder and smarter. Moreover, Stanford
Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer (1998 Harvard Business Review) discussed other findings disproving
the widespread myth that individual incentives actually improve performance, while W. Edwards
Deming contended that common merit-pay plans weaken teamwork and quality improvements
(cf. Bloom & Milkovich, 2002; Academy of Management Journal). Indeed, EZI partners (an
executive search firm) have shown that the old-fashion system of rewarding seniority is more
effective than rewarding individual performance (Egon Zehnder, Harvard Business Review,
2001). Further, individual incentive schemes are costly to administer and may produce various
side-effects, such as employees neglecting unrewarded but essential job duties or cheating the
system. Finally, individual incentives are ineffective for immigrants or foreign nationals (a
growing percentage of the workforce employed by U.S. multinationals) who adhere to collectivist
cultural values.
2. WOMEN ARE THE BEST LEADERS FOR THE 21th CENTURY
(1) WOMEN ARE SUPERIOR LEADERS
A new school of thought is emerging that contends women make superior leaders for 21st Century
organizations. A growing body of research by Prof. Alice Eagly (Northwestern University) has
concluded that women and men have different leadership styles with women more likely to use
participative or democratic styles than men (Eagly’s articles appear in 1991 Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology and in 1995 Psychological Bulletin). More recently, Eagly
and Johannesen-Schmidt’s (2001 Journal of Social Issues) review of the latest research shows
that women managers are better leaders than men because they are more likely to act as
charismatic leaders. Because organizations are increasingly emphasizing employee involvement,
women’s “natural” leadership style is more effective with today’s workforce (who increasingly
reject autocratic management) (cf. R. Sharpe, November, 2000 BusinessWeek: “As Leaders,
Women Rule”). Because of their “feminine advantage,” Prof. Judy Rosener (Graduate School of
Management at University of California at Irvine) argues in her book “America’s Competitive
Secret” (1997) that the special talents of women can provide a competitive edge to organizations
which value and fully utilize them. Similarly, Nancy Adler (Professor at McGill University) says
that women make better global managers due to their leadership style.

(2) WOMEN ARE NOT SUPERIOR LEADERS

Other leadership scholars vigorously reject the “feminine advantage” school of thought. SUNY
Professor Gary Yukl (author of “Leadership in Organizations,” 2002) argues that Alice Eagly’s
meta-analyses are based on flawed studies. For example, she contrasts the leadership styles of
male military officers and female nursing supervisors. Yet occupational differences in leadership
styles (military leaders are expected to be directive, while nursing supervisors are expected to be
considerate) may underlie apparent sex differences in leadership. Moreover, sex-role stereotypes
surely bias observers’ perceptions of the leadership styles of men and women, who may describe
female leaders as being more considerate and male leaders as being more directive and
controlling when in fact they behave the same. Similarly, Gary Powell (University of
Connecticut) contends “there is little reasons to believe that either women or men make superior
managers, or that women and men are different types of managers” (1990 Academy of
Management Executive and in M. Walsh’s (1997) Women, Men, and gender: Ongoing debates.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). In short, women do not have a monopoly on 21st
Century leadership skills.
3. AMERICAN CEOS ARE OVERPAID AND THEIR PAY SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED

(1) EXECUTIVE PAY RESTRICTIONS:

American CEOs earn 419 times the wage of an average factory worker. Much of their
compensation derives from the widespread use of stock options, which presumably peg
CEO pay to firm performance. Yet a review of stock options by a USC professor1
(ironically, an early proponent of this scheme) concluded that “there is surprisingly little
direct evidence that higher pay-performance sensitivities lead to higher stock
performance.” Moreover, stock options are often abused (e.g., stock options are repriced
when stock prices fall below the original strike price) and are quite costly to corporations
(and shareholders) who increasingly go into debt to buy back stock so that executives
can exercise their options. Indeed, Microsoft claimed a profit of $45 billion in 1998 but
when the cost of stock options awarded is deducted (their costs are not fully reflected in
company profit-and-loss statements), Microsoft actually lost $18 billion! At a time when
ordinary workers’ benefits are being cut and their wages have stagnated, it is unjust for
American CEOs to earn such enormous pay. Thus, American CEO pay should be
substantially decreased so that their pay is more like that of Japanese and European
CEOs.

(2) NO EXECUTIVE PAY RESTRICTIONS:

Compensation for American CEOs is fairly earned. Studies reporting weak correlation
between executive pay and firm performance are flawed and understate corporate
contributions (and job stress) of American CEOs. Moreover, international comparisons
are misleading for Japanese and European CEOs oversee smaller firms and have
greater job security. Besides, few people complain about the exorbitant pay of
professional athletes. Indeed, any ceiling on CEO pay would violate foundational tenets
of Capitalism, which prescribe that the marketplace should determine wages. Otherwise,
who would set CEO pay? The Board of Directors or some government bureaucrat? We
believe in Free Market Capitalism and that American CEO pay should not be restricted
or reduced.

1“Executive Compensation” by Kevin Murphy in O. Ashenfelter and D. Card (Eds.), A Handbook of Labour
Economics. North-Holland, 1998.
4. GENETIC SCREENING OF NEW APPLICANTS
(1) EMPLOYERS SHOULD GENETICALLY SCREEN NEW HIRES
Just as employers can require new hires to undergo medical examinations (to identify
communicable diseases or to determine if new hires can physically perform the job), they should
have the right to carry out genetic testing of new hires. With recent advances in genetic science,
employers can screen out those who are prone to injury on the job (back injuries), susceptible to
workplace hazards (e.g., beryllium which causes pulmonary disease), and those prone to certain
hereditary diseases (e.g., sickle cell anemia) (that would drive up health care costs). After all,
employers can already obtain genetic information--such as data about an employee's personal or
family medical history—through more conventional avenues. For example, in most states,
employers can demand that prospective employees fill out forms discussing their medical history
and that of their families. Prospective employees can be required to disclose illnesses that are
hereditary-potentially passed down into the applicant's genes from a family member who showed
symptoms. In many states, employers can rescind a conditional job offer after obtaining this data.
Moreover, genetic testing benefits prospective employees by avoiding their placement into
potentially harmful environments. Further, fears of discrimination and loss of health insurance
are greatly exaggerated according to a recent survey by Mark Hall, a professor at Wake Forest
University School of Medicine. He did not find a single well-documented case of discrimination.
On the contrary, he reported that a person with a serious genetic condition faces little difficulty in
getting health insurance because insurance firms assume people will change jobs and therefore
policies every two to five years. So by the time a client requires treatment, he or she will have
moved on to another insurer. In short, this new technology can help employees recruit a more
productive and healthy workforce as well as lower costs (e.g., work-related injury costs).

(2) EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM GENETIC TESTING

Congress should pass a federal law (Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and
Employment Act) to prohibit employers from genetically testing employees for hiring,
promotion, and pay decisions. Such testing not only violates workers’ privacy rights but also
unfairly discriminates against them in employment. After all, traits (e.g., genetic makeup) that
are not within the control of the individual, such as gender, race, or disability, are commonly
held by courts and Congress to be unjust grounds for discrimination (MacDonald & Williams-
Jones, 2002 Journal of Business Ethics). What is more, genetic testing may adversely affect the
employment conditions of certain ethnic groups (e.g., Tay-Sacks disease is more prevalent among
Ashkenazi Jews). Further, most genetic tests are for rare disorders, and thus the science is not
advanced enough for widespread employment testing. Moreover, genetic testing is imperfect
because the information it provides will not determine whether a person will in fact develop a
condition, only that they are more likely to do so than others. Thus, a person who tests positive
for “the gene” in question may never develop the disease. Finally, workers who test positive may
become stigmatized and unemployable (and uninsurable) if their employers fail to maintain
confidentiality. Indeed, future employers may demand such test results from previous employers
who may be held liable for inadequate disclosures about former workers (cf. companies have
sued former employers who inflate references to rid themselves of problem employees).
5. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
(1) EMPLOYERS SHOULD MONITOR EMPLOYEES’ E-MAIL, COMPUTER MONITOR, AND
INTERNET USAGE.
Because employees use e-mail and the internet on company time and premises, employers have
the right to monitor their usage. Such surveillance will insure that employees are indeed
working. After all, various studies find that many employees use the e-mail and internet for
personal uses during work hours. Jobing.com has observed that most internet job searches occur
during work hours. Moreover, computer monitoring—namely, computer based performance
monitoring (CBPM) which can monitor the number of key-strokes a data-entry clerk makes in an
hour--can improve worker productivity and customer service. Because CBPM can more
accurately gauge worker performance, this technology can provide employees with timely
performance feedback as well as opportunities for incentive pay. Importantly, computer
monitoring is increasingly necessary to track the work time of the growing numbers of
telecommuters who work at home (Fairweather, 1999 Journal of Business Ethics). Further,
corporate surveillance can prevent employees from using e-mail or the internet for illegal
activities (such as sex harassing communications to co-workers, copyright infringement of
software, or maintaining child pornography on corporate web sites). By so doing, e-surveillance
minimizes legal liabilities for firms (e.g., avoiding multimillion sexual harassment or defamation
lawsuits). Finally, internet and e-mail monitoring can help control the flow of proprietary
information to competitors who welcome secrets that would further their business as well as
prevent computer equipment overload (e.g., massive downloading of mpeg files for personal use
on the computer system).

(2) EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT MONITOR EMPLOYEE E-MAIL, COMPUTER MONITOR,

AND INTERNET USAGE.
Employer monitoring represents an invasion of employee privacy. Employers don’t eavesdrop
on phone calls between employees and their families. Why should they eavesdrop on personal e-
mail communications? Moreover, American workers put in more work hours than any workforce
in the developed countries. Given long work hours, e-mail and internet (e.g., personal shopping)
at work let them better handle their personal needs. Indeed, companies that offer lifestyle-
friendly benefits (e.g., flexitime, personal shoppers, and other conveniences) are more
successfully in attracting employees-–winning the war for talent—than “Big Brother.” Further,
employer surveillance implies distrust of the workforce as well as weakens worker autonomy,
which undermine morale and productivity according to organizational behavior research.
Finally, stress research reveals that workers who are monitored by employers feel greater job
stress and anxiety (Miller & Wickert, 2001 Journal of Business Ethics).
6. INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS
(1) AMERICAN MULTINATIONALS SHOULD ADOPT A UNIFORM CODE OF
ETHICS
With an increasingly globalized workforce, American firms should adopt the same code of ethics across their various
foreign subsidiaries. Although ten-year old children work 12-hour days weaving a rug in India and maquila
employers in Mexico seek women for unskilled production jobs in job ads (Kopinak’s [1997] “Desert capitalism”),
such child labor and sex discrimination would be prohibited by U.S. labor laws. Yet Smeltzer and Jennings (1998,
Journal of Business Ethics) believe that American firms do not have to “change your moral standards or lose your
markets.” For example, U.S. international sales actually increased dramatically since the passage of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (which forbids bribery) as opposed to the opposite prediction that U.S. international sales
would decline. Similarly, if Union Carbide had followed U.S. rather than Indian safety standards, the explosion of
its chemical plant in Bhopal would not have caused as much deaths and injury to citizens in the neighboring
community (and Union Carbide would have avoided various costs and damaged public relations). Further, it is “good
business” for American manufacturers (e.g., Reebok) to proclaim to customers that they--and their suppliers--do not
use child or prison labor to make goods (Behrman, 2001: Journal of Business Ethics). In short, we reject cultural
relativism—the philosophy that no culture’s ethics are better than any other’s and that there is no international rights
and wrongs. Instead, we agree with management consultant Kent Hodgson (“A rock and a hard place: How to make
ethical business decisions when the choices are tough,” 1992) who proposes seven moral principles (called the
“Magnificent Seven,” such as honesty and fairness) that have worldwide relevance. Thus, we prescribe a code of
conduct such as that of Motorola, which states that “Employees of Motorola will…engage in no course of conduct
which, even if legal, customary, and accepted in any such country, could be deemed to be in violation of the accepted
business ethics of Motorola or the laws of the United States relating to business ethics.”

(2) AMERICAN MULTINATIONALS SHOULD ADOPT THE BUSINESS ETHICS OF THE HOST
COUNTRY
When in Rome, “Do as the Romans Do.” American firms must adapt to foreign cultures and
follow local customs when conducting international business operations. Imposing U.S. standards
of conduct abroad would hamper business operations of American multinationals. After all,
Americans compete against other host-country or third-country companies, and implementing
stringent U.S. business ethics might mean the loss of business opportunities. For example, Levi
Strauss’ decision not to do business in mainland China--and thus foregoing a potential market of
millions of teenaged customers there—has surely led to its current decline. Shouldn’t complying
with the cultural norms and laws of the foreign society be sufficient? Thus, requiring American-
owned maquiladoras to pay Mexican workers more than the legally mandated minimum wage
(because maquila pay seems too low by American standards) would only led them to shift
production facilities (and jobs) to China where wages are even lower. Moreover, a universal
code represents “ethical imperialism” by imposing American standards of child labor, equal
employment opportunity, and workplace safety onto foreign affiliates of American
multinationals. For example, a U.S. computer-products company baffled and offended its Saudi
Arabian managers when enrolling them in a course on sexual harassment that had them discuss a
case in which a manager makes sexually explicit remarks to a new female employee over drinks
in a bar (Donaldson, 1996 Harvard Business Review). Indeed, European and Asian scholars
(e.g., Hofstede [1980] Culture’s consequences; Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars [2000] Building
cross-cultural competence) have long criticized the mindlessly extension of American practices
abroad, arguing that such practices often clash with the cultural values and norms of the host-
country.