Ann Hopkins Essay Example

in order to maintain their employment. The decision made by Price Waterhouse to not promote an employee due to her failure to meet feminine stereotypes was deemed discriminatory under Title VII. As a female supervisor in a predominantly male organization, I am particularly concerned about this practice of biased double standards based on gender. During her tenure at Price Waterhouse, Hopkins exhibited strong leadership and collaboration abilities. She successfully completed projects for the Department of Interior and the Department of State, securing contracts valued at millions of dollars (Badaracco, 2001, p. 5).

According to Badaracco (2001 p. 7), she displayed good direction and leadership skills on this project. Her third project was with Farmer’s Home Credit Association, where she was described as direct and abrupt. She believed the contract needed to be written in a specific way, which was unfamiliar to the St. Louis office. However, Price Waterhouse won the contract worth $2.5 million (Badaracco, 2001 p. 5). Lastly, she successfully implemented a $6 million real property management system for the Department of State and turned around a troubled office.

Despite consistently proving herself, the double standard is evident in the fact that she was criticized solely for lacking interpersonal skills, while men in the same situation were promoted to partner (Badaracco, 2001 p. 11). For example, two candidates faced criticism for being aggressive, abrasive, and crude in their interpersonal skills, but their skills were needed and they didn't want to lose them if put on hold (Badaracco, 2001 p. 4). Some may argue that Hopkins behaved similarly, but she was seen as overcompensating due to her gender (Badaracco, 2001 p. ). Therefore,

the double standard suggests that it is acceptable for men (partners) to be aggressive and overbearing, but not for women. Malos (2007) also discusses another double standard where workplace appearance involves stereotyping based on gender-associated attributes or characteristics. This is evident in the case of Hopkins and her appearance. It is clear that Hopkins displayed behaviors that clashed with the accepted norms, particularly those applied to women, at Price Waterhouse.

The company did not address these issues with her earlier, and she did not make a significant effort to change after receiving feedback. Previously, Price Waterhouse had seven female partners, indicating that this was considered acceptable. However, there had been no complaints about Hopkins not conforming to these standards until now. She had successfully completed four projects, ensuring that her gender was not a concern because she was a valuable asset to the company.

In August 1982, her candidacy nomination proposal praised her exceptional performance (Badaracco, 2001 p. 4) and indicated that it was comparable to partnership level. Coincidentally, around the same time, she received feedback from Beyers (mid-1982) which suggested that she should change her true identity (Badaracco, 2001 p. 8). Despite not being traditionally feminine, Hopkins was never criticized for appearing messy, dirty, or unprofessional. Her performance demonstrated why she was being considered for partnership.

The feedback she received was focused on her appearance rather than her abilities as a team leader, suggesting that she needed to change. According to Badaracco (2001, p. 8), the offensive suggestion was for her to look like the other women. As a result, she decided not to make any effort in changing. What is

your opinion on Thomas Beyer's actions? While he supported Hopkins' partnership, his comments could be perceived as sexist. Nonetheless, his intentions were positive as he wanted to offer assistance. Do you think his advice was beneficial?

Was Thomas Beyer's approach appropriate and realistic, despite being painful for Hopkins to hear? Or was he simply insensitive? In my opinion, Beyer's behavior reflects the continued dominance of men in society. While he did want Hopkins to succeed, he believed she needed to conform to traditional notions of femininity and behave like a "lady" in her role. Consequently, his expectations were influenced by gender stereotypes that limit both men and women based on subjective opinions of how they should look and behave. Although he intended to offer assistance, his approach was misguided and failed to consider the importance of political correctness in promoting equality.

The advice given by him was unsound and inappropriate, as it suggested that men and women should adhere to different appearance standards based on traditional gender roles. However, this can only be considered discriminatory if it is truly necessary for the job. I disagree with his comments, as they were not sensitive and did not align with the company culture. In my opinion, the company's culture supported gender discrimination by imposing different expectations on men and women.

The question arises as to whether a comment made by Beyer to Ann Hopkins would still be considered sexist if it had been made by a woman. Hopkins was told to conform to traditional gender stereotypes, such as "looking more feminine...wearing more jewelry or makeup" (Badaracco, 2001, p. 10). The male partners in this

scenario had a specific idea of how a woman should appear and Hopkins did not meet their expectations. In general, telling someone to change their appearance can be seen as either sexist or non-sexist. However, in this particular circumstance, it was clearly regarded as sexist regardless of the gender of the person making the comment.

The court's ruling on sex discrimination, as stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, clarified that it does not cover prejudice against women but rather a bias towards feminine women over masculine ones (Seligman 1990). Considering this decision, what advice would you offer to Ann Hopkins now? Upon reflection, I would recommend supporting her choice to sue Price Waterhouse. We must recognize that our organization has consistently shown a preference for white men (with a ratio of 16:2 white males to women/minorities) in senior management roles, despite their denial of any discriminatory practices and the presence of numerous equally qualified women.

During my discussions with management, we have addressed the issue of gender imbalance in senior management roles. Although I was advised to wait for progress, a white male was recently promoted instead. Nonetheless, this incident has made me appreciate Ann Hopkins and her achievements. Being retired now and the author of "So Ordered: Making Partner the Hard Way," she uses her knowledge to educate women and organizations about gender discrimination and how to prevent it.