Ann Hopkins was featured in our Harvard Business Review case study as a strong, intelligent, and aggressive hard worker. She's worked her way up through many impressive jobs: a mathematician at IBM, an IT and utilization manager looking after NASA's accounts, and a systems management consultant at a major accounting firm, Touche Ross. She took her work seriously, and when it came time to make partner in her most impressive job as a management consultant at Price Waterhouse, Hopkins and many others deemed her a strong, confident candidate to make partner. However, a surprising turn of events put her on permanent "hold," doubting whether she would ever become partner. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay1. Why wasn't Ann Hopkins named partner? In 1982, 32 Price Waterhouse partners, all male, evaluated 88 partner candidates, of which Hopkins was the only woman. Only 13 out of 32 partners supported the decision to become a partner at the time of the evaluation. Ann had put in more hours and brought in more business for the company than any of the other candidates that year, so she and her colleagues were immediately confused as to why she hadn't been promoted. According to the company's president, Joseph Connor, Ann needed to “relax and take charge less often” (Badaracco, 2001). Thomas Beyer, the partner at the Office of Government Services who made the initial recommendation for her candidacy, had previously told her to make her appearance more feminine through the use of makeup, softer colors and hairstyles. Once again, after her application was rejected, Beyer suggested that making her manners more generally feminine might allow her the partner position. Shortly thereafter, he lost the support of the OGS partner and subsequently his appointment as partner (Badaracco, 2001). Ann Hopkins absolutely should have made partner. But instead of valuing her experience, talent, credentials and skills that should have earned her a partnership, those evaluating her judged her for her less-than-feminine style and mannerisms. While other male candidates were judged to be aggressive and domineering and praised with promotion, the male-dominated evaluation committee decided that Hopkins' aggressive and domineering behavior was exaggerated. In other words, these traits that could be considered an asset for this difficult profession by males were considered wrong for a woman. In HR3, DeNisi and Griffin explain that this type of discrimination is called disparate treatment, defined as “difference in treatment based on race, sex, religion, age, national origin, or disability status” (2016) . In Hopkins' case, the disparate treatment would be based on sex. Hopkins evaluators treated her differently because she was female, whereas if she had been male, there would have been no considerations about her hair, carrying a briefcase, or aggressive nature in the boardroom. She was expected to behave in a certain way that her evaluators deemed acceptable for a woman, and because she didn't, she was refused a promotion. That aside, it could be assumed that Price Waterhouse's male-dominated partnership aimed to remain male-dominated by taking steps to prevent female unions. Vincent Roscigno describes this as “social closure” or when a “status group” with certain advantages and benefits intentionally intends to remain closed to othersgroups by preventing their acceptance (2007). This means that, even if Hopkins had changed her hairdo, her makeup and made herself altogether more feminine, what would they have asked of her next? Learning to juggle? Where would the instructions stop? Or is their intention to never stop? Later in her book, Roscigno goes on to describe that women in particular may have difficulty just when they are being considered for promotions because they are held to a “higher standard” (2007). In Hopkins' case, this is most certainly a problem as his list of expectations seemed much longer than for other candidates who had even less experience and talent.2. Was the problem avoidable? If yes, how? In 1982, even this large company was not entirely accustomed to having women in high positions of power. Ann Hopkins would be among the first female candidates to collaborate with Price Waterhouse. This is no excuse for his treatment, but it helps explain why the partner review panel was so unaware of the practice of equal treatment in the hiring process. However, since the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, ignorance is not acceptable. Especially in a company like Price Waterhouse, this type of discrimination can be prevented with proper human resources management procedures, training and protocols. In this case, I believe proper training of all staff could have prevented the problem. If everyone involved in consulting Price Waterhouse were required to take a small course on discrimination and the hiring process, for example, they would know that asking a woman to act more feminine is not acceptable advice for promotion or the advancement. They should also spend more time paying attention to the general attitude to the profession rather than the gender norms that the candidate may or may not adhere to. Beyond education, Price Waterhouse displays a corporate culture of discrimination, which makes the hiring process unhealthy and illegal. . One of the hardest things to change in a company is culture because it is a fluid social event that governs virtually everything that happens in the workplace. At Price Waterhouse, the discriminatory work culture accepted a committee's decision not to hire based on sexist expectations. In a male-dominated company, this can be all too common (especially under the constructs of the aforementioned practice of social closure). Understanding that work culture can be toxic and lead to problems like this, Tristin Green mentions in his article “Work Culture and Discrimination” that this is all the more reason for companies to create conscious corporate “reform” initiatives (2005 ). He explains that this is why some infringements may be difficult for companies to detect in any action; it is difficult to recognize this type of cultural issue in a company. In this case, the deceptive nature of the work culture only adds to Hopkins' frustration. Without being adequately informed about what sex discrimination might mean, she may consider the decision to deny her promotion simply a poor decision by the evaluation committee rather than a serious discriminatory infraction.3. Clearly there were aspects of Hopkin's behavior that clashed with accepted norms, particularly those applied to women. Why didn't the company raise these issues with you sooner? Why didn't he make more of an effort to change when he finally got feedback? Before considering applying, he had worked on 4 successful projects.