Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Management / Edition 3by Marc D. Street, Vera L. Street
Taking Sides volumes present current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript or challenge questions. Taking Sides readers feature an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites. An… See more details below
Taking Sides volumes present current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript or challenge questions. Taking Sides readers feature an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites. An online Instructor’s Resource Guide with testing material is available for each volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource.
Table of Contents
TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views in Management, Third Edition
Table of Contents
Clashing Views in Management, Third Edition
• Unit 1 Ethical Issues for Managers
• Issue 1. Do Corporations Have a Responsibility to Society Beyond Maximizing Profit?
YES: Robert D. Hay and Edmund R. Gray, from “Introduction to Social Responsibility,” in David Keller, man. ed., Ethics and Values: Basic Readings in Theory and Practice (Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002)
NO: Milton Friedman, from “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” in Laura P. Hartman, ed., Perspectives in Business Ethics, 3rd ed. (New York Times Magazine, 2005)
Robert Hay and Edmund Gray use stakeholder theory and a historical accounting of the evolution of managerial thinking to reach their conclusion that enlightened management is socially responsible management. In his classical defense of the profit motive, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman attacks social responsibility, arguing that spending shareholders’ property against their wishes is immoral, illegal, and ultimately unproductive.
• Issue 2. Is it Immoral for U.S. Corporations to Use Cheap Overseas Labor?
YES: BusinessWeek, from “Secrets, Lies, and Sweatshop” (November 27, 2006), http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/06_48/b4011001.htm?chan=gl
NO: Daniel Griswold, from “Overseas Sweatshop Abuses, Their Impact on U.S. Workers, and the Need for Anti-Sweatshop Legislation,” Testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development Subcommittee (February 14, 2007)
BusinessWeek argues that many U.S. corporations have been guilty of negligence in monitoring and controlling the quality of working conditions in their overseas sweatshop operations, resulting in continued abuse and exploitation of workers. In testimony to a U.S. Senate subcommittee, Daniel Griswold, an expert scholar in labor issues for the Cato Institute, argues that anti-sweatshop legislation is unwise and contrary to the interests of both U.S. corporations and the citizens of the host countries.
• Issue 3. Are U.S. CEOs Paid More Than They Deserve?
YES: Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh, Chuck Collins, Mike Lapham, Sam Pizzigati, from “Executive Excess 2007,” (Institute for Policy Studies, 2007). http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/#84
NO: Ira T. Kay, from “Don’t Mess with CEO Pay,” Across the Board (January/February 2006)
Arguing that US CEOs are substantially overpaid in a 2008 study conducted for the Institute for Policy Studies is compensation expert and IPS Fellow Sarah Anderson and her colleagues. Ira Kay is an expert in executive compensation and a consultant at Watson Wyatt Worldwide. He argues persuasively that market forces play an important role in executive compensation, which is, on the whole, fair and equitable.
• Issue 4. Does an Employer’s Need to Monitor Workers Trump Employee Privacy Concerns?
YES: Ian D. Meklinsky and Anne Ciesla Bancroft, from “Mindful Monitoring,” Security Management (April 2007), http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/mindful-monitoring
NO: National Workrights Institute, from Privacy Under Siege: Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace (National Workrights Institute, 2005), http://www.workrights.org/issue_electronic.html
Ian Meklinsky and Anne Ciesla Bancroft, experts in employment law, provide insightful analysis of this issue while explaining how, when, and why monitoring can and should be used in the workplace. The National Workrights Institute acknowledges that monitoring is legal for most employers most of the time but argues that more stringent laws should be enacted to provide more protection of employee rights.
• Unit 2 Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
• Issue 5. Has Affirmative Action Outlived Its Usefulness in the Workplace?
YES: Carl Cohen, from “Why Race Preference Is Wrong and Bad,” Affirmative Action and Racial Preference: A Debate (Oxford University Press, 2003)
NO: Garth Massey, from “Thinking about Affirmative Action: Arguments Supporting Preferential Policies,” Review of Policy Research (Wiley-Blackwell, 2004)
Dr. Carl Cohen is a philosophy professor who believes that affirmative action is not only ineffective but also immoral. In addition to his charge of immorality, he presents three additional points against affirmative action. Garth Massey, Professor of Sociology and Director of the International Studies Program at the University of Wyoming, readily admits that traditional defenses of affirmative action are weak and counter-punches by presenting three unusual and “new” arguments in support of affirmative action.
• Issue 6. Is Workplace Drug Testing a Wise Corporate Policy?
YES: Elaine Davis and Stacie Hueller, from “Strengthening the Case for Workplace Drug-Testing,” S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal (Summer 2006, vol. 71, no. 3)
NO: Russ Belville, from “Drug Testing Does No Good,” The Oregon Herald (April 20, 2005). http://www.oregonherald.com/n/radicalruss/20050420_workplace-drug-testing.html
Scholars Elaine Davis and Stacie Hueller provide an analysis on how and why businesses should address the growing use of methamphetamines in the workplace. Former talk radio host and social commentator Russ Belville cites results of several studies questioning the effectiveness of workplace drug testing. He further argues that given their expense, drug-testing policies are not sound strategic initiatives.
• Issue 7. Is Gender Discrimination the Main Reason Women Are Paid Less Than Men?
YES: Stephen J. Rose and Heidi I. Hartmann, from “Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2004)
NO: Frank S. Zepezauer, from “The Feminist Crusades” (AuthorHouse, 2007)
Stephen J. Rose and Heidi I. Hartmann, scholars at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, argue in their 2004 study that discrimination is still the main reason for the persistence in the gender gap. Frank Zepezaur strongly disagrees with the position taken by Rose and Hartmann. Zepezaur, an English graduate from the University of Chicago and a prominent influence in the men’s rights movement, marshals considerable data in support of his view that there are many factors that contribute to the wage gap.
• Issue 8. Should Employees Be Allowed to Vote by Secret Ballot When Deciding Whether to Support Unionization in the Workplace?
YES: F. Vincent Vernuccio, from “Card Check Double Standard, CEI On Point (March 24, 2009). http://cei.org/on-point/2009/03/24/card-check-double-standard
NO: Ross Eisenbrey and David Kusnet, from “The Employee Free Choice Act: Questions and Answers,” Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief 249 (January 29, 2009). http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib249/
F. Vincent Vernuccio, a labor expert and scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that EFCA is unconstitutional because it does away with the secret ballot in the union creation process. He also shows that it is self-contradictory because other provisions of the bill actually allow for the use of secret ballot voting. Ross Eisenbrey and David Kusnet, scholars writing for the Economic Policy Institute, argue that much of the criticism of the EFCA is based on misunderstandings and incomplete analysis. In their defense of the bill, they address common complaints and questions about the EFCA.
• Issue 9. Should Corporations Be Allowed to Implement English-Only Rules in the Workplace?
YES: K. C. McAlpin, Testimony before the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights Hearing on Specifying English as the Common Language of the Workplace (December 12, 2008). http://www.proenglish.org/news/USCCRTestimony.html
NO: Amy Crowe, from “May I Speak? Issues Raised by Employers’ English-Only Policies,” Journal of Corporation Law (April 2005). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5847/is_200504/ai_n23804796/
K. C. McAlpin, the Executive Director of ProEnglish, a national organization that supports English-only rules for the workplace, defends his position primarily through his attack on the EEOC and its rationale and methods of prosecuting US firms that employ English-only rules. Legal scholar Amy Crowe provides a detailed analysis of the relationship between the US courts and the EEOC as it pertains to English-only policies and, in so doing, supports the EEOC and its rationale and methods for identifying and prosecuting discrimination in the workplace resulting from the implementation of English-only rules.
• Unit 3 Strategic Management
• Issue 10. Is Downsizing a Sound Strategic Initiative?
YES: Andrew Simone and Brian H. Kleiner, from “Workforce Reduction Guidelines,” Southern Business Review (Spring 2004)
NO: Kenneth Levitt, Terry Wilson, and Edna Gilligan, from “Corporate Downsizing: An Examination of the Survivors” Journal of Global Business Issues (Summer 2008)
Authors Andrew Simone and Brian Kleiner acknowledge that downsizing carries significant risks, but they believe that, if implemented correctly, downsizing can be an invaluable strategic program. They offer insightful suggestions to help ensure a successful downsizing initiative. East Stroudsburg University researchers Kenneth Levitt, Terry Wilson, and Edna Gilligan examine the effects of downsizing on those that “survive” the layoffs. Their results indicate that survivors are subject to several negative effects, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the downsizing intervention itself.
• Issue 11. Is Outsourcing a Wise Corporate Strategy?
YES: BusinessWeek, from “The Future of Outsourcing,” BusinessWeek Special Report: Outsourcing (January 30, 2006), http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_05/b3969401.htm
NO: Ephraim Schwartz, from “Painful Lessons from IT Outsourcing Gone Bad,” InfoWorld.com (August 25, 2008), http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/painful-lessons-it-outsourcing-gone-bad-032
BusinessWeek writers argue that outsourcing is likely to become even more important to corporate America in the near future. Indeed, they suggest that it has the potential to transform whole industries. InfoWorld columnist Ephraim Schwartz explores the often-overlooked costs associated with failed outsourcing initiatives. His analysis consists of four brief case studies of outsourcing initiatives that turned out badly.
• Issue 12. Does Expanding via Mergers and Acquisitions Make for Sound Corporate Strategy?
YES: Marc J. Epstein, from “The Determinants and Evaluation of Merger Success,” Business Horizons (JanuaryFebruary 2005)
NO: Anand Sanwal, from “M&A’s Losing Hand,” Business Finance, (November 18, 2008). http://businessfinancemag.com/article/mas-losing-hand-1118
Marc Epstein feels that the negative attention that M&As receive is largely due to faulty analysis of M&A activity. He contends that M&A transactions should be considered when a firm’s strategic managers are looking for vehicles for growth. Success, however, is contingent upon several factors outlined by the author. In the “No” side selection, Anand Sanwal examines 33 large M&A transactions from Europe, Canada, and the United States. The evidence is that a great deal of these M&A transactions have actually destroyed value. He also contends of the transactions that did fare well, luck was often a large factor.
• Issue 13. Is First-to-Market a Successful Strategy?
YES: William T. Robinson and Sungwook Min, from “Is the First to Market the First to Fail? Empirical Evidence for Industrial Goods Businesses,” Journal of Marketing Research (February 2002)
NO: William Boulding and Markus Christen, from “Sustainable Pioneering Advantage? Profit Implications of Market Entry Order,” Marketing Science (Summer 2003)
Scholars William T. Robinson and Sungwook Min provide results of a study indicating that the advantages from being first outweigh the risks of implementing the strategy. William Boulding and Markus Christen take a contrary position and argue that first moving is not necessarily a wise strategy, presenting evidence from their own research that, in the long-run, first-movers actually experience performance disadvantages.
• Issue 14. Is Growth Always an Inherent Corporate Value?
YES: Clayton M. Christensen and Michael E. Raynor, from The Innovator’s Solution (Harvard Business School Press, 2003)
NO: Jim Mackey and Liisa Välikangas, from “The Myth of Unbounded Growth,” MIT Sloan Management Review (Winter 2004)
Clayton M. Christensen and Michael E. Raynor argue that firms are subject to pressures to continually grow from sources both inside and outside of the organization. Business scholars Jim Mackey and Liisa Välikangas cite many interesting statistics to support the view that lasting growth is elusive and unrealistic and, thus, not necessary to define a firm as successful.
• Unit 4 Environmental and International Management Issues
• Issue 15. Should Corporations Adopt Environmentally Friendly Policies of CSR and Sustainable Development?
YES: Sierra Club, from “Sierra Club Purposes and Goals,” (July 13, 2006). http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/
NO: Paul Driessen, from Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, (Free Enterprise Press, 2004)
The Sierra Club is a leading environmentalist organization and has consistently advocated for the implementation of CSR policies in the workplace. The selection presented here provides insight into their philosophy and expectations as they relate to corporate behavior and its impact on the natural environment. Paul Driessen, trained in environmental science and a major advocate for the world’s poor, writes a blistering attack on CSR and its constituent policies. He argues that these policies bring misery and death to the world’s poor and act as camouflage for the environmentalist’s anti-capitalism, pro-statism agenda.
• Issue 16. Do Unskilled Immigrants Hurt the American Economy?
YES: Steven Malanga, from “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy,” City Journal (Summer 2006)
NO: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, from “The Case for Immigration,” The New York Sun (September 22, 2006)
Columnist Steven Malanga believes the influx of unskilled immigrants results in job loss by native workers and lower investment in labor-saving technology. He also contends that illegal immigration taxes our already-strained welfare and social security systems. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former chief economist at the US Department of Labor, points out that annual immigration represents a small portion of the US labor force, and, in any event, immigrant laborers complement, rather than replace, legal American citizens in the workplace.
• Issue 17. Is Economic Globalization Good for Humankind?
YES: Paul A. Gigot, from “Foreword” Guy Sorman, from “Globalization Is Making the World a Better Place,” (2008). http://www.heritage.org/index/PDF/2008/Index2008_Foreword.pdf; http://www.heritage.org/index/PDF/2008/Index2008_Chap3.pdf
NO: Branco Milanovic, from “Why Globalization Is in TroubleParts 1 and 2,” (August 31, 2006). http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8073
Arguing that globalization is good for humankind are Paul Gigot and Guy Sorman. They outline seven ways in which globalization has positively impacted life and what needs to be done to further its advancement. Branko Milanovic, an economist with both the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the World Bank, is against globalization. He addresses several reasons for his views while emphasizing the incompatibility of globalization with the ages-old ethnic and religious traditions and values that characterize much of the world.
• Issue 18. Are Protectionist Policies Beneficial to Business?
YES: Ha-Joon Chang, from “Protecting the Global Poor,” Prospect Magazine (July 2007)
NO: Robert Krol, from “Trade, Protectionism, and the US Economy: Examining the Evidence” in Trade Briefing Paper No. 28, The Cato Institute (September 16, 2008)
In support of the idea that protectionist policies help business, Ha-Joon Chang focuses attention on developing industries in poor countries. Further, he describes and advocates historical protectionist policies from around the world. In the “No” selection, Robert Krol describes the findings of various economic studies of international trade. The areas that he surveys include the effect of trade on employment and wages as well of the costs of trade restrictions. He concludes that overall the benefits from protectionist policies are overshadowed by their negative effects.
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >