Reference no: EM13203117

Part A: Instructions

• Read the Case Study: "The Case of the Unequal Opportunity" by M. C. Gentile (1991, July/August), Harvard Business Review, Volume 69, Issue 4, pages 14-25.
• Then, read the article "Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity" by David A. Thomas and Robin J. Ely (October, 1996) in Harvard Business Review, Volume 74, Issue 5, pages 79-90.

Answer the following questions with regard to the case study by M. C. Gentile. You should demonstrate your ability to incorporate and integrate your learning from all aspects of this module. Ensure that you include information from the course material, the readings, and your own research.

Question 1. In "The Case of the Unequal Opportunity," the company's workplace equity policy is clear. In your opinion, which paradigm does the company use to manage diversity? Defend your position.

Question 2. What should Wollen do? Consider the impact of her recommendations or decisions with regard to this situation on her own career, on Lewis's career, and on the company as a whole. Is your perspective influenced by the company's orientation towards diversity that you identified in Question 1? Explain why or why not.

Part B: Instructions

• Read the Case Study: "Merck, the FDA, and the Vioxx Recall" on pages 480-489 in your textbook.
• Write a 2500-word double-spaced report containing the following:

 Section 1: Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to the development and testing of Vioxx? Explain why and/or why not.

 Section 2: Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to Vioxx in its relations with customers and sharholders? Explain why and/or why not.

 Section 3: Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to the marketing and advertising of Vioxx? Explain why and/or why not.

 Section 4: Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to Vioxx in its relationships with government policy makers and regulators? Explain why and/or why not.

 Section 5: Do you believe that Merck's voluntary public recall of Vioxx was an act of corporate social responsiblity? Explain why and/or why not.

FOR PART A: Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. I was unable to find the full article but I found the abstract online.

Abstract:

Diversity efforts in the workplace have been undertaken with great goodwill, but, ironically, they often end up fueling tensions. They rarely spur the leaps in organizational effectiveness that are possible. Two paradigms for diversity are responsible, but a new one is showing it can address the problem. The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm is based on the recognition that discrimination is wrong. Under it, progress is measured by how well the company achieves its recruitment and retention goals. The paradigm idealizes assimilation and color- and gender-blind conformism. The access-and-legitimacy paradigm, on the other hand, celebrates differences. Under it, organizations seek access to a more diverse clientele, matching their demographics to targeted consumers. But that paradigm can leave employees of different identity-group affiliations feeling marginalized or exploited. In companies with the right kind of leadership, a third paradigm is showing that beneficial learning takes place and organizations become more effective in fulfilling their missions if employees are encouraged to tap their differences for creative ideas. If all or most of eight preconditions are in place, the opportunities for growth are almost unlimited. Leaders in third-paradigm companies are proactive about learning from diversity; they encourage people to make explicit use of cultural experience at work; they fight all forms of dominance and subordination, including those generated by one functional group acting superior to another; and they ensure that the inevitable tensions that come from a genuine effort to make way for diversity are acknowledged and resolved with sensitivity.