Read Jennings $(10$th ed$.)$ Case $7\mathrm{.}21$: Ann Hopkins and Price Waterhouse $($pp$.524-529)$; then, answer the following

questions:

$1.$ What ethical problems do you see with the Price Waterhouse partnership evaluation system?

$2.$ Suppose that you were a partner and a member of either the admissions committee or the policy board.

$$ What objections, if any, would you have made to any of the comments by the partners?

$$ What would have made it difficult for you to object?

$$ How might your being a female partner in that position have made objections more difficult?

$3.$ In what ways, if any, do you find the subjectivity of the evaluation troublesome?

$$ What aspects of the evaluation would you change?

$4.$ To what extent did the partners$$ comments reflect mixed motives $($i$.$e$.,$ to what extent did their points express

legal factors while at the same time expressing illegal ones$)?$

$5.$ Ms$.$ Hopkins listed three factors to help companies avoid what happened to her:

$$ Clear direction from the top of the enterprise,

$$ Diversity in management, and

$$ Specificity in evaluation criteria. Give examples of how a company could implement these factors.

$6.$ You will also need at least four peer$-$reviewed sources.