As always, this year there are several hard cases, and John has to decide how to vote on them, and what to say at the meeting. The problem is that in addition to the usual cases where an associate has been moderately successful, but maybe not good enough to become a partner, there are several cases involving ethical questions.
The first hard case is Henry Cohen. Henry is an aggressive New Yorker who has been very popular with clients and ordinarily would be an easy case to make partner. The problem arose in connection with his work for Einhorn Construction, which required him to work very closely with Mr. Einhorn, the founder. Mr. Einhorn gave Cohen an apartment in his own luxury apartment building and liked him enough that they spent many hours socializing as well as working, over the three months of the assignment. Cohen got to know Mrs. Einhorn, and seduced her. Mr. Einhorn found out shortly after the project was over (and the bill had been paid). In the end, the Einhorns were divorced, with Mr. Einhorn awarded custody of their two-year-old child. Einhorn regretfully broke off his longstanding relationship with Grozol and Purcell, saying that he had valued their advice over the years, but he did not want to have any reminder of the affair. Henry Cohen told the partner to whom he reports, Allen Durant, that he was sorry that Mr. Einhorn had found out, but he thought there was nothing wrong with what he did, since Mrs. Einhorn found him a lot more fun than Mr. Einhorn and the affair was nothing serious. Durant suggested that maybe Cohen should voluntarily resign and join another consulting firm, with a strong favorable recommendation from Durant, but Cohen said he'd rather stay at Grozol and Purcell, saying, jokingly, ``I get to meet so many interesting people here.''
The second hard case is Sarah Jellicoe-Jones. She, too, has been a very good associate. The problem in her case is that she started an affair with her supervising partner, Chris Jellicoe. Jellicoe was married to Dorothy Jellicoe, who is also a partner at the firm, but one year ago he divorced Dorothy and married Sarah. Chris has said that he will not vote or speak in Sarah's case at the meeting, and that other partners can find out his opinion from his annual compensation reports on Sarah over the years. These reports are all favorable, and the other partners who know Sarah's work agree that Chris was not biased in his reports: Sarah really is a good consultant. Dorothy, however, is bitterly angry, and fully intends to speak out against Sarah at the meeting. She has announced that she will definitely vote No when Sarah is proposed for partnership, and that she will continue to refuse to speak to Sarah if she makes partner. John Stone has worked closely with all three of these people, since they all specialize in high-tech companies, and he knows they all are brilliant, and once made a superb team.
Bill Thatcher, a prominent partner who is nearing retirement, is outraged by the situation, and has made sure everybody in the firm knows both these stories in full detail. The situation is complicated by the fact that Henry Cohen is Jewish, and several partners who are Jewish but non-religious have gone out of their way to say good things about him, while several partners who are evangelical Christians have gone out of their way to make snide remarks about both Cohen and ``JJ'', as they call her.
Greg Bogel is the managing partner of the firm. He sets the agenda for the meeting, deciding in what order the thirteen candidates for partner are discussed and voted on. If Bogel can't make it to the meeting, which may well happen this year since he is involved in negotiations to try to take over a British consulting firm, Hank Hendricks sets the agenda. Bogel and Hendricks are both greedy, soulless, money machines--- but they are very good at what they do. In this case, however, they disagree, despite both wanting to maximize partnership profits. Bogel wants both Cohen and Jellicoe-Jones to make partner. Hendricks wants them both to fail.
Another question that will undoubtedly come up at the meeting is whether the firm ought to have a written policy on romantic relationships, something it currently does not have. Some partners have already said that people deserve fair warning of what is permitted and what is not. Others say that everyone should know these things anyway. Still others say that the firm would lay itself open to lawsuits if it established guidelines but then deviated from them, or even if it seemed to a crazy judge somewhere to deviate from them, and it would be safer not to have guidelines.
John Stone is Jewish himself, and is unusual in being the only orthodox Jew in the firm. The other partners have gone out of their way to make it possible for him not to work on Saturdays, a difficult thing in this 65-hour-per-week job. He has strong religious objection to adultery, but he does not know whether he ought to bring these up at the meeting, even though he knows the evangelical Christians would agree with him.
You are a friend of John's because of your common interest in computer games. He asks you for advice, partly because you met through the Web, and you don't even know the real name of his consulting firm--all the information above is with the names changed to protect confidentiality.
He has thought of several possibilities, which apply to each case:
1. Vote YES, and say nothing at the meeting.
2. Vote NO, and say nothing at the meeting.
3. Vote YES, but after explaining that he condemns the behavior.
4. Vote YES, after explaining that the behavior is irrelevant to promotion.
5. Vote NO, after explaining that he condemns the behavior.
6. Vote NO, and be silent at the meeting,but lobby against the candidate in private meetings beforehand.
7. Vote NO, and threaten to resign if the person makes partner.
John is really quite confused. What should he do, and why?
Email me before midnight of the day we discuss this in class with your tentative recommendation for the two cases, Cohen and Jellicoe-Jones in a sentence or two. Then we'll discuss this in class.