Day 3: Stakeholder/Clarkson, Enron, Public Policy

I. finish/followed up with PETA/KFC... how would monitoring take place?

also if PETA is low power/high legitmacy/high urgency what would that mean? (salience model)?
what if we thought the claims were urgent? How does that change things?

clarkson principles:

which one is most important?
what is most commonly followed already?
why one is most difficult?

this was a tough exercise... it’s not easy to separate and prioritize these. but it does force them to really look at the principles, consider implications for implementation.

II. enron case:

we discussed the mechanics of enron a little bit. (spe’s, fastow’s magic, AA)
enron culture and the “rank and yank” system...
interesting stuff here, most students seemed interested in working in high reward/high risk cultures. I missed the opportunity to ask about “risk” and skirting the law, or being “ruthless”

III. government/public policy (chapter 4)

finish up with a rudy and cheating example. While I was not surprised that most students would not report a cheating student to the professor (or the university), I was surprised with the degree of passion most students expressed. This reflects in all likelihood the tight bonds these students establish within their cadres.

I asked, “what if you weren’t in the class, it was someone else, possibly even at another university, what would you think of a person who said to you “I think I’m going to turn that student in”. Most expressed their general disagreement with this but indicated it wouldn’t be a big deal, a few said anyone who did that could not be their friend.

More interesting was three years later and Rudy has applied for a job at your company. The boss wants to know if there’s anything he should know about Rudy. Again a few outspoken types were passionate, do not tell anyone. However I surveyed the class asking “would you say absolutely nothing, or perhaps something?” 12 said “something” , 5 said “nothing.