Susan Shapiro Case
“The Case of Susan Shapiro”
Susan’s Behaviour
Susan is a Jewish girl who is brilliant but irate tempered, complaining and conclusive personality. Susan’s nature of expecting a predetermined behaviour from others, preconceived notions added to her conclusive attitude has become the cause of conflict in her personality. Susan is in ethical dilemma whether to leave the organization after she was confronted with - what she thinks as conflicting situations in the workplace.
She jumps into conclusion without due and adequate evidence. Attributing to her very nature she feels that chemistry is not suitable to her which was proved wrong by the fact that she got job because of her chemistry academic background. Also she was apprehensive of not getting job being a Jew. This might have been formed in her mind subconsciously and so her beliefs are based on misinterpretation of some past experiences. This is well evident from the fact that she left the research division of Parke–Davis only because one of her male colleagues asked her …show more content…
Based on these opinions she chose MBA as her career as against PhD without thinking what kind of problems she might face in this field unrelated to her previous field of study. Her inconclusive nature is evident when she says that marketing is a manipulative unethical subject. She is comfortable with more definitive subjects like finance and economics where the level of uncertainty is less. Dichotomous thinking of either yes or no led to her faulty notions. There are multiple alternatives in many situations which have uncertain and mixed outcomes and all of them have to be accounted for. Working in the communal farms in Israel during war shows she gives importance to values concerned with human welfare than anything else. Values are something which guide us when we make decisions and a person should hold on to her / his values in case of a
Susan’s Behaviour
Susan is a Jewish girl who is brilliant but irate tempered, complaining and conclusive personality. Susan’s nature of expecting a predetermined behaviour from others, preconceived notions added to her conclusive attitude has become the cause of conflict in her personality. Susan is in ethical dilemma whether to leave the organization after she was confronted with - what she thinks as conflicting situations in the workplace.
She jumps into conclusion without due and adequate evidence. Attributing to her very nature she feels that chemistry is not suitable to her which was proved wrong by the fact that she got job because of her chemistry academic background. Also she was apprehensive of not getting job being a Jew. This might have been formed in her mind subconsciously and so her beliefs are based on misinterpretation of some past experiences. This is well evident from the fact that she left the research division of Parke–Davis only because one of her male colleagues asked her …show more content…
Based on these opinions she chose MBA as her career as against PhD without thinking what kind of problems she might face in this field unrelated to her previous field of study. Her inconclusive nature is evident when she says that marketing is a manipulative unethical subject. She is comfortable with more definitive subjects like finance and economics where the level of uncertainty is less. Dichotomous thinking of either yes or no led to her faulty notions. There are multiple alternatives in many situations which have uncertain and mixed outcomes and all of them have to be accounted for. Working in the communal farms in Israel during war shows she gives importance to values concerned with human welfare than anything else. Values are something which guide us when we make decisions and a person should hold on to her / his values in case of a