BUS 102 assignment week #1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download BUS 102 assignment week #1 PDF

Description

Kendall Lu BUS 102 Section 25 March 6, 2018 (Sean D. Jasso, Ph.D., 2010, The Hippocratic Oath of the Manager: Good or Bad Idea?, Issue 56) Arguably the most revered document throughout history, the Hippocratic Oath, exemplifies foundational principles that, therein, demand adherence from qualified practitioners. Practitioners who devote their undivided attention to the concentration of their respective field. Although, the advent of the Oath found purpose, originally, in the field of medicine the Latin phrase primum non nocere “above all, not knowingly to do harm” is now synonymously applied to other fields of practice. Two professors at the Harvard Business School argued that the Hippocratic Oath would steer our managers away from malpractice, and in 2009 we can see the “growing movement of business school students taking formal oaths promising to pay equal attention to “shareholders, coworkers, customers and the society in which we operate””(Jasso, 2010, p. 1). To signify the relevance in using the Oath for MBA’s in management, managers face numerous risks in the ever-dynamic climate of the business world; their job requires a comprehensive understanding of the potential risks versus the reward, to make the best decision. The magnitude of the manager’s decision can be reflected in the success of the entire business; such decisions ultimately reflect in the growth or failure of businesses within economies. Management has been “defined, grappled, adjusted, improved, refined, and customized for over a hundred years” it’s clear that management plays a pivotal role, in any business(Jasso, 2010, p. 1). With such power, and the risk versus reward being so great the argument that malpractice is apparent in today’s society is a given. Therefore, Harvard professors argue that the implementation of the Oath could inspire many MBA’s to “do no harm” (Jasso, 2010, p. 5). The article’s argument, by Sean D. Jasso, Ph.D, addresses the positive intention of the Oath that could result in the inspiring new practitioners to not do harm, however, the implication is impossible and the outcome cannot be justified, to result in such an economy free of malpractice. The ‘general’ MBA degree can be synonymous with the other professions (“medicine, law, or accounting”) that requires “study, preparation, and specialization of a particular field” the MBA requires the same rigor in a broader understanding across all concentrations within business (Jasso, 2010, p. 2). Notice, however, the entrepreneur or the owner of a company does not require the MBA to practice management; the MBA serves as a certification, on paper, of qualification to manage. Furthermore, managers do not share the same legal bounds as practitioners under medicine, law, and accounting; as these practices have their respective regulatory boards, bound by respective mandates. Such qualification cannot be mistaken for the righteousness in making the best decision, deterring the need of the MBA Oath. To further strengthen his argument, managers do not share the same legal bounds as practitioners under medicine, law, and accounting; as these practices have their respective regulatory boards, bound by respective mandates. Ultimately, although the intent of the Harvard Professor’s was for the greater good of the economy, unfortunately, the dynamic nature of management is “deeper than any oath”; even if the Oath deters the malpractice of tomorrows business leaders the implication of the Oath is simply not possible, as there are numerous variables that encompass the business world. Therefore, the Oath is not necessary because “the well regulated, dynamic, and completive market will take care of bad behavior” (Jasso, 2010, p. 5). Breaking down Jasso’s article, we can deduce the formatting of the article to transition from informative to argumentative. The article displays strong supporting research that provides a relevant point of view in the issue that Harvard Business Professor’s intending to solve. Such strong evidence and critical analysis can be viewed in Jasso’s argument; the argument, thus, proposes a different solution, backed by superior evidence. Considering the Latin phrase Ceteris paribus meaning if all else is equal, the phrase synergizes in strengthening Jasso’s argument. As a student concentrating in Finance, the numerous courses required to fulfill my degree has forced me to interpret the business world in a holistic manner. This Latin term – that I have recently learned in my finance class— is widely used in the study of economics. The term is used to simplify the outcome of situations, and it does this by stating that all other variables except those

under consideration are held constant. We can deduce the benefit of such a term for the foundations of economics as there are numerous wild-card factors that cannot be predicted or if considered would cause many discrepancies. With that said, while the article strengthened the relevance of the term management using the term and my personal outlook on the business world we that deter the need of the MBA’s Hippocratic Oath, Jasso’s argument. Using Ceteris paribus, with the constant variables of the: malpractice in business, the practitioner before the Hippocratic Oath if we assume that all other variables are held constant then, as a result, after practitioner’s take the oath, inspired by goodwill, then there would be no malpractice in the business world. Reflecting on what has just been said, it is a brief, rigid, statement but such a statement is synonymous to what the outcome Harvard Professors so much believe. Thereby, by using the Latin phrase, the argument made by Jasso is strengthened in regards of his own argument; furthermore, the result of the given variables could reduce ill practice in managers but the implementation of such an Oath is nearly impossible, as ‘things’ are easier said than done. In this quote, “Now to the question of whether the new MBA should take an oath. Indeed, an oath can add symbolic meaning to the commencement of a new journey” (Jasso, 2010, p. 3). The strength of any argument lies in the ability to foresee potential arguments and counterargue those points with supporting evidence. Here, we can see how he is acknowledging and, perhaps, entertaining the idea of the MBA’s oath, but this is where strong research and deep understanding of the market debunk the argument. “Hippocratic Oaths of MBAs is only as good as the movement grows beyond the university” (Jasso, 2010, p. 4). Almost as if he is mocking the tunneled-vision of the Harvard Professors synonymous to the Latin phrase, Ceteris Paribus. Thereby, Jasso supports his argument, by going against the need of the Oath, by contradicting the logical fallacy of the Oath’s implications. From this quote, “In fact, there is no apparent sweeping demand from the large stakeholder environment mandating managers to have a certificate or license on their office wall affirming one’s oath to do no harm. Moreover, and perhaps most relevant, there exists no authentic regulatory board (analogous to the medical, legal, and accounting professions) to monitor the fair practice and fiduciary responsibility of the oath-mandated manager” we can see his strength in not only considering factors that surround the Oath but further strengthening his own argument that the business world does not need the MBA’s oath because if the “sacred exchange is broken by fraud, complacency or incompetence, consumers will simply demand new markets to replace the old” (Jasso, 2010, p. 4). Perhaps, the implementation of the Latin Phrase could be incorrect; Jasso considered other variables that have otherwise resulted in the original outcome of the variables and outcome, disregarding the point of Ceteris Paribus. Yes, that is correct, however, in my own personal experience as well as decisions made by businesses imply that new variables are ubiquitous; therefore, to be successful the leaders of tomorrow must adapt, by reconsidering new or previously constant variables. For example, if the reader were to have stopped after reading the first two pages of the article the result, of the lasting impact, is drastically different from finishing the article. Ceteris Paribus, allows the economist to understand certain outcomes of certain citations, but in relevance to politics, economies, and governments if known variables come into play the outcome will change. Thus, through the Latin Phrase, the article found success in its argument when addressing new variables that Jasso has brought light to. Although, the implementation of the Oath to MBA’s by Harvard Professors serve a noble purpose to reduce malpractice in business the argument by Jasso’s encompassing argument is supported by evidence that states: those who practice good business will see success and those who decide to practice against the ethics and, therein, laws of business will fail. Through critical analysis, the article forces the reader to reconsider outcomes when new variables or thoughts are introduced. The management position itself represents the polar opposites of winning or losing, in retrospect, the manager makes the right decision and goes on to receive a raise, or pat on the back, but the wrong decision would cause him or her to lose their job. The article, thereby, serves as a warning to those who do not practice good business; those who practice bad business will see failure, in themselves and their business. Ceteris Paribus, Readers should take head of the risks versus reward while abiding by the laws mandated by business. A deeply embedded lesson, brought to light, – perhaps the reader is already considering such unknown variables, to allow for the better outcome – the realization and consistent use of such this logic can be applied to almost every aspect of his or her life; potentially, resulting in his or her future success – in careers, relationships, etc. Thereby, we must look carefully at arguments and variables; we must proceed with decisiveness and caution, and by all means, follow the law....