PAO AND GENDER BIAS

A Case Study

Presented to the Faculty of Liceo de La Salle

University of St. La Salle

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements of the course

Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

ALLA, RENZO DAVE V.

DUBOUZET, SHANNIAH I.

LIRAZAN, KRIS GERSEL MICAH G.

PLANILLA, DEBORHA YSABELLA J.

PALMA, SHANNIE MAY M.

SATERA, PAULA LOUISE M.

TAÑO, ARLENE A.

March 2019

1. Pao made the decision to voice her values when she noticed that most female
employees are excluded during meetings and gatherings and when she received
harrassment with an inadequate, uncertain support with women's ideas and when the
company fired ger on October 1, 2012. She voiced out her value through the decision of
directly passing a memorandum to court which address her experience of gender bias
and degrading the woman's capacity in workplace. Also, Pao addresses that there must
be equal treatment, opportunities , benefits and respect for everyone without or by not
basing the standards in gender. Furthermore, according to research the treatment of
women in the workplace is tenuous at best. On the other hand, supervisors and top
management that set different standards for men and women run the risk of potentially
turning off 50% of the workforce. Moreover, the organization loses the opportunity of
enhancing its leadership group if women are turned-off by their treatment in the
workplace.

2. Pao acted her values effectively because her bravery brought awareness to the issue
of gender discrimination. The trail brought light the sad state of gender diversity in tech
culture. Due to her, there are now visibility and awareness of the issues regarded. Her
lost in the lawsuit did affected our reasoning for the reason that she may have lost the
case, but her trial, in a broader context, is a minor victory in the war against the
entrenched sexism, harassment and discrimination that plagues Kleiner Parkins. By
shining a light on the secretive, insulated world of venture capital firms and publicly
recounting instances of sexism, Pao gave voice to what so many women decline to
mention. Discrimination, gender bias and sexual harassment are notoriously difficult to
prove and the verdict does not entirely cleared Kleiner Perkins wrongdoings. It only
affirms that Pao and her lawyers were unable to prove her claims.

3. The following are the seven pillars of GVV that are identified in Pao's actions: First, is
the Value. According to Mary Gentile, a Creator/ Director of Giving Voice to Values, it
refers to a small set of values, that are universally shared, such as honesty, respect,
responsibility, fairness, and compassion. Pao wanted everyone of them in their
workplace to be treated fairly and there should be an equal opportunities for both men
and women to be a venture capitalist.

The following are the seven pillars of GVV that are identified in Pao's actions: First, is the
Value. According to Mary Gentile, a Creator/ Director of Giving Voice to Values, it refers
to a small set of values, that are universally shared, such as honesty, respect,
responsibility, fairness, and compassion. Pao wanted everyone of them in their
workplace to be treated fairly and there should be an equal opportunities for both men
and women to be a venture capitalist.

The third pillar is Normalization. In Pao's case, she thinks that she was being
discriminated in her workplace so tried raise her concerns to her superiors a solution to
her problem by writing a memorandum to them.

The fourth pillar of GVV is the Purpose. In the time when Ellen Pao decided to raise her
problem to her superiors, her purpose is to make her co-workers aware of the
discrimination and harassment to women that is happening in their workplace. Even
though she didn't win in her gender discrimination lawsuit, the impact that was left by
her case inspired other people especially to those who are being discriminated or
harassed to fight for their right.
The fifth pillar is the Self-Knowledge and Alignment. This means to voice and act on your
values in a way that is consistent with who you are and builds on your strengths. This
pillar was identified when Pao's legal team argued that men were promoted ahead of
women, women who experienced sexual harassment received little support, and
women's ideas were often more quickly dismissed than men's. With that they voiced out
and defend their rights as women. They already have a background about women
discrimination that is why it is easy for them to collect data.

The sixth pillar is the Voice. This means that you are more likely to say words that you've
pre-scripted for yourself, and more likely to "voice" your values, with scripting and
practice. This pillar was shown when Ellen Pao's lawsuit made four claims to be used
against Kleiner Perkins. They already planned their speech for upcoming verdict.

The seventh pillar is the Reasons and Rationalizations.This is by anticipating the typical
reasons and rationalizations given for ethically questionable behavior, you are able to
identify and prepare well-reasoned responses. It is showed when Deborah Rhode said
that Pao's lawsuit succeeded in prompting debate about women in venture capital and
tech. They won that debate because they anticipated the reasons about the case.

The pillar that we think Pao could have engaged more effectively is the third pillar of
Giving Voice to Values which is the Normalization. According to Mary Gentile,
normalization is by expecting conflicts to be a regular part of our everyday life, either in
professional or personal lives. In Pao's situation, there could be other ways to solve her
solve her discrimination, gender biases and harassment issues like having a conversation
with her superiors. It cannot be avoided that there will be certain problems like gender
biases, and harassment issue that will occur in w.workplace or other settings. However,
he action is not totally wrong because she thinks that it is not right to just keep quiet
and compromise your values for the sake of staying in your job, position, or relationship
with co-workers. You can not tell that she has over reacted because we have our own
level of sensitivity.

4. If we were in the position of Pao we will make a step to show or illustrate that in a
business world there should not have discrimination whether you’re a male, female or
LGBT as long as you are hardworking, dedicated, honest, sincere and most especially you
perform well. You do your job in accordance with the company’s rules and regulation.
Also you gave your best to make the company into progress and successful one. We will
also show that in a company there should be a transparency with regards performances.
There are equality among men and women.

It influenced our actions by doing what are the proper values that a good employee
must perform and follow. That in every company there should have a rules and
regulations to follow and that every rules and regulations there should have
performance evaluation for that we can identify and assist our strength and weakness as
an employee. That we should take into consideration that every employee has its own
strength and weaknesses to be considered.

Yes, she can engaged more effectively by showing to her co-employees that even
though you are not men you can do and fulfill the task higher than what they expect
from you. That we should also respect the decision making of the company with regards
to choosing for the promotion. But then again as an employee we must show them that
even though we are qualified or suit for the position they are looking at we need to
perform our best to show them that they will regret for not choosing you.

5. If we were one of the juror, we would have ruled in favor of Pao because we suppose
that the case still needed a much more thorough investigation. The Perkins only stated
one meeting among their many gatherings—excluding the ones where they actually
acted on their personal prejudices about women. Based on the case study, Pao has been
terminated by the firm and was usually treated as an outcast by her men
co-workers—disregarding the Gender Equality in Codes of Conducts. In this particular
situation, Pao wasn't given the justice she deserved as an employee and as a person.
Additionally, this issue has also been experienced by the other women of the
company—thus proving the Perkins to be on the wrong. Gender equality should always
apply on a job, because all genders only have the same chances of capability. The
argument about the investors' meeting was not strong enough to determine the
decisions that the jury has made. It was also included in the state study that Pao was
already a junior investing partner and should have been promoted to a senior partner in
investing, but instead, the firm terminated her. This only shows that Pao was doing her
job well, but that great effort wasn't recognized by the Perkins. It was clear in the study
that Pao has experienced discrimination and gender inequality in her job.