Overview

Participants in this exercise, based on an actual corporate practice, answer a series of questions related to a new-hire situation. Then they discuss the pros and cons of a particular course of action.

Purpose

To provide alternatives to actions that may be troublesome.

Group Size

Any number of individuals can work on this exercise but there should be an even number of subgroups.

Room Arrangement

No special arrangements are required.

Materials

Handout 17.1, “Leader of the PAC”

Procedure

1.Ask the group members what they know and how they feel about campaign contributions in general and those made by businesses or businesspeople in particular. Bring into the discussion some ethical issues raised by such contributions.

2.Distribute Handout 17.1, “Leader of the PAC,” and ask participants to answer the questions on the bottom.

3.After about 15 minutes, have participants form small groups to prepare a script that has a newly hired employee actually explain to his or her manager that he or she prefers not to participate in the program.

4.Have each group present to one other group and obtain feedback on the effectiveness of the scripted presentation. Then the second group will make its presentation to the group that has just presented and will receive feedback from them. (Note: If there is an odd number of groups, have the “odd” group present to the entire class and then meet with you in a breakout room or a corner of the classroom. If the other groups are still working after you’ve provided feedback, split your group up; each person will join a different group and sit in as an observer.)

5.Lead a discussion about the need to speak up for what one believes is right juxtaposed with the need to be realistic in an “office politics” setting.

6.Conclude by challenging participants to come up with an original three- or four-word phrase that simply inspires. (Examples could be “Never give up,” “Just do it,” and “Just say no.”) Post their declarations around the room.

Variation

To illustrate the delicate balance required as managers walk the corporate tightrope, instead of having all the groups write an employee-centered script, have only half do this. The other half will write the script from the viewpoint of a manager who’s been told by his or her own manager that his or her performance appraisal depends, in part, on the amount of money contributed by his or her department to Political Action Committees. They should assume the manager sees nothing wrong with campaign contributions, as he or she honestly believes they help protect jobs.

Discussion

Why do you think there’s been so much resistance to campaign reform?

Will efforts to influence political leaders disappear now that reform is official? Explain your answer. Draw a line in the middle of a sheet of paper. List on the left all the reasons why a new hire might hesitate to express his or her opposition to such contributions. On the right, list all the reasons why he or she might “go along to get along.”

Quotation

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

—Elie Wiesel

Points of Interest

The McCain–Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, passed by Congress in March 2002, was propelled by people such as Russell Feingold, who feel that the overhaul of campaign finance was sorely needed. Feingold has publicly referred to soft money as a “taint” on the democracy. “Soft money” refers to the no-holds-barred contributions wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions can make to political parties. In theory, such money cannot be used for campaigning in federal elections. In reality, prior to the passage of new legislation targeting soft money, it was used primarily for federal elections.

HANDOUT 17.1