Melanie Rae Serra

As a student studying in business administration and concentrating in management consulting, I have a large pool of classes to choose from to satisfy my graduation requirements. Last semester I chose to enroll in a class titled "Organizational Change and Development" taught by professor Olson here at the University of Southern California. As part of his curriculum requirements, students must form teams and provide consulting services for one of many not-for-profit agencies in the greater Los Angeles area. My team consisted of myself and five other individuals and we chose to work with Habitat For Humanity's A Brush With Kindness (ABWK) project. On the program's website, they describe ABWK as locally operated program serving low-income homeowners who struggle to maintain the exterior of their homes. The program is a holistic approach to providing affordable housing and assisting communities as well as families. Over the course of four months my team members and I collaborated with ABWK affiliates to provide them with services that targeted three primary problems the organization was facing: lack of applicants, a trust issue amongst some citizens and their inefficient application process. Through interviewing people who had utilized the services and researching alternative methods, my group came up with a comprehensive plan that we presented to ABWK program directors, as illustrated in the PowerPoint and two images below. The PowerPoint takes a reader through the issues, objectives, recommendations and implementation process while the two images illustrate our recommendations for advertising their operation. This team project may have been mandated by my professor, but it is precisely applicable to what I aspire to accomplish post graduation. Consulting work is a field that I have been studying and hope to one day be a part of while not-for-profit organizations have consistently been a passion of mine--this showcase artifact truly encompasses who I am as a student as well as an individual.

ABWK ad2.pdf

ABWK ad.doc1.pdf

For decades, the topics of discrimination and inequality have been prominent in both private and public arenas, in large part because women and minorities have typically been the last of the groups to be granted the rights that a European American male would receive in the United States. For example, white men have had voting and decision-making rights since the concept was introduced and democracy implemented, illustrated by the fifty-six signatures on the United State's Declaration of Independence. With the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments nearly one hundred years later, African American men were granted the right to vote, but with the states working to abridge that right for nearly 90 years. Women, however, were given the opportunity to vote on August 26, 1920--many years behind their male counterparts. After years of inequality, President John F. Kennedy introduced the concept of affirmative action in 1961. He mandated that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias. In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act that implemented and exemplified affirmative action by prohibiting discrimination of all people based on race, color, religion or national origin. Forty-four years later, Barack Obama--a black man--beat out his competition with flying colors in the 2008 presidential election. It was a historic moment when he won the majority vote while two women were also in the race for president and vice president, respectively. Instances like the election of President Obama paint a picture of a country where regulatory practices such as affirmative action will not need to exist in order to guarantee equal and ethical treatment of all individuals--a working environment that all American inhabitants must strive towards achieving.

According to Marquita Sykes, columnist for the National Organization for Women, affirmative action is the set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The goal of this enforced law is to provide equal opportunities for all minority cultural groups--the same rights that white males receive when applying for governmental, educational or industry positions. Proponents of these policies argue that the misrepresentations of women and minorities in business is an example of institutionalized discrimination, so a law that regulates hiring practices is imperative for the opportunity of equal rights. Scott Plous, author of Ten Myths About Affirmative Action, argues that opponents of these policies rely on common misconceptions. He states, along with many other findings, that affirmative action is a response to a statistically observed inequity in representation, reproducibly demonstrated by social scientists in many societies with a history of discrimination. Other supporters of these practices claim that diversity would most likely not occur without the implementation of laws such as affirmative action and these policies allow minorities to seek out areas to work or studies that they may not have considered otherwise. On the African American Policy Forum, individuals ranging from students to political figures write about their experiences with affirmative action and how the legislation has positively affected their personal and professional lives. Colin Powell's testimony addresses that the policy provides equal consideration, but not special preference--an argument by many opponents of the regulatory practice.

Two other reasons for the implementation are that some stereotypes may never be broken without such governmental intervention and that it took affirmative action to give racial minorities and women the chance to show their capabilities in the workforce and it compensates black Americans for all the years of persecution they endured from their country. A status report conducted by William A. Galston found that from the time of implementation, black Americans' employment share grew a few percentage points in some fields of interest and over the last three decades, the United States has seen a large increase in the black middle class relative to their white counterparts. Although this cannot be directly attributed to affirmative action, supporters of the policies do argue a strong correlation between the two. However, not all members of these protected groups support the implementation of affirmative action. According to a study done by the U.S. Embassy, a large percentage of both white Americans and minorities oppose affirmative action because of the illusion of special preference and dictation of racial quotas. So while America has seen a progress toward cultural equality for all, but it is clear that some also argue against these policies--even individuals who are part of the groups who are supported by the law.

Opponents of affirmative action have many arguments denouncing any progress the policies have made and claim that the law has actually reversed discrimination to negatively affect Caucasian Americans. According to G. Stolyarov II in his article for the Associated Content titled, Three Ethical Arguments Against Affirmative Action argues that the law punishes non-minority workers and students, many of whom are the most innocent and industrious of persons and that even if a minority professional is a qualified, rational practitioner, he or she will be shunned due to the stereotype, created by affirmative action, that he or she is a puppet of special interest wars. There have also been lawsuits that have manifested from the integration of affirmative action, one being the Bakke Case of 1978. Brogna Brunner, in her article titled Affirmative Action History: A History and Timeline of Affirmative Action, references the reverse discrimination case and the argument that a prospective medical student, Allan Bakke, felt he was discriminated against and denied acceptance two years in a row because admissions reserved spots for under qualified minorities. In an attempt to ban affirmative action practices, states have proposed measures on ballots that would end its forty-five year reign. For example, in November 2008, the proposed ban went before voters in two states, Nebraska and Colorado. The ban passed with more than 50% of the vote in Nebraska while voters in Colorado reject the proposed ban--so it is evident that the policy is not entirely accepted, yet the majority of the United States choose to stand behind it. A poll conducted by Pew Research Center Publications found that acceptance of the legislation is on the rise, going from 58% favoring the law in 1995 to 70% in late 2007, illustrating that although some states are opposed to its existence, the trend is leaning toward acceptance and implementation. Arguments against affirmative action raise legitimate and relevant concerns that deserve to be addressed and regulated, however, the concerns do not provide enough evidence to reverse the law. The regulatory policy was not implemented to hire less qualified workers, but rather to provide equal opportunity and access to all individuals regardless of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Because of this, women and ethnic minorities have had the opportunity to display their talents on the same playing field as their white counterparts after decades of being subdued and discriminated against. Ideally, policies such as this one would not exist, however, discrimination is alive and well in the world, and until that phenomenon proves to be irrelevant, regulatory hiring practices must be put into place in order to provide equal and ethical treatment to all individuals.

As an on going theme of my blog, corporate responsibility makes an appearance yet again. The pairing of words, "corporate responsibility" has become more popular over the years as big business has been hit with more criticism and scrutiny with regards to ethics and social accountability. Large industrial companies such as IBM implement extensive responsibility agendas that address problems in relation to their industry. Environmental pollution initiatives are enforced to respond to consumer and legal criticisms, and ideally because the leaders of these initiatives truly care to protect the environment. Alternatively, or in addition to certain programs such as IBM's environmental department, some companies implement plans that focus on giving back to the community on a more personal level. Microsoft, for example, has an entire page on their company website dictating the programs they have that provide grants, resources and education to people in a variety of communities. Although big businesses are at the forefront of these ethical policies, smaller entities are also making strides in this arena. Facebook is a social networking site that connects millions of people on a daily basis. Through this vehicle of communication, people create personal profiles that depict everything about them self from where they go to school to what their favorite book is. In addition to these profiles, advertisements and games have been added to generate revenue for Facebook executives, but also to create awareness and entertain the masses. One that is catching on quickly is Farmville, an online, interactive harvesting game with the objective of the player being to plant seeds, harvest crops then sell those crops for virtual money. This may sound like just another video game, with no other purpose other than to waste time for hours on the Internet, however, a man by the name of Chris MacDonald wrote about this very game and its philanthropic agenda in a blog post titled, "Micro-Philanthropy on Zynga's "Farmville". Below is my reaction and response to his post that can also be viewed on his blog site, The Corporate Responsibility Blog.

Micro-Philanthropy on Zynga's "Farmville"
Comment

As an experienced user of Facebook I am very aware of the popular game, Farmville. However, since I am not a participant in the game, I was not educated about Farmville's ethical strides to create awareness and give back to not only society, but also the world, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to shed light on this important issue. Sweet Seeds for Haiti is a creative, innovative way to shed light on one of the multitude of economic and humanitarian issues facing the globe today. I agree with your decision to deem Zynga's efforts as corporate-facilitated philanthropy, as they merely act as a vessel between charities and the population. But as not to belittle the efforts of Farmville, I do believe that this is only the beginning of what could possibly be a new generation of Internet interactivity. With the CEO of Zynga tweeting the astounding numbers that Farmville raised for the Haiti charity, it only solidifies the argument that a game like Farmville can actually make a difference in society.

You raise a good point when you say that Farmville has room for improvement. Facilitating donations through purchasing seeds on an amusing game is only one vehicle that Zynga can create awareness on specific social issues. I agree that the makers of the game should implement pop-ups and links that can further educate patrons on the charities they are directly supporting, but I also have another recommendation that further elaborates on your idea. Not only should Zynga create more interaction between the users and the charities that are integrated into the game, but my suggestion is to also give some power to the buyers of Farmville. Creating a box or link for a game-player to click and submit suggestions for which charities they should use in the game is another way to enhance not only consumer interest, but also accountability and involvement. A person who is given a chance to provide feedback and then see their ideas implemented will most likely become more emotionally involved with the game, recruiting more members to join and aid the cause they personally are invested in. This idea doesn't necessarily have to stop at social networking sites such as Facebook--it could potentially be implemented in larger corporations as well. An idea like this could build off the already practiced initiative where companies "match" donations given by their employees to the charity or cause of their choice. Although this plan of action may seem more than optimistic, I do believe the idea and practices of social responsibility are on the rise and on the radar of many Americans, and implementation is just a click away.

There is no arguing that the Internet has a vast array of credible as well as non-credible websites that one can spend hours perusing. Many websites can be very redundant as well as overwhelmingly complex, making a simple search turn into a dreadful and tiring task. In determining what topic to discuss in my weekly blog posts, I rely one hundred percent on these very websites. In order to narrow down the complexity of my search, I turn to a handful of credited search engines, websites and blog sites as references--all of which fall under the guidelines dictated by the Webby Awards and the 21st Century Information Fluency Criteria. My findings, that can be located to the right in the "recommended sites", are a variety of websites and blogs that discuss or present current business issues--most encompassing topics such as human resources and business ethics. Google, Yahoo!, and BING are engines that were instrumental in my search for credible sources of knowledge and opinion. I chose websites that have thorough content, simple navigation, promote interaction with the user and those that have simple yet engaging visual design. Websites such as the LA Times Business, NY Times Business, MSNBC Business, Yahoo! Business and Wall Street Journal Business all encompass very credible and reliable sources, putting them at the top of my list of news sources to utilize. Alternative business websites that contain material applicable to my overall blog thesis are those such as Business Week, Forbes Business and Business Ethics. These sites discuss basic business principles in the form of articles and discussion forums. I chose the websites BusinessEthics.com and AllBusiness.com, the corporate culture section, as content specific sites, because I feel they will lend itself ideally with regards to my blog content. The Open Compliance and Ethics Group as well as business.gov give more of a legal look into business practices and act as resources for support in an argument that discusses business ethics. In addition to the websites mentioned above, my search led me to discover many profound and educational blogs that discuss topics surrounding business ethics, human resources and business in general. All the blogs that are llisted comply with the 21st Century Information Fluency Criteria and are comprised of insightful and substantial discussion, aimed at educating and influencing the working world on current events that are taking place in business. The Business Ethics Blog, and the Ethical Leadership Blog are two sources that discuss specific topics within the business community--both topics being centralized in my own blog posts. A general business blog that is very useful is iblogbusiness, which is a site comprised of a variety of business blogs on the world wide web. Another broader site I chose to reference is a site with the 50 Best Business Blogs. This site allows a user to forgo sifting through the masses and pinpoint specific, credible blogs that all discuss or relate to business. Using my list of recommended sites, anyone choosing to read my blog should be able to access credible resources and pull information that could be utilized to respond to my posts, helping to grow and share knowledge of business, specifically pertaining to human resources and ethical issues.

The effects of the economy: the topic is on everyone's minds, whether they realize it or not. A five-year-old is wondering why mommy is taking her to a store that sells toys that look like they have been used instead of the child's heaven which is Toys R' Us. A young woman goes into her favorite mom n' pop coffee shop and orders her usual chocolate chip muffin only to be told that, "they're out"--while in reality, unbeknownst to her, the owners cannot afford to purchase perishable goods like they used to. It's a scary economic world out there right now: job security is no longer stable; wages and benefits are being cut; people are filing for bankruptcy like it's going out of style. Was there any way to prevent such a disaster? Because a popular answer is, "yes", I am going to elaborate on that idea, but with a twist. This week I examined a post by Richard Warren entitled, "How's the Economy? Check Your Underwear" on the biggerpockets.com blog (an online real estate forum) that is responding to a recent article in the Washington Post claiming that consumer confidence can be gauged by the underwear you keep. Below is the comment I posted for Mr. Warren along with a picture of the man who created and endorses the idea of Underwear Economics, economist Alan Greenspan.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading a post that took a very current, often depressing, issue and addressed it with a lighter tone. The idea that there is a Men's Underwear Index (MUI) not only merits a little bit of laughter, but it also encourages outside-of-the-box-thinking. Most times when you tune in to CNN, open the Wall Street Journal, or receive insight from the government the current economic situation is described by specific, Census Bureau indicators. However, your point about men's underwear gives a new perspective on the detriment this country is experiencing. I fell that it is particularly important to educate the younger generation of the severity of this financial downfall, and although you did not address this issue in your post, I believe something like the MUI, or similar barometers, could be utilized to illustrate, in more relatable terms, the reasons behind and economic indications of what our country is experiencing. Just imagine teaching children how to monitor the economy by looking at numbers that show them the trends of underwear sales over the past year. Yes, it still encompasses financial jargon, but "dumbing down" the indicators, so to speak, could potentially help younger generations not only comprehend the economy, but also prepare for their future lives as adults who manage their own finances. Another author posted a similar idea with regards to the baseball card industry. He proposes that the baseball card industry can help explain the economy as we know it. All it is comprised of is combinations of infinite individual decisions made on a daily basis, anyway--so the baseball card idea is just another way to become financially savvy. I am curious to know your opinion on the matter of educating younger generations using theories such as the one you discussed in your post. Is it plausible to use such theories as a means of education for younger children? Is it the government and social institution's responsibility to do so? In any event, never before have been so interested in men, underwear and purchasing patterns that correlate the two--so thank you for your insightful and entertaining post.

"There is no safe cigarette." "Smoking kills." "Big Tobacco is evil." These are phrases that have been embedded into many of our minds throughout the years, starting at adolescence. Preventative measures have been put into place in schools and public institutions around the nation, urging children to "say no," and encouraging adults to set a positive example. According to the American Lung Association, smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year, including those affected indirectly, such as babies born prematurely due to prenatal maternal smoking and victims of "secondhand" exposure to tobacco's carcinogens. The American Cancer Society also says that smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined. It is safe to assume that the truths about the harmful effects of tobacco (see illustration to the left) are widely known and accepted, yet people still choose to use the products and companies still choose to manufacture and distribute the lethal substance.

Many believe that a smoking ban should be implemented nation-wide, but realistically speaking, that is not going to happen any time soon. Thus in order to appease the population, Congress passed legislation this past April that implemented a heavy federal excise tax on tobacco products in order to fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program. USA Today author, Wendy Koch, documents how the tax was implemented not only to appeal to the masses, but also in hopes that it would force people to quit using tobacco products due to the increased prices. Although this is a commendable and understandable reason for implementation, and could potentially persuade people to quit--what are the effects of such an increase? A Business Review author, Robin K. Cooper, discusses how independent retailers as well as chain accounts around the nation have already felt the effects of this turbulent economy, and now with prices and taxes escalating, they are seeing more of a decline in purchases of their "premium" cigarettes--for example, the brands that bring in traffic and business. In addition, cigarette theft is on the rise, causing thousands of dollars to be lost, affecting not only the consumer, but also the mom-and-popshops that are just trying to put dinner on the table. So while the big guy (government) reaps the benefits of increased taxation, the little guy (retailers) reach into pockets filled with lint and deal with consumers who are irate with the price increase. This leads to the question: if this taxation idea is not being effective--then what would be?

Here is one proposition, which is to accept that tobacco products will be a part of this free market and focus on research and development with regards to finding new ways to make cigarettes "safer" and less harmful while simultaneously focusing on educating the youth of the harmful effects of using the product, and providing information and assistance to those who choose to quit using. Fortunately, not only is this happening today, at this very moment, but it also may surprise the population to know that the people advocating these types of behaviors and strategies are the executives who produce and distribute the harmful substance. Tobacco companies like Philip Morris USA (PMUSA) are putting time and money into causes such as the Youth Smoking Prevention (YSP) sector, a program designed to prevent youth tobacco use through vehicles such as parent communication and grant programs. If children are hearing about the negative consequences of smoking not only from their parents but also from the very entities that distribute world-wide, one can see the positive reinforcement that is instilled within them. In addition, the research that the YSP department conducted shows the decline of youth smoking over the past ten years, and although that cannot be directly correlated to Philip Morris USA's program, it shows that for one reason or another, adolescents are choosing to stray away from cigarette use--one positive outcome in a controversial industry. Departments such as the Youth Smoking Prevention are direct reflections on the Master Settlement Agreement that occurred in 1998. Briefly, this agreement "includes a variety of restrictions on the sale and marketing of cigarettes, including prohibiting any participating manufacturer from taking any action, directly or indirectly, targeting youth in the advertising, marketing or promotion of tobacco products." For example, "Joe Camel" was banned because it was viewed as being targeted towards an inappropriate demographic. However, many argue that the Master Settlement Agreement has done little to influence advertising and its effect on America's youth. A study by Dr. Lara Zwarun, published in the American Journal of Public Health states that despite the Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco advertising remains prevalent in many sports. A new trend of placing alcohol and tobacco brand names in commercials for other products is evident. In any event, PMUSA and other participating manufacturers stand firmly by their decision to support and implement necessary obligations dictated by the settlement agreement. For example, they no longer produce print ads, keep their merchandise a great distance away from kid-friendly products in stores, and supply "We Card" stickers that illustrate the appropriate year an individual must be born in order to purchase tobacco products.

A large number choose to smoke, but some make the decision to change their lifestyle and kick the bad habit. But where does one start? Ironically enough, a person choosing to quit should visit the website of the company that produces the product they once used. On PMUSA's website, for example, an adult consumer who would like to quit can find all the necessary information on how to do so. Through the use of QuitAssist®, an individual can connect with public health authorities to gain insight on the issues that may arise while they take their journey down a path of cessation. Not only is PMUSA encouraging and aiding people to quit smoking, but according to their website, the company also gave Duke University millions of dollars to invest in research and development with regards to finding new and improved methods to quit smoking. One question that may arise is this: is there another company that sells a product and simultaneously gives you information on how to discontinue use of that very product? It is possible, yet not likely.