Introduction
Several controversies surround the concepts of cheating and performance in academic and organizational settings. This is because educational institutions define cheating as the act of receiving or giving help to others during an examination. Notably, this definition restricts students’ collaboration, fosters unhealthy competition, and limits students’ opportunities to synergize. Similarly, organizations’ reliance on performance appraisal limits employee collaboration by nurturing rivalry between employees and making them feel inferior. This paper illuminates the challenges of the narrow definition of cheating in the education sector and the demerits of emphasizing merit rating as best management practices by evaluating the University of the District of Columbia (UDC).
Concepts of Work, Doubletalk and Anaclitic Depression
According to Jerry B. Harvey, it is odd and wrong for educational institutions from preparatory to college to define cheating as “giving aid to others or receiving aid from them” because such a definition restricts students from helping their colleagues or receiving help from their colleagues (18). Besides, the author argues that defining cheating as an act of receiving or giving aid to others implies that declining help from others or refusing to help others in educational contexts or other work environments is an expression of academic decency and honor, which is immoral and creates multiple problems in work environments. According to Harvey, defining cheating as giving or receiving help from others creates a lousy model for how work gets done because working in many organizations requires collaboration, sharing ideas and collective decision-making (23). For example, the author points out that in hospital contexts, surgeons need help from nurses, aides and fellow physicians to perform successful surgeries, just like footballers need to work as a team to play competitively. As such, defining cheating as failure to assist others or refusal to receive assistance on the exams does not prepare students adequately for the work in real-life settings in organizations (Harvey 22). This emanates from the fact that the concept of work in every organizational setting involves collaboration, cooperation, participation and the ability of the workforce to synergize since combined effort and skills work better than individual efforts.
Notably, defining cheating as receiving or giving help in an examination is a form of doubletalk because it is ambiguous and deliberately evasive. For example, it shows that it is unethical for students to enhance their capacities of expressing altruism, which is critical in several aspects of life and in organizational settings. It is a form of double talk because educators encourage students to study collaboratively and embrace group discussions, but when the exams come (when it is actually important to share ideas), educators prohibit any form of help and emphasize individual work (Harvey 24). This is a form of hypocrisy because educators only want students to learn about collaboration and group work and not to practice it in their learning activities.
Finally, defining academic cheating as receiving or giving help during exams causes anaclitic depression because it restricts weak students from receiving support in case of need. Anaclitic depression occurs when people lack someone who can provide emotional support, and leads to physical and emotional health problems (Harvey 20). For example, denying students the chance to receive help during exams creates anaclitic depression due to exam stress which affects students’ overall academic achievement and exacerbates health problems.
Abilene Paradox
Harvey points out that Abilene Paradox is the tendency of organizations to take actions contrary to what they originally intended to do and creates barriers to achieving the very purposes of their existence (17). The Abilene Paradox implies that an organization’s inability to manage agreements is a primary source of its dysfunction. The first symptom of the Abilene Paradox in the context of organizations is the failure of employees to effectively and accurately communicate their desires. This leads to the adoption of an idea that lacks collective support (Harvey 18). Another symptom of the Abilene Paradox in organizations is members’ tendencies to make collective decisions that lead to actions that contradict the original intention. Thus, an Abilene Paradox in organizational settings is a collective agreement on a specific course of action that no individual employee wants to pursue. It happens when employees are unhappy with a collective decision but are unwilling to resist the decision because it would be unfair to the workforce team. For example, employee teams may decide that remote working is better than on-premise working, while in reality, every individual team member hate working from home due to the many distractions in home environments.
Deming’s 3 Diseases
Deming’s first deadly disease that affects companies in the West is the absence of constancy of purpose (9). Deming point out that a lack of constancy of purpose prevents managers from thinking of innovative ways of maintaining customers, keeping the organization in business, and generation more value for consumers (9). In this regard, the author argues that it is important for organizations to focus on improving their services and products to maintain their customer base and attract new customers. The lack of this constancy of purpose is a crippling disease that creates barriers to the positive growth of organizations. Deming’s second disease is the emphasis on short-term profits (Deming 12). This is a disease in American companies since the pursuit of quarterly dividends or profits contradicts the constancy of purpose. For example, the increased emphasis on short-term profits compromises the quality of the products and services, limits time for research and development, and time for employee training. As a result, focusing on short-term profits defeats long-term growth, leading to a limited market for the companies and limited job provision. Deming’s third disease is performance evaluation and merit rating. Constant performance evaluation nourishes rivalry in organizations and makes employees feel inferior and unmotivated in case the performance rating is based on the product (Deming 13). In addition, it creates barriers to employee collaboration and teamwork as employees propel themselves for their own good thus limiting growth opportunities.
Deming’s Chapters 1 and 2 Summary
In these chapters, Deming emphasizes that there is no need for any country to be poor because an abundance of natural resources is not the primary requirement for prosperity (7). According to the author, the wealth of a nation depends on its people and the management of human capital. The author gives an example of Japan which managed to be the strongest economy in the world without adequate natural resources, not even sufficient wood. Additionally, the author points out that the most important part of the production stage is improving quality while reducing costs (Deming 9). In this regard, increasing quality through innovation leads to cost reduction through improved production processes. However, the surprising argument presented by the author is that acquiring new machines and gadgets is not the solution to innovation, cost reduction, or quality improvement. Instead, organizations should focus on increasing the efficiency of the existing equipment to ensure maximum utilization. The surprising thing about this argument is that organizations seek new machines when the existing machines are inefficient, slow, and costly to maintain. The final surprising argument is that measuring productivity does not lead to productivity improvement. This argument is surprising because it is contrary to the general belief that productivity evaluation provides actionable insights into production methods and supports data-driven decision-making.
Deming’s Chapter 3 Summary
The first organizational management disease presented in this chapter is the absence of constancy of purpose to create quality products that enable companies to remain competitive, attract new customers, and create more jobs. In this light, managers should maintain their focus on long-term forward progress to keep companies in business. The main lesson in this argument is that organizations should focus their attention on improving the quality of their products and services as the only way of improving sales and generating growth (Deming 84). The second disease is the emphasis on short-term profits through quarterly dividends. The main disadvantage of focusing on short-term profits is that it limits time for employee training and research and development, thus defeating the constancy of purpose. The third management disease is the mobility of management. The mobility of management disease arises from the constant movement of managers as it distracts the workforce since every new manager has their goals. The final management disease is running companies on visible figures alone (Deming 88). Managing using figures (such as the amount of profits and expenses) creates management bottlenecks because it pushes managers to reduce production costs to realize profits acutely.
Organizational Evaluation
The organization evaluated in this section is the University of District of Columbia (UDC). UDC is a competitive educational institution committed to community service, research, and skill advancement for its students. My relationship with UDC is that I am one of the current students at the university. UDC defines cheating in an academic context as “the actual giving or receiving of any unauthorized aid or assistance or the actual work of giving or receiving any unfair advantage on any form of academic work” (UDC). Notably, based on Heavy’s definition of cheating, UDC’s definition is educationally unsound because it limits students’ opportunities for collaboration and discourages the expression of synergy. Notably, the meaning of “unauthorized aid” in the university’s definition of academic cheating is that students are not allowed to give or receive aid during exams. According to Harvey, the university’s definition of cheating is a form of hypocrisy and doubletalk since the organization’s “talk” does not match its actions (24). For example, the university claims that it promotes collaborative learning through student discussion groups during class lessons but does not allow assistance to students during examinations. Based on Harvey’s definition of cheating, the institution creates an anaclitic depression for students by pursuing its belief that it is unethical for students to receive assistance during exams.
Besides, the university’s emphasis on GPA-based education probation and suspension defeats the purpose of education and shows gaps in the institution’s commitment to assisting students in achieving their education goals. The institution’s regulations assert that undergraduate students who fail to obtain GPA of 2.0 for three consecutive semesters are suspended from the institution (UDC). Notably, such emphasis on grades defeats the original intention of the institution, which is to support students’ learning and help students achieve their learning goals. According to Harvey, the grading system limits students’ learning by asking the students to achieve the bare minimum that would enable them to pass or avoid suspension, implying that obtaining the desired grade may signal the end of learning for students (28). Thus, the university’s strong emphasis on grading and prohibition of “unauthorized aid” exacerbates students’ anaclitic depression by increasing exam pressure.
However, the university’s vision statement emphasizes the need to assist students in achieving the highest level of human potential. Notably, this vision is consistent with Deming’s argument that human capital is the greatest wealth of a nation (23). In this regard, the university does well to produce students with skills and knowledge to improve society and management in their future organizations. Thus, although the university’s definition of academic cheating is educationally unfounded, its vision statement is aligned with proper management principles, as suggested by Deming.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This paper reveals that defining academic cheating, as “obtaining or providing aid” is an educationally unfounded definition as it limits students’ opportunities to learn from others or obtain help during examinations. Additionally, the paper reveals that strong emphasis on performance results such as GPA scores in education or performance evaluation of employees is ineffective because such appraisals focus on the end goal, nourish rivalry in organizations and promote selfishness. The first recommendation for UDC is to allow students to receive aid whenever they ask for it and avoid the notion that academic cheating is giving or receiving aid from others. This is because examinations are opportunities for students to learn working in environments that encaurages the best solution to problems. The second recommendation for the institution is to reduce its emphasis on GPA scores as a primary indicator for learning and educational achievement, since such methods defeat the original purpose of the institution.
Works Cited
Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis, reissue. MIT Press, 2018.
Harvey, Jerry B. “The Abilene paradox and Other Meditations on Management Chapter 8: Encouraging Future Managers to Cheat” Organizational Dynamics 17.1 (1988).
Harvey, Jerry B. “The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement.” Organizational Dynamics 17.1 (1988): 17-43.
University District of Columbia (UDC). “Academic Policies and Procedures Manual.” Retrieved from: http://files-do-not-link.udc.edu/docs/AcademicPoliciesProceduresManualAugust2009.pdf:
write