n any culture should be legally prohibited regardless of country or culture. When it comes to customer preference, as seen in the second case where the less qualified man was considered to be hired over the more qualified woman, the question for the company lies in who will create greater value for the shareholders? In Japanese culture, women are not typically seen as sales personnel and this could have led to a loss in sales for the company. I believe that since this isn’t a common occurrence, it wouldn’t be fair for the qualified woman to lose the opportunity for the job just due to her gender. If customers did in fact not respond well to the fact that she was a woman and the company lost sales due to this, it would be fair for the company to hire the man. In this case, I would suggest hiring both the candidates on a trial bases and the better performer should get the job. The woman would definitely have to overcome more hurdles than the man, but for the company, the bottom line would matter. A company’s duty is to its shareholders, but it cannot ignore other stakeholders in the process. I also believe that perceptions and customers preferences evolve, and hiring a woman might lead to a short term loss, but if the woman is given enough time to prove herself and change customer preferences, this could lead to the long term benefits of having a more qualified employee. I do believe customer preferences should be considered in the hiring practice but only if it has proven effects on the economic value generated by the decision. Discrimination based on gender, race, color, sex or national origin should not be permitted anywhere in the world. Education is the key to changing customer preferences, perceptions and culture to enable people all around the world to treat every human equally. This starts with a change in mindset and I believe this will eventually be instilled in the generations to come. As Sheryl Sandberg famously said “In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders.”>