Gordon Gekko – A catalyst of capitalism evolution?
The movie Wall Street from 1987 is one of the most popular financial movies of all times. It takes place in New York in the mid 80s. What made Wall Street such a success is much due to Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas. This text is going to study Gordon Gekko from a management perspective. It is also going to show that Gordon could be classified as a catalyst of evolution driven by capitalism itself.
Gordon Gekko is an extremely successful broker on Wall Street. He is powerful and intelligent, but also ruthless and greedy. In the movie he is worshipped as a role model by up comers in the world of investment banking. One of these up comers is Bud Fox, a character of major significance as the movie unfolds. Bud Fox is stockbroker with a strong desire to get to the top. Working for his firm during the day, he spends his spare time working an on angle to begin his journey to the elite. As it turns out Gekko takes Bud under his wing, suspecting a resemblance of himself in younger years. As Bud is sucked into the maelstrom that is Gekko’s organization, a story is about luxurious life, fast money and greed is about to unravel.
Let me introduce you to the 4 commandments of Gordon Gekko:
1. Greed is good.
2. No moral – Business is business
3. Never get emotional. It clouds your judgment
4. Don’t care how you get information. Just get it.
“I create nothing, I own”
Gordon’s organization is hidden in a mysterious light, where the producers convey the feeling that the person handling business is Gekko’s company really is no other than Gordon Gekko. Perhaps the makers of the movie have chosen to exclude these people to further emphasize Gekko’s elite characteristic. A more realistic view of the organization would be one consisting of a supporting team of analytics, technicians and administrative personnel. A sales department isn’t needed and Gekko’s reputation itself makes a marketing department seem superfluous. The producers make it clear that nobody handles the core business except Mr. Gekko.
Gordon Gekko doesn’t talk with his employees. He talks to them. Gecko has a very direct way of leadership style and he possesses an inherent referent power. Teaming with Gordon makes employees feel alive and invincible. In recruiting Gordon has an eccentric and simple strategy. “You need guys that are poor smart and hungry. And no feelings.” Gekko accurately states that information is the most valuable good traded. His exhortations to his employees about information that “I don’t care where or how you get it. Just get it”, shows Gordon is an impatient leader demanding fast results. Encouraging his traders to deal with shady business shows that Gordon has no sense for law and moral.
The scene I have chosen to analyze is taken place at the annual shareholder meeting of Teldar Paper, a target company on the road to ruin and under siege by Gekko. The scene starts with the chairman of the board of directors urges the stockholders of Teldar to see through Gekko’s “shameless intentions to strip the company and severely punish the stockholders”. If the viewer has done his homework, he understands that the fear is legitimate. The 80s in the US have been called “The decade of greed” and hosted a boom in hostile takeovers. A number of corporations had inefficient managers underutilizing corporate assets, eroding shareholder wealth and reducing the share price of the stock.
Gekko’s convincing and passionate character is a winning concept. After a four minute “Greed is good” speech the shareholders accepts Gordon’s offer, receiving a premium on the share price. This clip conveys a conception of humans as the economical man, solely aiming to maximize personal profit. In the late 20th century Peter Drucker, “The Father of Management”, began to have rising disenchantment concerning capitalism. Drucker was sickened by the excessive riches awarded to mediocre and greedy executives slashing the ranks of their employees. In the 1980s he began to have grave doubts about business and even capitalism itself. He regarded the corporation a place where self-interest had triumphed over the egalitarian principles he long championed. On the other hand revisionists call the same period of time essential to improve American efficiency and productivity. A conclusion might be that greatness and evolutionary progress sadly but truly comes with a great deal of sacrifice. History tells us this. The ten thousands of slaves building the pyramids in Egypt, or the Great wall in China, didn’t earn any credit or appraisal. The tyrant leaders grabbed the rewards. Today, law and order is a part of the social order. Luckily people today, unlike the slaves working in silence at the pyramids, are protected by a legal system and a social safety net. Gekko is right when claiming that “Greed cuts through and captures the essence of evolutionary spirit”. Greed will always be a loyal follower in the footsteps of capitalism.
Schumpeter talked about capitalism as creative destruction. In Schumpeter’s vision of capitalism, the innovative course of entrepreneurs was the force that sustained long term economic growth, regardless of this process destroying the value of already established companies. Gekko’s procedure to liquidate most of his takeovers would here represent the eliminating process. In this sense of view Gekko’s wearing the costume of the entrepreneur. A matter that obscures the entrepreneurial spirit is Gekko’s involvement in illegal business regarding trading on insider information and the shady corporate structure of his organization.
“The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest” is a quote referring to Teldar Paper. This shows Gekko’s belief in, and use of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
“I am not a destroyer of companies, I’m a liberator of them”
One might even assert that Gekko sees himself as an evolution catalyst, requiring his inherent features of emotional disenchantment. That Gordon Gekko had an ethical bypass at birth is as sure as death and taxes.
If we assume that the makers of Wall Street presume that the viewer is familiar with Darwin’s beliefs, they may have wanted the characters names Gekko and Fox to be interpreted literally. A gecko is a lizard able to change color to blend in with their environment. It comes out late at night to feed on pests and insects. As the gekko is a part of the natural order, Gordon is a part of the capitalistic one. Every living thing has its place and so will it remain. And for the Fox in the story, well, see the movie and find out how it all turns out…
En analys av en kriminell entreprenör från filmen New Jack City
Denna text avser att behandla utvalda delar av filmen New Jack City. De delar som jag kommer att fokusera på är främst filmens början då några som kallar sig ”Cash Money Brothers” (CMB) under ledning av Nino Brown bygger upp en stor och omfattande kriminell verksamhet fokuserad på drogförsäljning i New York i slutet av 80-talet. Textens tanke är att belysa en sorts organisation som sällan diskuteras av managementlitteraturen och vill inte på något som helst sätt glorifiera kriminell verksamhet, kriminella ledare eller droganvändning.
I filmens början så åker CMB gänget i en Jeep och en av medlemmarna visar Nino Brown en liten behållare med ”crack” (kristalliserat kokain) och säger att detta är det nya som gäller. Först så ifrågasätter Nino Brown varför han har gjort egna affärer vid sidan av. Men snart blir Nino övertygad och ser denna nya produkts potential. Han inser att om CMB är först med att lansera detta i stor skala så kommer de kunna ta över staden och bli störst. Här är det högst intressant att dra en parallell till Joseph Schumpeters teorier kring entreprenören. Enligt Schumpeter är entreprenören inte den som uppfinner en produkt utan den som ser dess potential och sprider den till en bredare massa, den som tar en redan existerande uppfinning och sprider den som en lyckad innovation (Schumpeter 1911). Schumpeter argumenterar vidare för att det är entreprenörerna som är samhällets hjältar och att det är de som driver den kapitaliska ekonomin framåt (Schumpeter 1911 & Schumpeter 1942). Men hur ska vi då ställa oss till Nino Browns lansering utav crack om vi stödjer oss på Schumpeters resonemang kring entreprenören. Det är tydligt att han uppfyller denna definition på en entreprenör. Han är inte uppfinnaren utav crack men han är den som inser och utnyttjar dess potential. Genom att vara den första som lanserar denna nya drog på marknaden så kan han skapa sig en komparativ fördel och på så sett erhålla en monopolistisk ställning och tjäna stora pengar. Ser vi till citatet nedan så ses tydligt att även Nino Brown ser sig själv som en entreprenör när han säger:
”This is the fruit of our hard work. The belief in the entrepreneurial spirit”
Och det är precis detta som Schumpeter menar driver entreprenören, att till följd av att vara först kunna tjäna pengar på en erhållen monopolsituation. Men vi kan ju knappast kalla Nino Brown för en slags kapitalismens hjälte då hans affärsverksamhet leder till många människors undergång och draget till sin extrem till samhällets kollaps. Är det i innovationens sida om lagen och påverkan på samhället som frågan avgörs om huruvida entreprenören är en kapitalismens hjälte eller ej? Eller är det sidan om lagen eller samhällets påverkan som avgör om huruvida det är en innovation eller ej?
Vid CMBs första möte där de diskuterar hur de skall gå vidare med sin produkt så säger Nino Brown följande:
”Change product, you change marketing strategy”
Från detta citat så kan det utläsas mycket om hur Nino Brown resonerar kring sina affärer och sin produkt. CMB ser sig själva som en organisation som måste anpassa sig till förändrade marknadsförhållanden och en förändrad efterfrågan. Nino Brown berättar om hur det skall förändra sitt arbetssätt, de skall sluta med att sälja vid gatuhörn och istället samla allt på ett och samma ställe. Han lägger upp planer på hur de skall ta över det såkallade ”Carterhuset” som är ett stort bostadskomplex där de skall samla både tillverkning, övervakning och försäljning. Vi ser här hur Nino Brown har insett värdet av hur organisationen är utformad, för att CMB skall kunna ha total kontroll över sin verksamhet så måste de samla allt på samma ställe. Men Nino Brown inser även risken med att själv vara i Carterhuset och har därför sitt kontor beläget på en klubb som han driver. Det hela är en väldigt hierarkisk organisation där Nino är överhuvudet och alla följer hans order. Men det ses även att CMB har delat upp tydliga ansvarsområden, en är ansvarig för datasystemet, en har ansvaret för inköpen etc. Vidare så kan citatet ovan tolkas som att Nino Brown inser vikten av vilken omstrukturering som krävs för att CMB skall kunna utnyttja den fulla potentialen från sin nya produkt. Innan de tar steget till att bygga upp denna nya verksamhet har CMB arbetat åt den Italienska maffian. Steget som de tar nu med att börja saluföra crack gör att de helt ompositionerar sig gentemot sina tidigare samarbetspartners som nu blir deras konkurrenter istället. Här kan dras tydliga paralleller till ”Business Reenginering”-tänket. De startar från ett blankt papper och Nino Brown lägger upp strategin för hur de skall totalt omorganisera för att kunna skapa konkurrensfördelar gentemot sina konkurrenter.
De antaganden som ligger till grund för filmen är en klassisk syn på den hierarkiska organisationen. Vi ser en verksamhet som är beroende av att ledaren har total kontroll och kan kontrollera allt. Behovet av total kontroll kan till stor del härröras till att verksamheten är på fel sida lagen och vetskapen om att om något går fel så kommer det att få rättsliga konsekvenser. Det är en verksamhet där ledaren inte kan lita på någon och därigenom eftersträvar att uppnå total kontroll. Detta får ses som en traditionell tolkning av den kriminella organisationen med den stora gangsterledaren på toppen. Tillföljd av detta så krävs det inga förkunskaper om organisations- eller managementteori för att förstå vem som bestämmer och vilken orderväg som gäller.
Men regissörerna förmedlar även en annan sida av den kriminella organisationen som gör att de kan dras än mer paralleller till ett företag. Det är bejakandet av de etiska aspekterna och någon konstig form av samhällsansvar, vi ser t.ex. hur Nino Brown på thanksgiving står och delar ut kalkon och mat till de fattiga och hemlösa. Detta kan tolkas på två sett, det första (som går hand i hand med hans syn på sig själv som den stora entreprenören) är att han ser sig själv som en samhällets räddare och välgörare. Den andra och mer strategiska synsättet är att han inser vikten av att ha de som bor i slummen på sin sida då det ofta är dessa som jobbar eller brukar hans varor. Oavsett vilket synsätt som antas så kan vi på flera nivåer även här dra paralleller till managementteori och hur stora företag arbetar.
Vid en första anblick så kan det se ut som klassisk ”management by fear” som tillämpas av Nino Brown. Men jag tror att det finns en djupare mening än bara detta hos filmmakarna. De vill illustrera Nino Browns oerhörda och snudd på psykopatiska vilja och drivkraft. Det är hela tiden målet driver honom och han skall dit oavsett vem eller vad som måste offras på vägen. Att de har valt att göra på detta sätt gör att det blir lätt även för den vanliga tittaren att förstå Nino Browns entreprenörs sida och hans sätt att bedriva management på.
Referenser:
Schumpeter, Joseph, 1911, ”The fundamental phenomenon of economic development” (ur dennes “The Theory of Economic Development”, Cambridge, Mass)
Schumpeter, Joseph, 1942, “Den skapande förstörelsens process ” (ursprungligen ur Capitalism, Socialism an Democracy), London, Routledge
The Godfather – an executive manager?
I would like to start with a definition (Businessdictionary.com) of management I believe very unfolding
“Organization and coordination of the activities of an enterprise in accordance with certain policies and in achievement of clearly defined objectives. As a discipline, management comprises of the interlocking functions of formulating corporate-policy and organizing, planning, controlling, and directing the firm’s resources to achieve the policy’s objectives”
My scene selection is most suitable according to my above stated beliefs what management is all about. The title of the movie is “The Godfather” produced by Francis Ford Coppola, with Marlon Brando as the godfather. My main idea is to show the management similarities and differences with a mafia boss from the 70’s and executive managers of big companies of our time, and finally make a judgment of the management seen in the movie. The scenes I’ve chosen is Marlon Brando declaring the legendary words “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse”, and the scene when the man given the proposal, who didn’t obey the godfather, wakes up covered with blood, with the head of his beloved horse next to him. These scenes include the most common means of control that executive managers have at disposal in real life, to control and lead an organization. The means of control used are sanctions, rewards, loyalty and executive power; all used by executive managers of our time. One can also see that the godfather, as any executive manager, demands immediate results, hence it’s only a couple of hours from the man disobeying the godfather, to his waking up with the head of his horse. And it sure works; the man does what the godfather told him to, so the management is effective even though it’s carried through a criminal act.
As introduced above, the godfather can be seen as an executive manager acting on the behalf of his company, where individuals from the movie can have their counterpart within a legal organization e.g. godfather as an executive manager, his consiglieri (advisor) as lawyer and his hitmans as department managers controlling their own subordinates. The godfathers behavior, as a despot, who solely determines over life and death, can be compared to the executive manager of a company, however the latter less despotic. The acting of an executive manager is of course much more sophisticated in a company than in the mafia, but the similarities are still there. The individuals in the godfather’s crew act respectfully and don’t criticize or doubt their boss, loyalty and honor are to be expected from everyone at all times. The management the godfather uses can be described as punishment, reward, humiliation but also loyalty and unconditioned support for his closest. One should also note that asking for the services of the godfather, results in giving him exactly what he wants, when he wants it. Nobody can turn down the godfather, being in his debt or not. Can an employee turn down his boss when given orders? In case the employee did, what would happen, less horsepower’s in the business car?
Reflecting over the similarities described above one should also be aware of the differences. Organizations in the real world are built upon democratic standards with advising functions e.g. board of directors, committees and the union; guaranteeing ethics, limiting the executive managers freedom of management. Since this isn’t a problem the godfather has to take into account when practicing his management, the godfather has a lot more freedom than executive managers in the legal business meaning the godfather never ha to answer to anyone but himself, he is his own boss. Another difference between the employees of the mafia and employees in real life is that mafia employee’s incitements are more than money since their lives are at stake.
The description of the godfather, as a charismatic executive manager, can in real life, to some extent, be compared to mass medias glorified pictures of modern executive managers. A factor that shouldn’t be forgotten is the godfather and his crew wearing the same outfits as today’s business people, their acting isn’t that different either, they act like all people in empowered positions. Just note that the depictions of the relations in the movie are based on the contrast and the conflict when the spectators realize that the nice viewed mafia characters, in the reality are criminals, who are managing their living, through illegal actions of the worst kind.
A more thorough analysis of the management in the chosen scenes gives evidence that the godfather, as an executive manager, has built a top governed hierarchy based on rules and job descriptions, where him and only him is in control. The godfather is an excellent manager, since his managers obey his orders just in time, how obscene they might be, without any discussion and the result is impeccable. However, from another point of view, his management can be questioned from an organizational perspective, since any kind of dictatorship, in the long perspective, seems to be devastating for any kind of organization. Another aspect of management in the scene is the HR management, namely the godfather’s treating of his son, by punishing and humiliating him since he’s being weak. However, the godfather immediately changes his behavior and the topic of discussion, when another son enters the room, demonstrating him practicing the norms of a fine executive manager in real life, since he saves the face of the first son when the other enters the room. The scene ends with the godfather promising to solve the first son’s problem with the words “I want you to leave it all to me”. The godfather’s behavior in this situation indicates his understanding of solidarity to his closest, even when they are the weakest. It would have been bad management if the godfather had done otherwise. I believe a fine executive manager to behave exactly as the godfather did, protecting his closest, in the reality though, it isn’t always so. I refer to the ongoing question, regarding FRA, when a politician told his own collogue off in front of other colleagues, due to her opposing the line of their political party. All in the spirit of Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” (1513), in which he’s preaching the politician’s right to ruthlessly and by any means fulfill the aims of politics. Even though this book was released almost 500 years ago, it’s still quoted when discussing modern management at corporate level. One conclusion is that the godfather’s behavior, as an executive manager, lacks the ruthlessness of Machiavelli and the politician mentioned above, since the godfather acts with more managerial skills than this politician of our time, in the situation with handling his closest. Regarding this very subject, one could therefore assume the godfather a more suitable politician than the very politician himself.
From a sociological management point of view, according to the authors Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey and their book “Individual in society” (1962), the subordinates must perceive a leader as the best. According to the movie, the godfather is the boss due to him always being the meanest, smartest and most ruthless. In contradiction to an executive manager in real life, who is selected by his education, skills and social abilities. According to the above authors, leaders are also in general found to be more intelligent than their followers, which seem to be obvious when comparing the godfather with his subordinates. I believe the characteristics of a leader, and the type of management he or she displays, reflects the company goals, the norms of the group and the leaders personality. My judgment regarding the management carried out by the godfather, from a democratic point of view, is him being a poor executive manager for the organization in the long run. However, as mentioned earlier, he sometimes acts as an example of excellent management, even better than one of our own politicians, regarding that specific case.
However, one must reflect upon the fact that the godfather is, despite being very cruel, hard not to like with his elegant and at the same time brutal manners. The arrogance he displays when realizing he might have to kill someone is in the viewers perspective more admirable than repulsive. How have the producers been able to make the audience like the godfather when being as bad as he is? I believe it’s hard to answer but people are always curious of things they don’t know so much about, and further on the godfather takes very good care of his family and friends, which shows him also possessing a soft side. A conclusion is that the producers have been very successful making the viewers like a very bad person, one reason to this might be the godfather using acceptable management (e.g. caring for is friends and relatives very much) sometimes, but most often his management are completely unacceptable e.g. murder.
I believe the intentions of the authors producing this movie were to make an entertaining, but still enlightening movie, giving the audience a picture of what the mafia is all about and illuminating the life and living of the mafia, so far unknown to the society. The knowledge expected from the viewers to consume this movie, was for natural reasons therefore almost zero, since no comprehensive facts about the mafia had been made public at the time the movie had premiere. The movie became a success, giving the viewers an understanding of how the mafia is organized and managed, which no movie had done before. Many similar mafia movies were produced during the years, but the godfather is still after almost 40 years, the number one mafia movie everyone talks about. According to my opinion though, the producers didn’t realize the full extent of similarities between the godfather’s management in their movie, and how big companies are being managed today, 40 years later, nor that it would be a subject for management studies at KTH.
The Shawshank Redemption
The Shawshank Redemption from 1994 is one of the best movies to this date according to me and many with me. In this analysis I have focused on the management and the guards and not so much on the plot of the movie. For you who have not yet seen the movie here is a short sum up:
Andy Dufresne is a successful banker who gets accused and sentences to double lifetime for the murder of his wife and is sent to Shawshank Prison. After a rough start he gains respect from his fellow inmates. Before long the warden finds out about his financial knowledge and uses his expertise for his personal gain…
Here is a fun hip hop sum up:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/10/video-the-shawshank-redemption-hip-hop-remix/
In one of the first scenes after Andy arrives at the prison shows the captain of the guard brutally abuses one of the inmates to death while the other guards just stand there watching. How can this be? There are many reasons for this but the three most important ones is the manager, the organization and finally the walls.
In charge at Shawshank is Warden Norton who also is the only manager at the prison (at least that can be seen in the movie). Even if middle management surly exists somewhere I am not sure that they can be considered managers because of their lack of power. Therefore he can run the prison pretty much as he himself pleases. He identifies himself with the prison and his way of viewing things is that the convicted felons are sent “to him” not to the prison. Even if he says this with disgust he at the same time makes it clear that he owns the prisoners as of that they came inside the walls to that they leave the again. This has the consequence that everyone inside that prison is worth as much as they are worth to the warden. For example Andy’s financial knowledge is worth more than Tommy’s life so when Warden Norton needs to choose the answer is not too hard. To further emphasize this he even creating his own “slave workforce” out of the prisoners for the benefit of himself. For him a prison has one objective to society and that is to keep the dangerous criminals looked away to the lowest cost to society. This is a very resource based view of running things; he needs a high wall a couple of guards and since everything is working nothing needs to be changed. That this view leads to a lack of change is clear since the prison and the routines are identical during the 20 years that Andy is imprisoned. A comparison could be made to companies acting on a market without competition and without the threat of competitors entering anytime soon also might have a hard time to motivate development. From all this it is fair to wonder if he really is the right man for the position as warden of a prison when it’s clear that he put no value to the welfare or “rehabilitation” of the inmates. The filmmakers make their position clear: the warden is more of a criminal then any of the inmates. It is also interesting to see how the filmmakers use his disintegration towards a more and more corrupt man to show the dangers of too much power.
The structure of the prison is very army like with a strict discipline and hierarchy. This structure suits the warden perfect. Inside the walls he is king and no state observatory board can be seen. A parallel can be drawn to when a CEO makes a visit to a factory and everything is cleaned and set in perfect order instead of showing the reality. I guess that the politicians and the voters see the problem with criminals as solved when they are caught and sentenced to jail. If they don’t ask about what is going on inside they don’t have to care about any problems. This works something like “someone-else-problem-beam” from the Douglas Adams “hitchhikers guide to the galaxy”. Below the warden is the brutal captain Hadley who is the one responsible for the prisoners and below him is the rest of the guard. The way the structure and the “company” culture are set up there is no acceptance for questioning your superiors. Therefore we can see the guards standing by without interfering even when they show signs of disapproval. To judge the guards as cowards is not as easy as it first might seem since it’s hard to go against the custom and culture but still you must always be held responsible to some degree even if this foremost is a management problem. Structures where no criticism and no creativity exist will not be very good at developing or improving and thus will be stuck in the same routines. Whether this structure is something that is deeply rooted in people’s minds of how a prison should be run or if this is warden Norton’s own structure is hard to say.
The third thing that I think have a big effect on the behavior of the guard is the walls. Walls don’t just make sure to keep the inmates inside the prison but more importantly make sure to keep the world around the prison away. This way the walls acts like a border between two worlds where your doings on one side won’t affect the other world. What’s not acceptable behavior in the outside world might be perfectly fine for you inside. Hence it’s quite easy for the management to form the ways things are done at this facility. This isolated world can be compared to the one created by William Golding in his book lord of the flies where the isolated people also creates a community on a isolated island based on values quite different from the world they come from. In the film ending it’s quite obvious that captain Hadley is chocked when the police comes and arrests him, which shows just how hard it is for him to understand that the laws applies inside their small world as well. Here the film have the outside world comes in as a knight in shining armor to set things right so that the audience get their regular moralizing lectures and a happy ending. But the outside world did keep their eyes closed as long as possible and not until the fact landed on their breakfast table did they act and no one knows if anything changed after warden Norton disappeared, maybe it’s business as usual the next day.
Star Wars VI – Return of the Soft-side management
This text takes it base in the management principles of the Empire versus that of the Rebels in the movie Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi.
Dark side management
In the opening scene of the movie, Darth Vader arrives on the second Death Star, which is currently under construction. He is met by Moff Jerjerrod, responsible for the construction of the space station, and explains to him that he is disappointed with the lack of progress in the construction and that perhaps he needs to take over himself. Moff Jerjerrod first says that his men are working as fast as they can. He also assures Vader that the station will be operational in time. When Vader questions him, Jerjerrod immediately backs off and says that it is impossible to finish the construction on time and that he needs more men. Then, after Vader informs him that the Emperor will be arriving, Jerjerrod tells him that they will double their efforts.
So, Jerjerrod goes from saying that they work as hard as they can and will be finished on time, to that it is impossible to finish on time, to that they will double their efforts. And, strangely, Vader accepts the final statement the Moff makes. This suggests that the Empire is a very hierarchical organization where subordinates hide the risk of failure as long as possible in order to maintain their reputation – and the managers accept it, until the failure actually occurs. Then they kill the guy who failed them. Another point made is that the Moff does not say that he needs some specific expert or someone with a certain competence to finish on time; he only needs more “men”. This tells us that every person further down in the hierarchy has less value and is of less importance.
Imperial Taylorism
Frederick Winslow Taylor’s overall goal was to eliminate human variability. Humans in an organization were treated as machines, where only input and output mattered. This view seems to be what the viewer is expected to believe that the Empire is promoting. How else would we believe that people working “as fast as they can” would be able to double their efforts due to a new leader? If we think of them as machines, as we are to believe that the Empire does, we only have to increase the speed on the assembly line in order to create a higher production. Were the viewers to think of how they would work themselves in a similar situation, they would be more critical to the management shown by Lord Vader.
The reason that they do not think from a personal view is probably due to their view on the people working for the Empire. Even though the Death Star is under construction, no construction workers are seen. Only soldiers and ship operators are shown on the space station. This is because the viewers think that everyone in the Empire is evil and the creator of the movie, George Lucas, does not want us to believe otherwise. This makes it easier to accept the Rebel demolition of the Death Star, where the all good destroys the all bad. What about all the independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers? All those innocent contractors were casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. This Clerksian point shows how the movie creator uses the fact that the viewers believe that the Empire is evil in every aspect.
The efforts of the Empire seem to be focused on the first three S’s presented in the book The Art of Japanese Management by Pascale and Athos (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1982): Strategy, Structure and Systems. These factors are critical in the work of scientific management and are in the book labeled as “hard” factors.
Light side management
The management of the Rebels, on the other hand, focuses both on the hard factors and on the remaining four: Staff, Skills, Style and Superordinate goals. These are described as “soft” factors by Pascale and Athos. The best picture we get from their behavior within the organization is when Mon Mothma is briefing the Rebel leaders about the design of the new Death Star and how they are supposed to destroy it. For example, the Style factor is shown since the Rebels sit comfortably in a circle as opposed to the perfect formations and strict posture of the Imperial soldiers shown in the beginning. Another notice is how the Rebels goal, to destroy the Empire, is what has led everybody into the organization. This gives them a sense of shared values and team spirit.
The authors of the above mentioned book show how the organizations working with all 7 S’s tolerate uncertainty better than those working only with the hard values. They also are more patient and take decisions over time instead of on beforehand, as well as communicating less formal. This is shown when the attack on the Death Star is under way. General Calrissian, supposedly the leader of the attack, does not give one single order. The only order-related thing he does is rejecting an order his admiral gives to him, thereby endangering the whole fleet. In the end, though, it turns out that he made a correct decision.
The dark machine
The machine symbol of the Imperial organization is perhaps most significant in the end of the movie. The Emperor and Lord Vader die, leading to a celebration of freedom across the galaxy. The makers of the movie assume that the watchers will accept that the Empire is crushed when the ruler is dead. This, in turn, also means that they believe us to think that the most evil persons in the organization are the leaders, and then the evilness decreases along the ranks. It is likely that viewers are to think of how Nazi-Germany was stopped when Adolf Hitler died, but the filmmakers forget one big issue: the Empire was still very strong and completely dominant in the galaxy. Remember that the entire Rebel fleet was needed to attack the Death Star and that the Imperial Star Destroyers protecting it still greatly outnumbered them. Here it seems, contrary to earlier scenes, that the filmmakers want us to think – or perhaps hope – that an organization’s opinions and morals are only that of the leaders and that if the leaders are taken away the organization will better. Films such as The Corporation, in which the other side of it is shown where the company does bad but the leaders want to be good, has proven to us that an organization is much more than its leader.
Another remark about the machine analogy is that it took someone who has been described as “more a machine then a man now” – Darth Vader – to finally take down the machinery of the Empire. However, he first had to turn back and face his human, vulnerable and passionate side before he was able to destroy the tyranny and bring peace to the galaxy. Can Hard-side managers change and become soft? Star Wars tells us it is so.
What we must also understand
So, it seems that the filmmakers are followers of the soft-side management, since the organization following those beliefs is the most successful one. One reason for this might be that the soft factors were the new ones in management at the time of the movie production (the book by Pascale and Athos was published two years before this movie). In a philosophical book called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, a gorilla teaches a human about how the new must always destroy the old. Cain must kill Abel and the Soft-side management must win over the Hard-side management, leading to this film following that trajectory.
In order to understand the movie one must extrapolate the behavior of the top management to that of the entire organization. Only the leaders of the two associations are shown in work. If we do not believe that the entire Imperial staff is evil we cannot comprehend why the Rebels would want to kill them. Also, it is common that the leaders of an organization have a common goal, just as the Rebel leaders do, even though the majority of the members feel differently. In order to understand how everybody follows General Calrissian’s lead and stay near the Death Star although it is still shielded, the viewer must have the ability to visualize how every Rebel unit is devoted to that same goal. The viewer must also believe that evil people can change, since the movie ends with the supposed destruction of the entire Empire when the Emperor dies.
Another, perhaps more probable, explanation would be that the viewer is expected to believe an organization to be synchronized with its leader continuously, which goes against what we have learned by watching The Corporation but is an easily comprehended simplification of a complex situation. And is not simplification one of the cornerstones of the entertainment industry?
M3T Crew 