Recent orders
MOVIE REVIEW. Death of a Salesman a play by Arthur Miller 1949
Name
Lecturer
Course
Date
“Death of a Salesman”
Introduction
“Death of a Salesman” is a play that was written by Arthur Miller 1949. It was awarded The Tony Award for Best Play and Pulitzer Prize for Drama. It uses Willy, a disillusioned salesman, his conscious and caring wife, Linda and their two sons Happy and Biff as the protagonists. They help us to understand the turbulent life in this family which is involved in a constant disagreement. Willy does not get happiness from his job as a salesman, a job he gets sacked from even after serving for a very long time.
He is not pleased with his sons whom he blames for not making him proud. Biff, his older son, fails the math class and drops out of college. His father’s efforts to lure him to venture into business later fail when he instead opts for farming. On the other hand, his younger brother, Happy, a womanizer, is loathed by Linda for his cheap lifestyle is a family arbiter. As events unfold, such a scenario, places Willy into a constant rivalry within and out of his household. Eventually, he opts to commit suicide at least to make his older son happier. However, this does not happen since Biff turns down the insurance compensation.
Conflict
The above synopsis indicates that conflict is one of the major themes of this play. In deed, there is a constant rivalry. Willy, the “weak, low” man, disagrees with all the people within his reach: his wife, Linda; sons, Biff and Happy; neighbor, Charlie and his boss, Howard.
To begin with, Willy and Linda disagree in many occasions. First, Willy is unfaithful in his marriage. He is involved in an extra marital love affair with Ms. Francis, whom he had been with, in a hotel, during the time, when his son was still a promising student in the Summer School. In fact, this is the reason why Biff loses hopes in studies and finally drops out of school as was narrated by Bernard. He says, “I am a failure!” Meaning there was a misunderstanding. Moreover, Willy turns down Linda’s offer of pleading to his boss to transfer him to their home town. Willy refused to buy this idea, however, good it was. Whereas Linda believed that it would prevent him from travelling that might cause him a tragic road accident.
Besides, there is a disagreement between Willy and his two sons. First, he is not happy with Biff’s decision to drop out of school. Later, he refuses to pursue a business career proposed by his father. Instead, he opts to try his hand in farming because that is what he likes most. The failing to fulfill Willy’s expectations of him, constantly puts them in a rivalry. In his opinion, Biff would have to be as successful just like his friend Bernard who has become a lawyer and a responsible husband. On the other hand, Biff blames his father’s promiscuity to be the sole cause for his failure. While in the restaurant Willy gets annoyed with his sons when they decide to abandon him. Instead, they enjoy the company of prostitutes. This incident infuriates Linda to the extent that she rebukes her two sons. She felt that it was so stupid of the boys to show such an irresponsible conduct.
Finally, Willy is in a disagreement with his neighbor and employer. Even though Charlie is a good friend who often helps him in case of difficulty, Willy frequently turns down his offers. In fact, he even refused to be employed by Charlie when he lost his job. This is because, he is jealous of his son, Bernard’s success. He is threatened at his success because he was expecting him to be equal to his sons. When he goes to Howard to discuss better working terms, Willy gets sacked when he is told, “You will no longer represent this company!” This is so unfair because his long time dedicated service finally gets unrewarded. This enmity continued even after his death. Otherwise, he would be accorded a colorful burial.
Moral Leadership
Moral Leadership
Name:
Affiliation:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:
Moral Leadership
Leadership is all about responsibilities, while morality entails instilling values for individuals to live and abide by. Moral leadership inspires and motivates people to act and hold themselves accountable. When you see people fail to step up and provide purpose or even do something that can give goodness to a more significant number of people, step up. Moral leadership is subject to respect for ethical beliefs and values to preserve human dignity and their respective rights (Ciulla, 2014). When discussing moral leadership, one must remember concepts such as honesty, integrity, trust, fairness, charisma, and consideration. Ethical governance is primal to building trust, inspiring colleagues, creating meaning, or helping individuals imagine a better future. It enables people always to do the next right things. This paper aims to enhance our awareness of moral leadership, what it entails, and various ethical leadership concepts.
World leaders are often celebrated based on their achievements and bravery. However, when it comes to moral leadership, the ideas seem far-fetched. As such, it comes down to whether morality counts when it comes to matters about administration? Numerous studies have concluded that moral leaders are better equipped to execute their obligations than their amoral counterparts (Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, 2019). People seldomly celebrate ethical leaders in the current world. Perhaps, most people are accustomed to celebrating the wrong category of individuals. Great leaders, may it be in organizations or countries, will always work hard to ensure that morality permeates all aspects of their governance. A strategic initiative is imperative or rather subject to the ethical and effective management of projects. It is always hard to make a proper decision as every moral dilemma is subject to a solution. The success of institutions is entirely dependent on a decision-making process that involves moral dimension, ethics, and good governance. Three forms of moral leaders often overlap, namely, ethical, servant, and honest.
Ethical leaders tend always to refer and adhere to norms and regulations. They reciprocate the prevailing institution norms, standards, and culture to enact adherence to those standards among the individuals under their leadership. An ethical leader represents a moral role model and suppresses activities aiming to promote corruption in an institution, such as bribery and compromising classified information (Hannah, Avolio & Walumbwa, 2011). This form of leadership demands spearheading individuals into attending their respective obligations to avoid scandals, lawsuits, bad public image, and embarrassing the institution. It is expected that this form of leadership to a formidable bond that leads to mitigating harassment as people are always acting in the right way. The wrong side is that ethical leaders may enact self-gains regulations that other people might regard as offensive and immoral. For example, the United States may take an opportunity to financially aid third-world countries’ economies that work for better living standards. However, it would frown upon the Americans. Such actions are justifiable by ethical leaders based on their moral appropriateness by that country’s means but would hold less meaning when it comes down to the United States citizens.
Servants leaders tend to be so much inclined to outcomes. Servant leaders concentrate on how others get helped or harmed by their acts and often tend to spearhead institutions to perform better in the best interests of the public wellness (Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, 2019). Servant leaders serve to take care of people. When it comes to business organizations, servant leaders put their employees into consideration first while at the same time looking out for other stakeholders, such as clients, shareholders, surrounding communities, vendors, among others. When it comes to the nation’s servant leaders, they will always put the interest of their people first and, at the same time, consider others. Servant leadership often faces the dilemma of balancing all the stakeholders involved in their governance. When it comes to economists, the vast majority of them would argue that any wealth spent on corporate social responsibility, ensuring the world’s wellness, is inversely suppressing the shareholders’ and employees’ returns.
Authentic leadership is often intertwined with fairness, honesty, and wisdom. Authentic leaders are highly aware of their strengths and weaknesses and always work hard to improve the people they lead by helping them understand themselves (Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, 2019). Their decision-making process is subject to their moral compass, instead of other people’s opinions of morality. Authentic leaders listen to other people’s views, but ultimately, they would not primarily adhere to rules, or people’s expectations, or even what the majority would applause (Caza & Jackson, 2011). An authentic leader is a leader who can display moral courage to execute what they feel is right. They set an example for others to follow and encourage them to always be the best version of themselves. In most practical terms, think of organization leaders who, as soon as they assume power, overhaul everything and do what they feel is right. Such leaders can do unexpected things on some occasions, at times, go contrary to the rules, and sometimes it may have appeared as if they were doing something against the stakeholders involved in the short term. However, that felt right to them.
Authentic leadership is often associated with uncertainty, following internal drives that are only predetermined and only known (Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, 2019). Individuals who follow a contrary moral compass to authentic leaders can write off such leadership as a loose cannon.
It is practical for leaders to have more than one element of ethical leadership. It may not be mutually exclusive to employ the above three moral leadership forms. Correspondingly, leaders may consider utilizing different moral leadership forms as significant based on present situations, as per the need dictation. The vast majority of the people make the mistake of categorizing themselves as virtuous and often try to generalize that other individuals hold a similar opinion than they do. It is a prerequisite for leaders of institutions to acknowledge that what they perceive as morally righteous may have a different interpretation of other people under their leadership. For instance, a chief executive officer of a given organization may practice an ethical leadership style; however, employees may be morally inclined toward a servant or authentic leadership. As such, one has to match the people’s morality under his/her supervision to achieve your goals effectively. People may support your idea of being an ethical leader, but you are the only one to give or rather determine what that entails.
Reference
Caza, A., & Jackson, B. (2011). Authentic leadership. The SAGE handbook of leadership, 352-364.
Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (2014). Ethics, the heart of leadership. ABC-CLIO.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 555-578.
Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148-187.
Moral Isolationism
Student’s name
Professor
Course
Date
Moral Isolationism
In morality and its critics, Mary Migday presents us with the abstract concept of us trying to understand different cultures and how it is difficult for a person to understand a particular culture fully. She presents the Japanese Samurai as an example through which culture can be misunderstood by people. She states that it is only in some situations whereby we can fully understand what a specific culture means along its practices. She also says that the only best understanding is understanding other people’s cultures through our own. The situation of being unable to understand other cultures fully and being faced with conditions that present to us the different cultures, as she states that our parents would have been shocked with, and the difficulty of understanding them is what she refers to ‘moral isolationism’.
She states that some people criticize other cultures for how they behave in a funny or unappealing manner, yet they have not fully understood that culture and this she frames as wrong practice. She also questions different features and concepts in dealing with cultures. For example, on page 611, she puts across the question of whether the understanding barrier towards cultures blocks a person’s ability to praise or blame a particular culture for its doings. She presents both sides of the coin by stating that we could only praise what we can thoroughly criticize. Therefore this calls for an understanding of a culture and not just trying to blame them for what does not appeal to us but also understanding why what they do is done in a specific manner. She also goes ahead to question what judgment involves, and therefore in this she states it is the formation of opinions.
However, it is wrong to form only crude notions of thoughts about other cultures. The last question Mary poses is if we cannot judge different cultures due to our ability to understand them fully, is it possible to consider our own that we are aware of? Here she discusses how moral isolationism would ban moral reasoning. However, these conditions and situations are present within the societies for our good because it is through the judgment that we get a direction to follow or avoid a culture. Finally, she admits that there is only one world, and with all the differences between different cultures and different people, we have to live within this world.
From the above discussion, it is clear that cultures and different people interact differently and at different rates. Every person has an opinion which they always want to prove, be it positive or negative. Therefore cultures have to interact appropriately because the inability to interact peacefully and adequately, as Mary suggests, leads to misunderstandings and other clashes of the culture and individual persons. This can come as a way of a person misunderstanding a specific culture like it is with the Samurai being misunderstood in its dealings and activities. Therefore, moral isolationism is a good factor towards social betterment. It discourages judgment and victimization of other cultures.
According to Mary’s analysis of moral isolationism, we come to realize that the unfair practice is not judgment as moral isolationism might try to make us see from a distant understanding. However, the basic tenet about our cultures and the world is the ability to understand each other, make sound judgments and provide relevant criticism of the different cultures. At the same time, be able to praise them and not just judge them for what they are not doing right. Therefore this is an essential aspect of any person’s knowledge of the world and the cultures. The concentration of samurai also has significance on Marys’s work as this culture is mainly misunderstood. People end up making judgments than being able to criticize effectively and analyze the culture for its strengths and weaknesses. She also talks of how anthropologists have only concentrated on small communities for their studies, thus providing and coming up with perfect studies. On the other hand, there has been a development of larger communities that bring in complexity about how society and culture operates.
Work Cited
Midgley, Mary. Trying out one’s new sword. Courses Publishing, 2000.