In Conclusion

In conclusion, it's been a good semester and we've seen lots of effective and bad leadership.

The Devil in Prada is a great representation of the perception of successful women in high level of authority in the workplace. The idea stemming from a society suffering from the remnants of the patriarchy it used to be. Now, while it may possible, there still remain difficulties to succession in a working environment that are exclusive to women, eliciting women to need to develop a certain amount of of grit and determination to succeed, often making them seem cold and overbearing all while exemplifying the same traits that would be praised for, or even expected, in a man.

Wag the Dog delves into the concept that "politicians lie" and takes it to its most extreme. It shows corrupt leaders with corrupt representatives that work to rewrite reality to maintain power and influence. While labeled a comedy/drama, it forces us to ask if our politicians and leaders do this to us in the real world, leaving us with a sour taste in our mouths, knowing the truth (or thinking we do).  

Office Space goes back into leadership in the workplace. It teaches us that effective leadership does not look at their followers as a means to an end. It also shows that it'd be foolish to believe that anyone around you is just as passionate about where you're working as you are. People work and are hired for a variety of reasons, just as many reasons as people are unique. Not acknowledging these factors about coworkers or followers has dire (and possibly flammable) consequences. 

Other People's Money shows how a leader's views might not always align with everyone's best interests at heart. It also teaches that leadership in the workplace within a capitalist society is fleeting and can be taken away by anyone with the funds. Either way, people take their money seriously, and you may find that those you thought you could trust don't trust you with their money, and will go behind your back to protect it.  

The Best Man takes leadership to it's most prestigious, the presidency, leadership and representation over the whole country. While it's one position, more than one approach can be taken to acquire it. It goes into the exploration of different people's perceptions and priorities regarding leadership. One man's weakness of over analysis is another man's moral code whereas a different  man's dangerous impulsivity is another man's dedication to do what he feels needs to 

get done.

 

Leadership, as we've seen, comes in all shapes and colors but these three are my favorite.

I've had all of them at least once as a professor and I've learned and enjoyed it every time. Listening to them discus their favorite movies and trends regarding the future of theater going was really nice. I have a new appreciation for watching movies in theaters. I also have an extended list of movies I want to go see. 

Regarding future movies to show for this course, I have a couple suggestions and reasons for it. 

"Heathers" 

R ‧ 1988 ‧ Comedy/Crime ‧ 1h 43m

Involves leadership within a school setting

The downfall of a tyrant and the rise of an unprepared leader

"Nightmare Before Christmas" 

PG ‧ 1993 ‧ Family/Musical ‧ 1h 16m 

Involves a leader of a town believing he's doing what's right, but he really isn't and suffers the consequences

"Moneyball" 

PG-13 ‧ 2011 ‧ Sport/Comedy ‧ 2h 13m

Shows the many aspects that a leader must embody and employ including innovation, a degree of emotional separation, decisiveness under hard conditions, and more

The Best Man

 

"The Best Man" a political drama about two presidential candidates looking for their chance to gain the lead over the other. The only thing they have in common is that they stem from the same political party, other than that their tactics couldn't be more different. 

                                                                                 William Russell has a high moral code and is the traditional "by the books" candidate. At the chance to dirty his rival's reputation and all but claim victory he chooses to withhold. Even though the fuel ended up being false, Cantwell wouldn't have been able to sway the public in time but Russell refused, believing politics has become "all the business of gossip instead 

                                                                                     of issues, personalities 

                                                                                     instead of policies."

Joe Cantwell is just the opposite. He'll pick up anything to fuel the fire, embodying the very thing Russell looks to take out of government. He's cut throat, believing wholeheartedly that the ends justify the means. Or as Russell would put it "use a cannon to kill a bug."

In the end, both fall short of their shared goals, one by accepting his weaknesses and withdrawing and the other crumbing from his self inflated strengths.

Released in 1964, politically, it could have come out yesterday, being very representative of our current political climate even to the point that Russell stepped down to endorse Governor Merwin (Biden and Harris) and Cantwell claiming Russell of mental illness (Trump and Harris). The main distinction being that Russell's morals are nowhere to be seen, while Cantwell's personality and "mud slinging" seem to be rampant and the new norm. 

These "mud slinging" tactics, just like in the movie about Cantwell's homosexuality claims, tend to be false. 

Lately, in the very real world, Trump, at the 2024 presidential debate, made claims on "illegal Haitian immigrants eating domestic pets in Ohio" to endorse his policies on stronger borders. These claims have since not been proven and are likely the result of "pro-Trump social media accounts." It goes both ways. 

While not in the main presidential running too long, Harris isn't above this either. During the same debate, and in another interview she makes comments on how Trump left us with "the worst unemployment since the Great Depression" which just isn't true. 

Unemployment was high a the beginning of COVID, but it never even got into the 20%s meanwhile it hit 24.9% in 1933.

I wouldn't be too surprised if this part is taken out of the debates entirely.

In the end, politics are taking a very scary turn, where whoever is more impulsive and "gets the jump on the other guy first" gets the people's attention and therefore their votes. That or we're forced to pick the lesser or two evils. The more I put too much thought into it the more eager I am to believe George Carlin, and deduce we were just screwed from the beginning. 

He's dead, but I'd love to hear what he's got to say today

Other People's Money

 

"Other People's Money" consists of a big business man whose reputation of buying out companies, liquidating them, and picking at the pieces left over to make millions for himself and shareholders proceeds him. Garfield's classified as the story's antagonist but is also one of our main characters. On the other end of business is Jorgenson, the company executive hell bent on his dedication to what he believes is "right" and "moral" as it pertains to his ground employees. 

The movies includes a lot topics and of subplots involving capitalism, corruption, duty, love? for some reason but the big climax a the end is all on the topic of offshoring.

To Offshore, or Not to Offshore

That is the question

In the grander scheme of things of offshoring is the practice of moving the manufacturing of American goods to other countries. Reshoring is the opposite, keeping or bringing back the manufacturing to the US. They both have their pros and cons, pretty much in opposition to each other, ones benefit is the other's drawback. The biggest issues with debating this topic is because Offshoring's pros are very tangible and measurable, it's cheaper, while Reshoring's pros aren't as such, they depend more on less grounded subjects like morals and the belief in "The American Dream." 

Jorgenson believes in Reshoring. He's loyal and actually friends with a lot of his employees, reassuring them constantly and declining business advances that would put them in a less advantageous situation without their input.   

Garfield believes in Offshoring. He isn't concerned with what happens to the company or its employees, all he knows is that the business, staying the way it is, won't go anywhere and wants to make his money while he can.  

The speeches are very moving but in the end, it's a business and most business topics boil down to money, Garfield's whole point, and it wins him the debate.

In taking Garfield's stance one believes a leader should prioritized his fiduciary duty to shareholders in the company. 

In taking Jorgenson's stance, one believes a leader's chief responsibility to his workers and the community. 

It must be remembered that this is a film and one that uses exaggeration and extremes to prove a point and have an engaging plot. When relating these topics back to the real world, it's very harmful and dangerous to take extremes and find some degree in the middle to compromise on, hence our present political climate. We are as divided as a country as ever and it's because we live and identify ourselves within these extremes. Once we learn to accept that people and policies aren't and shouldn't be so black and white we can possibly move forward as a country. 

Anyway, here's a Danny Devito President

Office Space

 

Office Space is a satirical commentary on what a work environment can become and the extremes to which people can respond to it. 

Bill, the boss, uses the system to treat employees as tools, to further whatever needs to get done with no regard as to their personal lives, causing a lot not of silent discourse that doesn't get addressed until extremes are taken.  

Milton does nothing about it, continuing to work and get abused (and even forgotten when it came to his own termination) until he reaches his breaking point and may or may not have started the fire. 

Peter, on the other hand, chose the diametrically opposed opinion, albeit while under a hallucination, to not do his job and only participate in activities that he enjoyed and he felt fulfilled his life. And it worked out for a while.

Now take this practice and reproduce it on a national scale. 

Enter Gen Z. 

It's interesting that this film came out in 1999, a year before the majority of Gen Z, if not the entirety of them, was even born because Gen Z is entering the workplace and are known throughout the workplace for "quiet quitting." 

Quiet quitting is defined as the practice of doing the bare minimum to maintain your position and stay on payroll. The reason this is the case is because as they enter the workforce they are experiencing similar topics covered in the film and rather be a Milton and be miserable, they're choosing to be a Peter.

All their lives they've heard "youth is wasted on the young" and "you're in your best years" but now that they're taking those sayings to heart and focusing on living their lives, because it negatively affects those very people that were repeating those phrases, it's a problem. 

It all has to do with the technology and internet boom that occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Most, if not all, of Gen Z was raised having access to the internet, giving a correlative reason for their generational stereotypes that they're impatient and naturally technologically savvy. 

Through the internet and social media, Gen Z can witness other people's experiences and learn from their mistakes. The internet allows them to share stories, get reassurance on their opinions, suggestions on how to go forwards, and even notice red flags sooner. Because of this, they are demanding more from their jobs. They want job stability and financial security, opportunities to develop skills, in-person work with plenty of flexibility, sustainable work-life balance, aligned values, a competitive pay, and salary transparency. 

The ability to compare their occupational position, aside, they also have access to more options than other generations entering the workforce before, possibly baring millennials. They can see that this company is offering more pay and that company offers health insurance or that other position is remote, and so on. Not only that 

but "Sarah's in Bali" and "Kevin's on a cruise" because they're influencers and get paid to do so. Why would Gen Z put up with a Bill when they could post a video that goes viral and acquire anything between financial stability and outright fame depending on the severity of their determination.   

The emergence and exposure to technology all their lives has shown them a different path and they're taking up the chance, and if their job doesn't like it, they'll just get a new one, there are tons on the internet. Or so they think...

Some employers are downright avoiding hiring Gen Z. The major deterrence is in this job hopping nature, said 63% percent of hiring managers. What they need to understand is that the reason Gen Z job hops so much is because they see greener pastures and aren't willing to "stick it out" for a chance to move up in their company when it could very well, and easily, be given to an outside hire. 

Just as Gen Z employees have access to the internet to find new jobs, they know all too well that their employers have the same access to find new employees, and therefore feel expendable when their employers don't make an effort to not let them feel as such. It's a very vicious cycle. 

Gen Z job hops

Employers don't feel as if they can trust Gen Z to stay

Employers never put too much depending on the Gen Z

Gen Z never improve or move up in the company

Gen Z feels overlooked and mistreated

So they job hop

and the cycle repeats

Wag the Dog

"Wag the Dog" is a comedy/drama that can be better specified as a political satire film made to take the known concept that "politicians lie" and take it to its most extreme, creating a fake war. We're left with a film that feels "Funny yet not funny," making us grapple with the reality that everything in the film is completely possible. 

The most unrealistic part was the Tostino chip bag turned into a cat. While it's possible it would have taken much longer and required more manpower than the film would have led you to believe but with the emergence of AI, this no longer is the case. As AI develops and evolves, maybe it can be done that fast.

                                                                             

Other than that the film was composed of just people being people, coming together for a shared goal which, under better circumstances, is the perfect recipe to inspire hope yet this film seems to accomplish the exact opposite. 

While we can all agree that everything in the film can happen, the next logical step is to ask ourselves does it happen. And the answer isn't very comfortable.

                                                                     The argument usually takes the route 

of the Internet revolution. 

Information is much easier to relay. It's faster and more informed than ever. The internet also allows anyone who has access to it to do their own research and fact-checking. On this front, people could argue that the topics covered in this film could never happen because we have improved technology to help us find the truth. 

On the other hand, politicians and their teams have the same potential, if not more. They also have the same access to the internet as we do and the same communication relays if not more that we don't know of. So in that sense, they could easily pull the wool over our eyes and make us believe something false by planting the information along the very avenues we utilize to fact-check against them. 

The emergence of technology has increased our ability to seek and determine the truth ourselves but the reality is people are just as susceptible as they were then, believing what they see and not thinking to go out of their way to conduct their own research.    

The truth is our "leaders" could really go this far in trying to win votes or holding onto power but in regards as to if they do. 

How would we know? 

Just like in this film no one was the wiser, Conrad made sure of that even at Stanley's expense. We know politicians lie and what do we do? Try our best to police them with the discrepancies we find here and there but who's to say it's not a bigger plot generated by their competition. It all sounds a bit hopeless when brought into that light but it's where we're at as a society and it'll take first-hand, in-depth, lengthy experience to convince me otherwise. 

The Devil Wears Prada

The truth of the matter is that while we do not live in a patriarchy as strict as the definition would lead you to believe, we do, however, live amongst a society that was patriarchal and its remnants carry over into the modern day. Evidence for this at its most tangible can be found by looking no further than wages. Women earn less than men. A study  by Georgetown University outlines that within the same fields, same credentials, same everything except for a Y chromosome, women, on average earn 81 to 92 cents per every dollar than men earn. This being said, there are success stories everywhere you look and hyperbolized to serve as subplots for film, "The Devil Wears Prada" for one. 

Catalyst and their #biascorrect campaign they did in 2020 explain very well the duality of language as it colloquially applies to men and women in the workplace within a few images.  

  

While they are the same humans doing the same tasks and demanding the same things, they are seen differently and therefore treated differently on the basis of their gender. However unfair or unjust it may seem, the truth is that it happens more than we'd care to admit or go to the trouble to fix. This being the case, women are left with two options, to either shy away or accept and move on. Those who choose the latter are the women leaders we see climbing the corporate ladder all while being called "pushy" and any amount of other names they choose to turn a blind eye to.

Can you guess which was which

 

People that work to get to be as high and important as 

Miranda was, aim to keep it that way, some more willing to maintain it by any means than others, case in point, Nigel's career treachery. He was going to get his big break and finally call the shots for his life for the first time in 40 years. It was a big deal and even encouraged by Miranda herself, until it got in her way. At first notice that her career was in jeopardy, she threw him under the bus and didn't think twice let alone feel guilty. 

This is not the way of every women leader, it is only one instance based in a fictitious film.

But it feels real. 

Why? 

The concept of pouring your time, money, effort, life into something is pretty universal.

For Miranda, it was her career, becoming so focused that nothing else mattered. Not the trouble of being approachable. Not her husband(s). Not even her kids. They did matter at one point... for approximately 40 seconds before she was back to arranging seating charts for a gathering. Because of this mindset, she was probably the hardest worker out of everyone around her, earning her the highest position she could imagine. But there's a cost, luckily, for her, the cost doesn't seem to bother her (except for about 40 seconds). Luckily for the rest of us who have to answer to superiors, this is not the case for everyone, enter Andy. 

She turned it all away, remembering that she wasn't even 

interested in fashion at the beginning of the movie. In the end, she landed a new job with a sparkling letter of recommendation from Miranda, which was all she was ever looking for in the first place but that's because it's a movie and it needs a happy ending. The real world is not so assured. That's why Nigel was convinced, diluted, that Miranda would pay him back for her bout of blindside betrayal. Even when questioned he didn't speak on grounds of faith, he said that's what he needed to believe. 

Speaking of Nigel, he's probably one of the most interesting characters is the whole film. He plays the role of both follower to Miranda and leader to Andy, doing a good job at both while the two sides seem opposites.  

As far as Andy's concerned, it wasn't that much of an ordeal given the working environment. While his first long shpeel to her after the flight incident seems harsh, it's the truth. She came to work as an assistant for someone she didn't even know in an industry she had no interest in. Why would they take it easy on her? Cause she's new? Entitled, frankly. 

He just needed to explain the mindset that everyone else had in her language (not what Miranda did with the belts), provide a new wardrobe, and she did the rest by herself. A good leader guided in the right direction and a good follower took it from there.

His followership towards Miranda is also good. Whether it's good for him is another issue but his complete lack of self-respect does Miranda really well. So much so that she could metaphorically chain him to her, and she did. 

Emily's not much different. She's a great follower who takes so much pride in her work she's willing to be mean and spiteful towards those who'd threaten it. Sound similar? Leaders should be ones that their followers can look up to and emulate, and emulate she does. Whether it's for a leader that deserves it is questionable. She got the job done, you can't debate that, but she's not pleasant to work with. 

Does this mean she's bossy, emotional, and abrasive or a boss, passionate, and assertive? Hmm

Andy on the other hand might not have been a good follower in the sense that she didn't "follow" but she was a good person with a healthy amount of self-respect, a quality necessary for a successful 

leader - follower relationship. 

While these are certainly some versions of followership none of them should not be the kind strived towards because, as a wise man once prompted for a blog post, it does indeed "take two to tango," and Miranda was not giving anything but expectations for the world to bend over backward for her, which, to her credit, they usually did. At the risk of her marriage, children, a semblance of a work-life balance, the mere idea that people might look forward to other presence without the undertones of fear, but hey, people run when she says walk. People's priorities can be different. 

References

ivs5200. (2023, September 11). The Dynamics of Followership in “The Devil Wears Prada.” Sites.psu.edu. https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2023/09/11/the-dynamics-of-followership-in-the-devil-wears-prada/ 

Carnevale, Gulish, & Smith. (1970, January 1). Women Can’t Win: Despite Making Educational Gains and Pursuing High-Wage Majors, Women Still Earn Less than Men. Digitalgeorgetown. http://hdl.handle.net/10822/1049530