How Managers Can Apply Their Interpersonal, Informational and Essay

How Managers Can Apply Their Interpersonal, Informational and Decisional Roles to Influence the Performance of Their Organizatio - Essay Example Leadership is the process of manipulating other people to achieve specified objectives or goals. From a business point of view, a manager is a person, who has been given the mandate to influence the employees of a given organization in order to achieve the organization goals. Therefore, leadership roles are to communicate ideas, motivating employees, and gaining their commitment, enthusiasm, and acceptance so that they can support and implement the organizational goals and objectives. A manager should be a person who can perform the following roles; 1. Interpersonal roles: Should be able to perform, symbolic and ceremonial skills. Should also be one who can direct and monitor the subordinates, through communication and counsel, and be one who can maintain links in information through mail, meetings, and phone calls. 2. Informational roles: Can seek and receives information by maintaining personal contact with stakeholders and scanning periodicals and reports, transmits the informatio n to employees through reports, speeches and memos. 3. Decisional roles: An excellent manager is one who can come up with new ideas and delegate the idea responsibility to other persons. He should be one who can take the necessary action during crisis and disputes among his subordinates, a skilled negotiator who can represent his unit in budget, sales, purchases, and union contracts. Thematically, this paper seeks to show, by use of relevant case examples, how managers can influence successful performance of their organization through the application of the managerial skills discussed above. The three managerial roles will be discussed separately, in order to analyze each of them critically. Interpersonal roles Interpersonal skills are required, in order, for the manager to perform as a figurehead role in the organization, and this is considered to be a leading management function. An organization cannot succeed if the managers cannot direct and monitor their subordinates. In a case example; Intermatic Inc, a company located in spring Grove, Illinois was on the verge of bankruptcy. Jim miller, a former employee, was asked to return as president of the firm. He applied his interpersonal roles that enabled him to restructure the whole firm; he directed his staff and managed to bring the firm back from the edge of bankruptcy to its growth, profitability and survival (Lussier & Achua, 2010). For a manager to have strong interpersonal skills he should be capable of performing the following roles; 1. The figurehead role: Any manager or leader in an organization is capable of performing this role; it includes the caring out of basic tasks such as, presiding at meetings, and signing important documents (Davis, 2006). 2. The leader role: This is the role that influences how most leaders perform all other roles, the tasks that are preformed in this role include tasks like; evaluation of employee performance, coaching and giving instructions, training and hiring new empl oyees (Davis, 2006). 3. The liaison role: The liaison role is involved with the interacting and communicating with people outside the organization, and several tasks that include the developing of relationships, attending of professional meetings, maintaining contact with organizations and other people, and networking (Davis, 2006). Interpersonal skill is an individual’s capability to perform the above roles. In another case example, British airways hired a

Child trama 5 Annotated Bibliography Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Child trama 5 - Annotated Bibliography Example However, the article cites that the extents to which risky sexual behavior in women are affiliated with exposure to unfavorable experiences in childhood is not well understood (S.D. Hillis 206) This article highlights that these harmful consequences of participation in risky sexual behaviors are disproportionately higher in women than men, which might be influenced by several factors like biological factors. The study claims that biologically women are more susceptible to sexually transmitted infections and likeliness of asymptomatic infections that remains undetected for long. Therefore, they are at higher risk of complications than men (S.D. Hillis 206). The article study outlines outcomes affiliated with risky sexual behavior in women that includes sexual transmission of more than 25 infectious organisms, vaginal cancer, cervical cancer, abortion, infertility, still birth , violence related trauma, death etcetera. In addition, the study outlines that the women engaging in risky sexual behavior risk their unborn suffering such effects as low birth weight, prematurity, pneumonia, neural damage, ocular infections or even death (S.D. Hillis 206). This article further evaluates a study research carried out to determine adverse childhood experiences on about 5,060 female members of a managed care organization. The research revealed information of seven categories of harmful childhood experiences the women underwent namely emotional, physical, or sexual abuse; or even having a battered mother, substance abusing, mentally ill or criminal household members. They concluded that cumulative harmful childhood experiences and such risky behavior as an early onset of intercourse, or even having more sexual partner’s poses a greater risk of Aids infection (S.D. Hillis 206). The article further highlights that women exposed to multiple types of harmful childhood experiences have 50% increase likelihood

A Crash Course on Racism and Contemporary Society Essay Example for Free

A Crash Course on Racism and Contemporary Society Essay When you see the word crash, it always summons to mind an unfortunate event that has to deal with vehicles. Someone even told me that it is prohibited to say this word when you are boarded on an airplane because you might cause panic among another passengers. Planes, cars and even computers crash. Crash basically means collision. Similarly, the title of Paul Haggis recent movie is Crash (2005). However, viewers will see not only collisions involving cars, but collisions involving race, culture and classes. The movie †Crash† tackles the cross-cultural panorama of Los Angeles urban life, involving people interconnected to each other in vestiges of crime, racism, corruption, obligation, indignation and chance over a two-day period. The storyline superimposes the complexity of the multifaceted narratives of their lives entwined under the numerous social and psychological issues usually hidden inside the closet of the American consciousness. The Plot: Crash or Clash The story revolves around two cops, one senior and the other junior. The other jaded and abusive, the other one is a novice and willing to learn the ropes. These cops are played by Matt Dillon and Ryan Philippe respectively. One day, when they were assigned in their beat site, they pull over and eventually harass a black couple (Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton) because the SUV theyre driving vaguely fits the description of a carjacked vehicle that was reported. More complications swiftly supersede within 24 hours, these characters all cross paths again in separate incidents of incredibly high tension that challenge both the prejudices that have formed between them and the assumptions we draw out from their different perspectives about race and culture as a whole. It turned out that Christine (Thandie Newton) was surprised that she encounters Sgt. Ryan (Matt Dillon), the racist cop who sexually molested her during a traffic stop the previous night, the officer on the scene who pulls her from the burning car. To further intricately muddle the conflicts, characters encounter and reencounter one another in highly convenient ways. For example, a young African-American criminal Peter (Lanrez Tate) is murdered. Fortunately, he has a brother, Graham (Don Cheadle), an LAPD detective, who discovers Peters dead body in the desert. Prior to learning of his brothers death, Graham is thwarted by the district attorney’s office into suppressing evidence that may partially absolve a white police officer charged with killing a black cop. Incidentally, the district attorney (Brendan Fraser) is looking for a conviction that would help him gather enough support from the black community, since he is trying to manage a potential media scandal. He and his wife (Sandra Bullock) were carjacked in Sherman Oaks by two young black men. Moreover, more table-turning events are revealed in the lives of the characters because actual carjackers is Peter and his friend (Larenz Tate and rapper Ludacris). Surprisingly, the carjackers and their victims – these four are, in turn, connected through other events to a young Hispanic locksmith (Michael Pena) desperately trying to make a better life for his 5-year-old daughter after moving out of a crime-ridden neighborhood, and to a struggling Iranian shopkeeper (Shaun Toub) desperately seeking to lay blame for the vandalization of his convenience store, and to a pair of internal affairs detectives (Don Cheadle and Jennifer Esposito), whose lives and jobs are complicated by politics, tested principles and personal secrets. As film involves various crashes and clashes, forcefully it does not just invoke commonly hackneyed racially charged confrontations found in some films, but it almost subliminally showcases how passive prejudice and pre-conceived notions are often prevalent in simple day-to-day life. Thus, people could just collide and all these complications happen within a blink of an eye, unaware that they are villains and victims all at the same time of the milieu they are placed in. Although the dominant illusion that Crash could perpetuate among its viewers about its own narrative is that each character does something virtuous in one situation, and something unconscionably racist in another. Entirely, this is not the case because some characters could be deemed as purely good people. The Latino locksmith Daniel exists solely to incur racist threats and insults from other characters, then to belie their opinions through his role as the most upstanding of family men. Unfortunately, other characters display no redeeming traits, like the DA’s wife, Jean Cabot (Bullock) is depicted as a self-involved rich and uptight woman who is there to speak the unspeakable truth when justifying her fear of black men. Eventually, she stops just short of calling Daniel a wetback, and undergoes a quite insincere transformation that resulted from her inability to understand that her housekeeper Maria (Yomi Perry) is nice to her when she fell down some steps and fractured her leg, and nobody else has given her sympathy. She had no choice, but be nice to the person who helped her (Sicinski, 2005). Craig Detweiler (December, 2005) analyzed that Haggis portrays the film as a depiction a fine interconnectedness of realistic portrait of pertinent issues with a subliminal touch of magic realism. The movie offers a range of familiar types, attempting to prick his viewers consciences without being overbearingly preachy or nearly jingoistic. As the film kicks off, tempers are already surging as invectives and epithets are blurted out without batting an eyelash. Prejudices are looking for confirmation. I am angiy all the time, and I dont know why, laments a frustrated housewife. The first half of the film whips up the melting pot of complications, with racist assumptions spilling out of the characters ears. Viewers relish a platter of racism and crime, seasoned with sexual harassment, a broken health-care system and the purchase of firearms. In the softer second half, Detweiler explains that the isolated moments suggest a possibility of redemption for the characters. A motorist hassled by the cops for driving while black turns out to be a conflict-avoiding Buddhist for Christs sake. But that doesnt dissuade the police from violating his humanity and that of his wife. A statue of St. Christopher shows up at surprising times, but it ultimately proves ineffectual. A protective icon inspires a random act of violence. As Christmas unfolds in the movie, we see images of the nativity that could only summon unrealized prayers for peace on earth (Detweiler, 2005). Circumscribing the â€Å"circle† that goes around the film’s plot, a realization could smack its viewers that in the small world we are living in, we are connected to each other, like it or not. Conclusion Racism is a topic well-tackled among discussions. We are aware that it is generally loathed by people and we heard calls of putting a stop to it. We have seen the fall of Apartheid, we have seen those protests voicing out equality, but people still commit racism unconsciously as they encounter each other in their daily lives. Is prejudice primarily a question of color? How do differences of language and culture play into our misunderstandings? What must be done to bridge understanding and permanently inculcate the ugly face of prejudice regarding our differences? The film Crash does not present the ultimate panacea to racism and prejudice. But certainly, it is a mirror of what American society has become. It is presenting a consciousness about the interconnectedness of people and the situations that made them come up with their own realizations. Thus, the film invites its viewers to come up with their own realizations about the contemporary cross-section of American society and provide a space about perspectives on how to deal with their own prejudices. Works Cited Detweiler, Craig. Cultural Collisions. Sojourners Magazine. Washington, (December 2005), 34 (11): 45-46. Sicinski, Michael. Crash, Film Review. Cineaste. New York, (Fall 2005), 30 (4): 51-54.

Government And Private Hospital Differences Health And Social Care Essay

Government And Private Hospital Differences Health And Social Care Essay In many countries, controversy surrounds the roles of government and the private hospitals. While bigger states such as The United Kingdom and Germany have many government hospitals that could really overcome the demands for the patients. On the other hands, some poorer countries, the government hospitals are really very poor. In these hospitals the patient must buy his medications from the nearby pharmacies. A private hospital is a hospital owned by company. This practice is very common in the United States and Australia. In the United Kingdom, private hospitals are distinguished from the National Health Service (NHS) institutions that provide health care free at the point of use for the patient. A government hospital also known as public hospital is a hospital which is owned by a government and receives government funding. This type of hospital provides medical care free of charge, the cost of which is covered by the funding the hospital receives from the government. The government hospitals is a good healthcare that is available to all, regardless of their wealth. It is not just meets the needs of everyone but it also free at the point of delivery. However, the services provided by the government hospitals is the first come first served. The Doctors could treat those who were in most need of treatment and were suffering from the most serious illness. The problems for this are that some patients have to wait along time. Not just the government hospitals waiting lists are so long that patients could be faced with an anxious and possibly painful wait of many months, before gaining admission. But when the patient is given a date it will be one that suits the hospital and not the patient. On the other hand, in the private sector patients can get immediate admission for non-life threatening operations. In addition, patients can choose when they want to be seen, opting for surgery when it fits in with their job or holidays. In addition to the patientà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s choice of when they want to be seen, in the private hospitals they also have other choices such as choosing which consultant that is going to be carrying out there operation. They have no restrictions of visiting hours along with extras such as individual rooms with telephones, satellite television, en-suite bathrooms and a wide variety of meals to choose from. The population is growing larger and living longer, which is putting extra, demands on the government hospitals in terms of both time and costs. Either increasing spending on the government hospitals or encouraging more people to go private can overcome the above limitations. Private hospitals give patients options for coverage and a choice of physicians. Patients can choose their preferred hospital or clinic with private health care. Private hospitals care allows patients to be seen promptly. Private hospitals reduce the governments share of the health care burden. There are many advantages of using private hospitals rather than the government hospitals. Private hospitals have a profit incentive to cut costs and maintain a good service, which is essential to attracting customers. Private hospitals also face competition which is another reason for better quality services. These factors are absent in government public services. On the other hand private hospitals it reduces the money the government pays to the government hospitals. It will also reduce the waiting lists. Other benefits for the private hospitals are that there will be no queues. Although waiting times on the government hospitals have improved in recent years because of the new technology, you will still have to wait for at least a couple of weeks for treatment but you will not have to wait this long for private treatment. In the private hospitals if the worst happens, your treatment will be as quick as it can be. You can also choose your consultant and where you want to be treated when using private hospitals. Using the private hospitals you do not have to worry about being on a mixed-gender ward. Depending on your policy, you may have a private bathroom. The visiting hours are also unrestricted. You will also be likely to be seen by the same consultant throughout your treatment. Despite the above advantages for the private hospitals there are also many disadvantages. These include depending on your policy and any previous medical conditions, but most policies only cover short-term illness or injury. With so many companies offering private hospitals, it is difficult to know which option would best suit your needs. Because of this you get what you pay for: the more cover you want, the higher your premium will be. As you cannot predict illness, you might develop a condition that is not covered when using the private hospitals. Private hospitals might not have the same depth of expertise found in teams within the government hospitals. Even thought the private hospitals offer better facilities they are extremely costly so only wealthy patients gets admitted if compared with the government hospitals. In public hospitals there are qualified while private hospital offers some times better health care treatment. In a private hospital the equipments are of standard quality and generally there is risk for the patient since a large number of people looks after a single patient. In a public hospital, the case may be entirely different. There may be a single or no person at all to be looking after the sick patient. Government hospitals are funded by the government and therefore cannot turn away patients. On the other hand the private hospitals are privately funded and make their own rules. Because of this the private hospitals reject uninsured patients. The government hospitals are funded by the government so that they are there to help the poor and anyone who might have health problems while private hospital is not bound by the government to help the poor but they are better equipped and better medical care. The government hospitals receive government assistance, and therefore are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay while the private hospitals do not receive such assistance, and therefore are better suited only those who can afford to go. Sometimes the government hospitals can offer a greater choice of equipment than the private hospitals, as the money needed for many treatments and procedures is very expensive. Private hospitals may struggle to purchase or loan all the screening equipment they need to offer a full service so occasionally the private patient may need to be treated in the government hospital in order to receive the care they require. As the private hospitals have smaller equipment than that of the government hospitals, they can often afford to update their smaller items of equipment fairly frequently something that the government hospitals might struggle to do. The private hospitals have little scope to perform immediate life-saving operations but it may be able to carry out semi-urgent procedures depending on the surgeonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s availability and amount of theatre time available. On the other hand the government hospitals are highly equipped to manage any form of emergency surgery. Many patients believe that the government hospitals often have bad reputation in terms of medical attention. Dormitory style rooms rather than private hotel rooms are normal in the government hospitals but you will usually get the medical attention you need. Sometimes, for major medical procedures, a private hospital will ship you off to a government hospital anyway. In poorer countries, the government hospitals are really too bad. Some of them might not have any medicines at all. The patient has to buy them from nearby pharmacies. Even worse than that sometimes there might not be any doctor at all who is on duty. The problem that will result this is that the patient will have to choices. The patient has to go to Private hospital or unfortunately, he has to suffer for his diseases. Conclusion There are several differences between the government and private hospitals, some of which have been outlined above. Although some private hospitals provide extensive cover for eligible cancer treatment including out-patient consultations, diagnostic tests and therapies as well quality treatment with a choice of consultants and specialists and patient privacy in a clean and comfortable environment, usually with an en-suite room and 24 hour help line offering medical information and guidance, many patients might not afford to pay for such private hospitals. But, as the government hospitals are funded by the government and can go there for treatment any patient regardless of their wealth. Therefore, it is highly recommended that all parties i.e. government and private hospitals should work together to quality healthcare system. When you have health problems, you are concerned a lot where to pursue your medical practice. You can choose between a private hospital and government hospital. But before you make a decision, you have to consider your priorities. If you can go to the government hospital and you have the chance to see the doctor, then it is advisable that you go there. This is because the government hospitals are funded and managed by the government and/or local authorities. They know better what is good for there citizens. However, if you do not lucky to see the doctor and you should go into a waiting list, then you should consider going to private hospital otherwise, your health problem might increase and reaches where it is out of help.

Cocaine in the Brain :: Biology Essays Research Papers

Cocaine in the Brain "Cocaine delivers an intensity of pleasure - and despair - beyond the bounds of normal human experience." During the 1980s, Partnership for a Drug Free America began airing commercials that seem to either frighten or educate people about the use of illegal drugs. One of these commercials avowed, "No one ever says, 'I want to be a junkie when I grow up'." The comment is obvious, but very true. Probably very few people aspire to be drug addicts. But it happens, everyday. Why? What is so good about a drug that can potentially destroy a person's body? How does it work? What are its effects on the brain? Why is it so hard to quit? Cocaine (C17H21NO4) comes from the leaf of an Erythroxylon coca bush. It is a drug that effects the central nervous system. It causes feelings of euphoria, pleasure, increased energy and alertness. People under the influence of cocaine often do not feel the need for food or sleep. They also feel energetic and may talk a lot. However, depending on factors such as environment, dosage, and the manner in which the drug is taken, cocaine can have adverse effects such as violent, erratic behavior, dizziness, paranoia, insomnia, convulsions, and heart failure to name a few. Long- term effects of cocaine include, but are not limited to strokes, heart attacks, seizures, loss of memory, and decrease in learning capability (1). People may not always know the exact consequences of the drug they are taking, however, chances are that they do know that the drug is unhealthy for them. Schools across the country educate about the dangers of drug use and abuse through programs like D.A.R.E., television stations show anti-drug advertisements as a public service, and even city buses blazon anti-drug propaganda. People are aware that very rarely does anything good come from drug use, and still, everyday people fall victim to drugs. Why do people succumb to the urge to try drugs? It feels good...why else? When a person takes cocaine, it causes a rush. There is between one or two minutes of intense pleasure. This is followed by five to 8 minutes of euphoria, then as the high comes down, an overwhelming urge for more, which may last for a day. (3) When a user is between cocaine doses or halts usage, the opposite effects occur. The user is depressed and tired (2).

Essay --

The battle for customers has brought personal computer prices temptingly low. Which kind of computer is better for the business user to buy--an Apple or a PC that runs Microsoft Windows software? Used to be simple to pick a personal computer for home use but if people wanted a simple software computer that would be Mac. If you needed lots of cheap computing power for complicated tasks, or didn't care so much about user-friendliness, you bought an IBM-style PC. Since PC have a more compatible system hardware makes it more versatile but vulnerable to malware and viruses but Mac and PC users are safer after installing up-to-date antivirus software. Since PC is a better personal computer to run small businesses because of the power to managed the information and storing it . Mac and PC are really similar to each other, but the price differs because of the named of the brand but PC are not bound by one company. it has alternative companies creating the hardware that’s why PC's are cheap. Research conducted by David Kirkpatrick indicates that Pc has 47% of machines and still growing, but Mac's has only 11% of computer, we could argue which computer has better quality but Mac could reduce the value of their computers to acquire the same quality of a PC. PC Different OEMs and even custom build PCs might not have the suitable drivers released for every components in each OS version, incompatibles, lagging may occur. Maybe cannot reach expected performance.Since Apple manufactures all updates, hardware and software Mac's run smoothly and stable performance. Custom build PC's are the ones that create most of the problems in home computers, but manufactures that sell PC's to customers don’t bring any kind of problems with their compat... ...g the Mac fans. It also leaves Apple remarkably vulnerable when innovations go wrong - the ill-fated Cube placed the company in deep trouble, taking them out of the market and wasting a lot of money on a system that’s doesn’t work so well. this also applies for games since Mac doesn’t support too many games making them drop their market really low when it comes to gaming. Personal Computers are design for home and business use, Pc are simple, affordable and upgradable making them really versatile to any used on a home. Computers are a part of our daily life making Mac are useless for personal computing. PC PRO a specialize website that reviews the Pros and Cons about computers. Many reviews from this website say that Mac is only great for media purposes. Also PC is the most familiar computer in the world making the customers feel comfortable with their purchase.

Wall Street

How far will you go to be successful? How far will you go to win? Nothing can illustrate the lengths that a person is willing to take just to profit than in the cutthroat world of stocks. And no place in the world is more ruthless than Wall Street. Wall Street (Stone, 1987) takes its viewers to a behind-the-scenes look at this place in the world where people live and feed on stocks. The entirety of the film tackles a lot of moral conflicts that are involved in the business dealings done within the movie. This is Oliver Stone’s criticism of the mentality of the people who utilized illegal means just to get the biggest profit in the quickest time. Stone criticism not only targeted the corporate raiders whose practices were being exposed in the insider trading scandal in the 1980s, but it was a critique on the quick-buck culture that was prevalent then and even at this time. THE PLOT The plot is traditional and formulaic. A young hotshot, wanting to be successful, gets the opportunity when his persistence pays off as he is hired by a famous veteran. The rookie takes on the job albeit the discovery of the illegalities of the methods. He gets the perks and the movie shows its audience the grandiose rewards he gets. When a conflict of interest arises, he goes against the veteran. He loses everything yet he gets his payback. This has been a formula for a number of movies, and Wall Street is no exception. The young, idealistic hotshot here is Bud Fox, played by Charlie Sheen. He is a stockbroker for a lesser-known Wall Street firm. The hotshot is a dreamer. In one scene in the movie where he just lost a lot of money because of a client, he utters that he dreams of being on the other side of the call sometimes. In subsequent scenes too, it can be observed that Bud does not dream of being a stockbroker forever. To achieve that dream, he constantly calls the office of his hero for a chance of getting an audience and ultimately, impressing him to gain employment under his hero’s wing. The veteran, excessively rich and wealthy, and the movie protagonist’s hero is Gordon Gekko. This role led Michael Douglas to garnering an Academy Award of Lead Performance by an Actor. He is indeed truly worthy of the award as he portrayed the cold and vicious yet in some way appealing Gekko to the hilt. Gekko represents the ultimate corporate raider, the Wall Street shark who buys and closes down companies under their noses for his profit. Yet his methods, though disagreeable, are effective and masterfully justified as evidenced by his Greed is good speech in the movie (to be discussed later). On Gekko’s birthday, Bud shows up in Gekko’s office with a box of Davidoff cigars as a present and a bribe to finally get the opportunity he has been waiting for. Desperate to impress Gekko, Bud blurts out insider information that his father Carl (played by Martin Sheen, Charlie’s real-life father) revealed to him about BlueStar airlines. Carl works for BlueStar and also serves as a union leader there. When Gekko profits out of Bud’s tip, he saw something in the kid that he liked. He saw the killer instinct, the will and determination to do whatever it takes to succeed. He saw a bit of himself in Bud, as he revealed later on in the movie. He then employs Bud to work for him but not as an ordinary broker. He asks Bud to spy on his competition and other illegal acts. At first, Bud hesitates but he eventually agrees. He is rewarded with his works, and not without extravagance. Bud enjoys the luxurious life that his work with Gekko provided for him. The main conflict of the film arises when Bud decides to make BlueStar competitive. Bud enthusiastically pushes forward his proposals to Gekko. Gekko, on the other hand, agrees with the proposals armed with contrasting intentions compared to that of Bud’s. When Gekko and Bud present their plan to BlueStar representatives, including Carl, Carl voices out his opposition as he sees behind the guise that Gekko puts on. Yet, Bud remains to be sold by Gekko’s deception. It did not take much time before Bud realizes what Gekko’s plan really is. When Bud learns that Gekko plans to sell the hangars and planes, he confronts Gekko. When asked why he was wrecking BlueStar, Gekko answers, â€Å"Because it’s wreckable.† From there, Bud sets off a plan to save BlueStar. Eventually they do but not without consequences. Bud is arrested for illegal insider trading by the SEC. Still, he manages to get payback as he lures Gekko into a trap and thus managing to record Gekko’s confession of guilt on tape. The film ends with Bud walking on the steps of a courthouse on his way to his sentencing. ISSUES The Quick-Buck mentality vs. Hard Work and Fair Play Wall Street can be likened to a battle of two fathers over the moral consciousness of a son. This is not the only movie where Stone used this concept. His Vietnam War movie Platoon also shares this conflict (where Charlie Sheen also portrays the role of the â€Å"son† torn between two fathers, one good and another evil). In Wall Street, Carl Fox and Gordon Gekko represent the two opposing sides in the contest over the moral beliefs of Bud Fox, the â€Å"son†. Gekko represents the cutthroat businessman who resorts to all means to gain the biggest profit in the easiest way. He does so through illegal means but not without justification. The list of his reasons is not uncommon and yet is still popularly used even up to these times to justify wrongdoings. These include excuses like â€Å"Everybody does it†, â€Å"There’s something in this for everybody†, â€Å"Nobody gets hurt†, â€Å"As long as we don’t get caught†, etc. This promotes dishonesty in business dealings. But as shown by Gekko, it is this type of people who get to be on top of the hill. The ruthless, the cunning, or the relentless are the ones who succeed and eat up those who strive to compete in the merciless world of business. The implication of the justifications Gekko provides for his actions can be summed up in the common adage, saying that â€Å"if you can’t beat them, join them†. Surely, there are other people in the real world that are similar in nature to Gekko, people who become extremely successful using unethical methods. Competing with these people is one Herculean task to surmount. Thus, there are those who give up on competing with such sharks on ethical grounds and are consequently influenced to follow their lead. In today’s world, it is not surprising to find people like Gekko and the quick-buck mentality that they adhere to, where they prioritize profit over anything else including morals and services to their clients. On the other hand, Carl Fox represents the people who advocate hard work and honesty in business dealings. Carl Fox is not the only character in the film that adheres to such philosophy. One superior of Bud in the Wall Street firm stated, in one of the earlier scenes, that â€Å"good things sometimes take time.† He cites IBM and Hilton as examples. This is a direct contrast to Gekko’s impatient and short-term approach towards business. Success, via the ethical way, takes time. But eventually it will come to those who work hard and remain ethical in their ways. This kind of thinking seems to be overshadowed by the prevalent success of the Gekko-like businessmen. Despite that, there are those who remain stern to keeping their methods unstained by illegalities. They preach that hard work will reap its benefits but it takes time. Gekko scoffs at this conception citing his father as an example of a hardworking man who worked all his life and died of mediocrity. In the present day, there are those who steadfastly hold on to this principle despite all the satirical points made against their cause. Bud Fox in the movie represents the â€Å"son† torn between two fathers, namely Gekko and Carl. He is the student confused on which school of thought to pursue, the quick-buck or fair play. This is actually a mirror of today’s world. Stone intended this movie to reflect the rugged financial wheeling and dealing that is actually happening, especially at the time when the movie was made. The playing field is so dominated by players who have regard profit, wealth and winning above any other consideration. What Bud Fox represents is the individual player who is given a choice on which side to choose, the cunning majority or the blue-collar minority. Stone’s message is a dark warning for those who follow Gekko’s way. As one of Bud’s bosses says it, â€Å"Enjoy it while it lasts, because it never does.† The film ends with both Fox and Gekko getting prosecuted. They may enjoy the riches brought about by their illegal actions but time will come when their misdoings will collect their due. Meanwhile, those who do not heed the call of the â€Å"easy money† are bound to have no worries of retribution. Greed is good? The highlight of the film, what significantly won Michael Douglas his Oscar for Acting, is the scene where he delivers the Greed is Good speech. Such conception was the popular mindset (and alibi) for the profit-obsessed culture in the 1980s market that Stone was criticizing. By this scene, Stone shows his viewers the kind of eloquence and guts that people like Gekko have in defending the actions they do. This scene masterfully and powerfully provides that illustration. Gekko’s claims, amazingly delivered by Douglas, provide a chill to the spine of viewers as it shows just how ruthless and yet appealingly logical Gekko is. He delivers the speech with such composure and bravado that merits cheers and jubilation among his audience and silences his detractors despite the obvious disreputability of his catchphrase. The setting here is that Gekko is trying to take over a company, Teldar Paper. In a shareholders meeting of such company, company management oppose such planned take over by Gekko mainly because of Gekko’s reputation as a company raider. Gekko, on the other hand, rebuffs this voiced out opposition with this grand speech, provided here in part: The point is, ladies and gentlemen: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words – will save not only Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. At first look, he may have a point. As evidenced by the acceptance of his audience, it seems as though Gekko has indeed made a very convincing statement. All development can be traced to man’s insatiable hunger for life, money, love, knowledge, etc. as noted by Gekko. It is seemingly logical to think that greed is the driving force behind every single successful venture of man. If that is so, then it is just right to teach people to be greedy. Right? If this was the case, then the movie should have ended with a decisive statement that Gekko never gets caught. But Stone had a different view. Stone included this speech in the movie to showcase up to what absurd lengths people like Gekko go to in order to twist the facts and values long-cherished by society just to justify their cause and actions. Greed is wanting in excess of something that is never meant to be one’s own. It is an excessive desire to possess more than one needs or deserves. Anything in excess is wrong and can never be good, as declared in Nicomachean ethics. This just proves how twisted Gekko and his kind are. They turn something innately bad to something good just to satisfy their inner selves that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. They are blinded by their greed on what is truly wrong and write. Greed overcomes them. The desire for winning the deal is more dominant than observing ethics. Even the rewards of money and luxurious living are never enough if one is overrun by greed. In the movie, Gekko and Bud are enjoying the luxurious life yet the audience never gets to examine the splendor of their riches as these are only shown in passing. Such is the life dedicated to greed. It doesn’t give room to gloat in the rewards because it constantly seeks more. The concept of enough eludes them. When Bud confronts Gekko of how much is enough, Gekko struggles to answer. Greed does that to a person. Greed corrupts. Too much of anything corrupts to a point where the boundaries between right and wrong are breached just to temporarily satisfy and insatiable appetite for winning the deal. Greed twists the morality of a person. It changes the priorities of a person involved, in a deal; greed is self-serving instead of serving what the deal embodies, which is the people that will benefit from it. It is this moral corruption that Stone exposes through this movie, the moral corruption brought about by wealth and greed. The legal corruption is only set as a backdrop amidst the crisis in morality that the protagonist of the film is going through. CONCLUSION Oliver Stone’s main message in this film is that the ways of the wicked will ultimately fail. He concludes the movie by Gekko getting caught on tape with a confession of his illegal acts after he falls for a trap set by Bud and the SEC. Bud is also indicted for the things he did while employed by Gekko. The last scene shows him walking towards his sentencing. This ending can be classified as a traditional one. It gives the viewers the old impression that â€Å"good† ultimately triumphs over â€Å"evil†. If the movie happened in reality though, there would have been a very different ending. There is one observable major flaw in the movie. One can only speculate on the reasons why such flaw can be bypassed by Stone (either corporate pressure to leave a good ending or it’s a pun to the romanticism of movies). If Gekko is such a cold, calculating and cunning man, it is highly doubtful whether he would let himself be trapped by such methods. It is more doubtful if he would allow himself to be seen with Bud after Bud was unceremoniously arrested. It is also unlikely that Gekko would not anticipate a wire on Bud when they met near the end of the movie. In summation, the ending is highly doubtful. The relevance of such obvious flaw is that it leaves its viewers (at least, those who recognized such flaw) with no hope of romanticist ideals that such a conflict can be resolved easily. In today’s world, there are a number of Gekko’s around. The flaw of the movie makes viewers realize that a number of Gekko’s out there do exist and are left unscathed and undetected (maybe even untouchable). It is then left to the viewer what to do with such fact of life. Surrounded by sharks and unethical financial players, the present financial manager is faced with a choice, the Gekko-way or the hard way. The movie ends with an easy resolution promoting an ideal situation where the â€Å"bad† guys fail. In the real world, that may not always be the case. It is up to the person whether to abide by ethics and laws in financial dealings or bend such laws and ethical rules because there are those who get away with it and they are the ones on top. The movie provides two ways towards success, the hard and long way or the easy way where rules are only part of the show. Reference: 1. Stone, O.   (1987). Wall Street. California: 20th Century Fox.