Narcissists might become leaders after they help to remove the company’s uncertainty, but their qualities would totally become useless once the uncertainty is gone. Moreover, their interest of taking high risk would hurt the company in the long term. Risking is like a gamble that could be win or lose. Therefore, if the narcissists lose the gamble, the company would in a big trouble, and even bankrupt. In the article “Narcissistic Leaders”, Michael Maccoby wrote an example about narcissistic leader.
Overall, a boss like Scrushy, can be the cause of downfall for the company, be it his act of leadership or his own self-absorption. For Richard Scrushy though, it was not entirely his leadership skills at fault. However, his continuous need to succeed and to be the best. He was ambitious and money-hungry. As Aaron Beam retold his story on how he met Scrushy, it was the beginning of a fraudulent case waiting to happen.
impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination. Rawls comes to realize that the ultimate argument for the difference principle is a Kantian one. In order to extend my discussion further, I now turn to an examination of Kantian non-formal impartiality. The following paragraphs will allow me to set forth my arguments more cogently. The value of non-formal impartiality At the outset, the following question will help direct our examination of non-formal impartiality: How exactly is the Kantian duty of beneficence determined by non-formal impartiality rather than formal impartiality?
President Roosevelt started to bring America out of the Great Depression that it once was in, but he had to handle the challenge the Supreme Court put on him by not passing a few acts from his New Deal. President Roosevelt believed that the states were not in the right mind to think for themselves to get out of the Great Depression, the Depression would just continue and only deteriorate. President Roosevelt put his head together with brainstormers he hired to come up with the Court Packing Plan that he sent to the Supreme Court; hence, this causing an uproar among the nation. Furthermore, the plan ended pershing having President Roosevelt being humiliated and shamed for trying to control the Supreme Court and destroying checks and balances even though he tried to help America when he thought it would die and perish. However, America was soon brought all the way out of the Great Depression by entering into World War
When Sergio Marchionne was brought in as CEO of Chrysler, he was determined to solve the financial crisis that was afflicting the company to bring them back to prosperity. Marchionne know that the only way to make the transition successful was to change the culture of the company by altering their basic assumptions and observable artifacts. This transition would be a daunting task, but if Chrysler was going to be profitable again the change was necessary. Basic assumptions are unseen ideologies about the company. As these are invisible and not concrete evidence, the assumptions would be the most difficult change to be made.
While referencing big business in the West he begins using first person towards the audience saying “you might yourself”, “you could know”, and “you might survive”. Steinbeck makes this move to make the audience apart of the story rather than just leaving them as readers. Though instead of using pathos to help the readers feel the suffering that the migrant families are feeling; he makes it so that the audience becomes the big businesses by addressing the readers in first person. By writing the last half of the chapter in this manner Steinbeck is showing the selfishness and cruelty that dwells within these businesses. By saying that “you might preserve yourself” Steinbeck makes the readers feel the selfishness of big business.
It’s about Us” shows that Facebook is dependant on its users as its main source of revenue. Wortham argues that when social life moves online, emotion moves with it and without a personal connection, it may be difficult to decipher what people are saying online. She also claims that the publicity of Facebook will create problems and a need for the company to balance the needs of its shareholders and its users. Wortham ends the essay with a quote from Gartner Research analyst Andrew Frank for those who believe that Facebook’s current dominance will never end, “There was a time where people thought that way about AOL, too” (Qtd. in Wortham 173).
The ultimate purpose of Roosevelt's speech was to appeal to anyone who didn't get adequately paid when working in the corporations (New Nationalism speech 1910). He wanted these men to earn what they deserved (New Nationalism speech 1910). Roosevelt’s speech is mainly about how the United States found itself transformed fundamentally after the Civil war and how the war resolved the problem of slavery (New Nationalism speech 1910). It seemed to open new birth of freedom as Abraham Lincoln had hoped, but the potential of American industry had been unleashed, which brought challenges to the country due to new economic and social problems on a national scale (B&N). He tried to stop the big corporations from gaining power (B&N).
Sinek claims corporations must help Millennials overcome instant gratification as it made the generation look narcissistic, lazy, and entitled (Sinek). A business should teach them the skill, but do not leave them there; show them when the skills can be put to use or even go as far as setting up a simulation to help them. As Millennials try to combat the negative stereotypes it is much harder to develop new skills as an adult and too much pressure cannot be put on them. Millennials seem to be more sensitive than past generations and constantly think that it is their fault when something goes wrong (Sinek). A corporation can teach them that it may be their fault, but not to dwell on it.
As a result board members and executives make tons of money at a fast rate. A con is that shareholders will put pressure on the companies to meet their goals, resulting in a “winning at all costs” attitude. Which could mean contaminating ground waters, causing massive unregulated amounts of pollution, and loses of many workers. Another con is workers will not care for their company, they will be overworked and lower level management will have little say in anything, because only shareholders make decisions and higher executives give all orders. Yes I believe it is wrong, even though it's true to this day, employees should have been paid living wages, and should have been treated right for generating so much for the people at the top of the company.