Ethics of Characters in the Novel Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce by Foster and Glengarry Glen Ross Movie - Book Report/Review Example

College: Ethics of characters in the novel Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce by Sam Foster and Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) movie The Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) is a movie based on the work of David Mamet’s Pulitzer Prize winning play of 1984 that touches on the adventures of business in a modern setting although it was produced in the early 90s. It depicts a story of real estate salesmen working to broker deals and woo investors to invest in property. However, the film features in a time when the economy is doing badly and the salesmen must do all they can to broker the deals. Their work is made even harder by bosses who are hell bent on securing deals irrespective of the means used. The Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce novel by Sam Foster also revolves around characters that are running after success in the tough world of business. The novel touches on the lives of characters either forced by circumstances or personal agenda for professional success. In the game of competitive business, the end determines the means and not the other way round. To secure deals, characters engage in illegal and unethical behaviors to manipulate and turn around their fortunes. Of interest is the fact that despite the existence of rules and regulations in the running of business, characters seem to have a way round them. Most of them are bent at bending the law to secure deals that parachute them to the top of the monetary chain. It is important to note that the characters in the film and in the novel are faced with the same problem and use the same means to solve them. They are caught up in a mess of securing important deals for their livelihoods in a tough economic period and all result to unethical means of securing them. The characters in the two narratives share many things in common. Not only are they predisposed to the same economic world and the same line of business, they are also affected by the same circumstances and seem to use the same means to fight off challenges undermining their lives. The two narratives; both the book and the movie have characters whose ethical stances are comparable. To highlighten the plight of the characters in the two settings, it is good to compare the novel and the movie, which seem to glorify the fact that only businessmen and women who are fully committed to their personal corporate agenda have the means and the ability to succeed in a tough economic environment. It will be naivety and ignorance to argue that both the characters in the movie Glengarry Glen Ross and Sam Forster’s novel Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce act in the best interests of their employers and clients. In both settings, the authors bring out characters as having the same ethics and morals in regards to how they deal with business challenges affecting them. Most of the characters are driven by greed, and thirst for personal success that completely rids off their ethical considerations in dealing with clients. It is this predisposition that the sales agents and subordinate staff find themselves in, which is in total disregard of morality or ethical conduct. Mostly, the characters are either forced by circumstances or choose a path that can fulfill their goals, however immoral and unethical they are. In Foster’s novel, Liz Peterson can be compared with the movie’s Blake. They both succeed due to the fact that they are capable of consciously doing away with any conception of ethical behavior and its application in business. Liz like Blake understands that dealing with clients requires a certain form of negotiations and that she must own the negotiations if she is to succeed. Foster states that, “negotiation was a man’s game, and being able to go toe-toe with them and give them as good as she got was the rule she’d learned” (Foster 18). This calls for Liz to use all means to land at deals in total disregard of business ethics. One of the means up her sleeves is the use of sex as bait in luring men to close deals. From the unethical misdemeanor, Liz mints millions at the expense of the young man’s life. Liz understands that sex is a major tool of exploiting men and that it forms a major weakness for men. As a result, Liz is not cowed by the unethical act of forcing Montgomery to sleep with a client in order for her to secure a lucrative deal. Liz threatens Montgomery with the prospect of losing his job if he does not adhere to her unethical coercion means. Foster states that, “you don’t do this and but only will you not be hired by ACRE, but I will personally see to it that everyone in the business knows that you got drunk at dinner, insulted a client and blew a big deal. No one will hire you” (Foster 73). This fateful ordeal leaves the young man with a lot of guilt that ends when he commits suicide. This is the farthest Liz can go to secure a lucrative deal even though it means the end of life for somebody else. Liz has been in the real estate business for long to understand that there is a boundary between personal past life, which presents a major boost for people who are willing to prosper in the world of business. Although she possesses a shattered past life, Liz is prepared to go an extra mile to right the wrongs. Professional success becomes her focus and obsession. Although Liz understands the distinction between losers and winners, she entirely believes that professional success must be attained by whatever means possible. However, it is her success path that is too littered with unethical deeds especially to people who happen to fall prey to her misdemeanors. This is the same character, attitude and approach to life shared by Blake from Glendarry Glen Ross movie. Blake, a manager in a real estate firm that is caught up in a downward economic trend, shares the same sentiments with Liz. Blake is also forced to engage in unethical business behaviors to enable him make the best out of closing real estate deals. Despite having the knowledge that the real estate investments they are trying to sell are unworthy, the hunger for success drives Blake to threaten the salesmen with the prospects of losing their jobs if they do not close deals. Like Liz, Blake believes that in the real estate business, only two categories of salesmen existed; winners and losers. Blake issues a stern warning to his four salesmen citing that no one could justify their lack of deals in real estate business (Tobias Par.1). Blake brags that he made $970,000 worth of sales last year. Blake brags, “I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see pal, thats who I am, and youre nothing” (00.11.56). In his speech, Blake, like Liz seems to suggest that he does not care how deals are made. To him, an agent should use all means to close deals irrespective of the laws, regulations or any ethical concerns, “Nice guy? I don’t give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids” (Tobias par.2) Although Blake made a handsome net worth of deals, it appears that the means with which the deals were closed are wanting. Like Liz, Blake understands that in the real estate business, there are lucrative deals at stake and what needs to be done is to persuade the people to sign deals even without utter knowledge of the worthiness of the deals. Blake says, “They are (buyers) sitting out there, waiting to give you their money. Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?” (00.12.27). In essence, the two characters assassinate the professional ethical behaviors of a real businessman and instead become characters whose main aim is to secure deals irrespective of the means used. Blake tends to play down the unethical standards by which he uses to close deals. He argues that people with idle money are out there waiting to be coerced to give out their money. The only way of coercion is through deception and engaging in unethical business behaviors as far as the outcome is one – closed deals. The two characters share a lot in common, chief among them a feeling of superiority derived from their attitude and ability to force their subordinates and use other unethical means to ensure that they gain financial superiority. They perceive that the economic world of deals does not belong to the weak. In this case, the weak refers to business people who use the ethical and moral principles in running their businesses. In them, the perfect world of business can only be conquered by those who can manipulate the rules, morals, and ethics to fit their professional self needs. As life may be appealing when taken from the viewpoint of Liz and Blake, there seems to be another side of the two characters that is hidden from the common viewer. It is delirious as it is ridiculous to admire the way the two characters deal with the economic challenges thrown in their way albeit the unethical ways they engage in. Sam Foster’s, Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce and Glendarry Glen Ross movie not only span the unethical characters of the main characters, but they also depict an unethical trail of business deals involving all characters where some are forced by circumstances. It appears that other characters redefine the rules of conventional ethics, where their characters, actions and behaviors are strongly aligned to a strict code of professional success. Harkness and Williamson display unethical characteristics that resemble those of Liz and Blake. When Harkness deals with the unwilling Kendrick, and who thinks that business deals can be closed using the professional ethical means, Harkness reminds him that rules are there to be bent. Harkness tells Kendrick, “Jack, I guess I didn’t make myself clear. When I said, ‘You are going to sign off the file, and you’re going to do it now…” (Foster 14). This is after Kendrick shows off some unwillingness in getting a deal closed. Although, Harkness is fully aware of the corporate and business ethical behaviors, he is fully focused on professional success irrespective of the consequences. Harkness further states that, “I’m tired of all this ethical shit. We close the books for the year….. Today, Jack. Not next week” (Foster 13). This illustrates the unethical stance taken by Harkness in his business endeavors. This unethical stance taken by Harkness is also adopted by Williamson in dealing with his salesmen. In a speech, Williamson tells his salesmen that it is not his responsibility but that of the agents to close deals irrespective of the means or ways used to do it. Those who cannot close deals do not belong to the business. Williamson does not simply care about the excuses given by underperforming sales agents, however genuine they are. He threatens them with firing the bottom sales agents for not performing despite the fact that the investments being sold are worthless and the economy is hard. Levene asks, “You are going to fire bottom men on the list? Williamson: That’s the way it is and I don’t make the rules – the rules come from downtown” (00.23.02).  Relationship between the sales agents and Williamson exists only if the sales agents are financially viable, that is they can close deals that translate to monetary gains to Williamson. Williamson tells Levene, “You don’t belong in this business… Listen to me now – your partner depends on you, and you go with him and for him, or you shit… you can’t exist alone” (01.25.43). Any employee who questions the ethicality of such an undertaking faces the axe, just like Kendrick faces at the end. One can sympathize with Williamson’s fate when he states that he is under rules and that those are the rules that he subjects the salesmen to. Williamson says, “I do what I’m hired to do – you might do the same. I am hired to watch the leads, to marshal my sales force. I’m given a policy. My job is to do that. Anybody falls below a certain mark, I’m directed. I’m not permitted to give them the premium leads” (00.25.46). Despite this, the unethicality with which he handles the leads and hands them to his ‘performing’ salesmen is totally his own doing and not that of the management. Although, it appears professional, the hidden underlying matter in this case is the ability of salesmen to give returns to the manager; Williamson. After all, sales agents are paid based on how much they sell, which translates to more sales for the company or individual. As much as it is business per see, it is unethical for Williamson to give some of the sales agents the best leads while others are given unfruitful leads. Williamson’s stand on the state of professionalism and lack of sympathy towards the sales agents connotes well with whatever happens to the sales agents. The sales agents in a bid to get the deals closed resort to lying to potential customers in order to close deals. Given the valuelessness of the investments at stake, customers have to be hurried into signing contracts to appease Williamson. Al Pacino uses liquor, charm and deceit to get a bar patron to buy property from him. Alan and Harris resort to making up a plan to steal the leads and sell them to a competitor. Although, it should be a joint action, Harris blackmails Alan to break into the office and steal the leads (Gleiberman par.3). Whether it is Liz, Williamson, or Harkness, most of the brokers in the real estate business has used some form of deceit to get a deal closed. In an uncompromising manner, these characters share the same traits as far as their ethical stances are concerned. Sam Foster’s, Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce and Glendarry Glen Ross movie tests the resolve of people to uphold professional ethical conduct in an economically testing environment. Many of the characters like Williamson, Liz, and Harkness among others fail the test by upholding professional goal-orientedness, completely disregarding morality and ethics in their daily professional practices. Pushed by greed and personal agenda, they opt to bend professional ethical conduct and in turn embrace a morally corrupted way of doing business. At the height of their misdemeanors, each is obsessed with a personal need of succeeding in a tight and competitive business world. It is a game of survival for the fittest and it accommodates only those who have the guts for success no matter the means used. However, not all are caught up in this professional success craze and ‘the end justifies the means’ rush to get deals closed. Two characters; Jack Kendrick and Shelley Levene stand out due to their undying reference and execution of intellectual morality in their daily professional conduct. It is this affection to morality and ethics that undermines the performance of the two characters and places them at the cross-roads with other characters. At first we meet Kendrick asserting that he would perform his responsibilities using morality. When asked by Preston how we would go about his job when being supervised by Williamson, Kendrick states, “a little moral authority, and a lot of force of will” (Foster, 2002, p.38). This indicates that Kendrick intends to use a lot of will in executing his professional duty ethically and uphold morality at all times. Kendrick is fired by Harkness when he fails to secure a lucrative deal. Kendrick is disturbed by the fact that the client is unaware of the full legal details regarding the deal he is about to sign. Foster states, “the disclosure statements show that he (Donaldson) represented the landlord….tenant.” (Foster 12). However, Kendrick is not aware whether the tenant knows he is represented by the landlord. Kendrick’s ethical considerations and the morality he upholds seem to follow him as he continues to feel guilty of the deal. He simply could not be tolerated in the real estate business where everyone was hell bent at bending the ethical principles to get his hands on lucrative deals (Foster 37). It is easier to confess that Kendrick’s ethical rigidity in what appears to be a normal circumstance caused him to fail to rationalize the consequences of his actions. In the case of the business world, such rules as ethical considerations has no room, and which according to what Foster and Glengarry Glen Ross seem to glorify, is somewhat outdated. Thus, Kendrick violated the ‘norms’ of real estate business by failing to close a deal that was worth the risk and valued in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The violated ‘norm’ per see is the outright assassination of ethical moralities in professional business conduct. In simplicity, real estate was about getting deals closed irrespective of whether they were unworthy, exploitative or they simply never existed. Kendrick had a staunch believe in doing what was right at all times irrespective of the outcome. Kendrick’s ethical believe resembles that of Levene to some extent. Levene believes that it is unethical to treat employees simply due to their failure to close deals. Levene questions Williamson resolve to fire the poorly performing salesmen. This is despite the fact that there exists leads and Williamson has some preference in giving out the leads. Levene’s fate and that of his daughter lies with his ability to close deals. It appears that Levene is a victim of circumstances. He is in need of money badly and there being no way of being top of the list without closing deals, he has to find a way of maneuvering past his hardships. Levene finds a way of making Williamson pay for his unjust conduct. He decides to steal the leads from Williamson’s office and sell them to a competing real estate agency. It appears that despite the fact that Levene is out to get deals closed, he is also out to punish those who take out the unethical course to achieve professional success. Levene’s ethical morality forces him to believe that he did not commit a crime in stealing the leads (Gleiberman par.3). However, pathetic it may be, it shows the extent to which Levene is a victim of circumstances and that his conduct is heavily influenced by a moral course. This is corroborated by the fact that Levene tells Williamson that he is not cut out to be a thief but a salesman. He says, “I’m not cut out to be a thief. I’m cut out to be a salesman” (01.26.20). Despite the fact that Levene gets caught up in the office breaking mess, he shares some ethical character traits with Kendrick. They both have a willingness and belief in upholding morality in their professional business endeavors (Tobias par.6). Sam Foster’s novel, Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce and Glendarry Glen Ross movie are a compelling set of narratives that are comparable based on how they explore the extent to which characters can uphold ethical morality in a world that constantly demands results irrespective of the means. The two narratives seem to uphold the notion that professional success is the mainstay of many actors in the straining business world. They two sets of work build their narratives around characters whose ethical exploits leave a lot to be desired. Many of the characters seem to glorify the professional success and fostering personal agenda at the expense of ethical moral conduct. Liz and Williamson are the biggest players in the narratives whose hunger for personal professional success drives them to commit immoral business deals. Liz uses deceit, threats, blackmail, and sex to coerce clients to sign lucrative deals, which profit her at the expense of the sales agents. Williamson threatens his sales agents with losing their job if they fail to close deals, while at the same time releasing promising leads to performing sales agents. This seems to condemn those that fall out of favor with him. Despite the narratives being littered with immoral and unethical business conducts, some characters stand out. Kendrick fails to close a deal that does not disclose particulars to the client. He ends up being fired. Although, Levene commits crimes, his plight is understood by the circumstances he finds himself in. Levene repeatedly questions the morality behind some of Williamson’s decisions. Works cited Foster, Sam. Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce. Santa Barbara, California. Fithian Press, 2002. Print. Tobias, Scott. Glengarry Glen Ross. A.V. Club 18 Mar. 2010. < http://www.avclub.com/article/iglengarry-glen-rossi-39294 >22 Oct. 2014. Gleiberman, Owen. “Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)”. Entertainment Weekly 9 Oct. 1992. < http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,312081,00.html > 22 Oct. 2014. Read More