Who’s The Boss?
A typical relationship between an employee and an employer exists on the acknowledgment of who is in charge; an employee must accept the employer as an authority. A worker should address the employer with a certain amount of respect and professionalism. An employer should have control of their employees and make it clear that they are the boss.
In David Mamet’s play Glengarry Glen Ross, however the relationship between the employees and the employer is extremely atypical. There is no correlation to what is believed to be the norm. The language Mamet uses in the play makes the peculiar relationship believable. The arguing and resentment can be felt be the reader. The employees in this particular office have “forgotten” who the boss is; they do not speak to him with any respect or dignity. The employer accepts the way he is treated and does not stand his ground; he allows his employees to walk all over him. This office is not the kind of work place where the boss has the last word; there are numerous times throughout the play where the boss and his employees actually fight.
The relationship between one of the employees, Shelly Levene, and his employer, John Williamson, reflects this abnormal relationship. Williamson is the boss, or manager of this particular branch of a real estate company, he does however have two bosses, Mitch and Murray. The play begins with Williamson making an announcement regarding the jobs of all of the employees in the office. There is a contest beginning to see who could close the most deals. Whoever won would win a car and whoever lost would be fired. In the following conversation between Williamson and Levene, the two are discussing whom the good leads are going to. Levene has told Williamson that without the good leads he will not be able to close, in which case, he will be fired. Williamson has said that he has to give the leads to the closers and that Levene has not been a closer. I pick up the conversation after many pages of arguments, Williamson agreeing to Shelly’s bribe and right when Shelly is asking for two leads.
“WILLIAMSON. I’m not sure I have two.
LEVENE. I saw the board. You’ve got four…
WILLIAMSON. I’ve got Roma. Then I’ve got Moss…
LEVENE. Bullshit. Th...
... middle of paper ...
...n’t agree with this and believes that it is Williamson giving the orders and that if Williamson were to call up Mitch or Murray they would tell him to follow whatever Levene says.
Williamson is a timid man. He does not like confrontation. Whenever Shelly or anyone began to yell at him he would just walk away. Shelly is an older and somewhat outspoken man; he knows that Williamson is timid and therefore talks the way he does to him. Shelly is feeling the pressure of the younger men taking his role as the best. All of the stress and pressure in the office causes everyone to be on edge. I think that Williamson is a bit more understanding because he realizes that Shelly’s job is being threatened.
All of these pressures and feelings cause Williamson and Levene to resent each other. The language used by Mamet to portray all of this really makes the reader feel the stress and tension in the office. The reader can hear the arguing and disagreeing. The extreme language helps the reader understand the lack of control in the office as well as the atypical behavior between an employee and employer.
Works Cited
1. Mamet, David. Glengarry Glen Ross. New York: Samuel French, Inc., 1982.
6. What form of figurative language does the author use in line 12 of page 212 to make his writing more interesting?
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.
Initially, Mailer used diction through imagery and emotional words to give the reader how the situation felt to him and to describe to the reader the situation. In the passage, emotional words such as “bad maulings”, “three disgusted steps away”, and “referee’s face came a look of woe” pop up. Mailer utilizes these negative emotional words to impose a tone that is solemn towards Paret and a tone that is disdainful towards Griffith. Consequently, the reader’s mood coincides with the tone of the author. For example, the phrase “referee’s face came a look of woe” gives the reader a grievous feeling because of the word “woe”. Another instance where a reader can see this is in the phrase “three disgusted steps away”. Mailer could have just stated “three steps away”, but he wanted to enforce the negative connotation of the story and to show the reader how he had felt. Additionally, imagery is used in...
Goodman uses descriptions of the activities of Phil and his associates to leave a dominant impression of the lack of humanity possessed by Phil and his coworkers. She discusses how he “worked six days a week”, and how “the afternoon of the funeral”, his boss was already making arrangements for his replacement. The author uses imagery to paint a picture which shows how Phil worked inhuman amounts, and describes his boss’s actions to show how even without Phil there will always be another person to do the same thing. The author uses imagery to show how people who work like Phil hurt those around them, and create a never ending cycle of
Roberts takes pride in his recently promoted position as project head. However, as soon as Rankle shows up he feels threatened of his position. Roberts was never fond of Rankle, but after seeing that Harold thought so highly of Rankle he decides not to share his opinion. Rankle is confident, aggressive and provides new ideas on certain situations and gets noticed quickly. During the group meeting, Roberts mentioned a problem for which the team already announced as unsolvable. As soon as Rankle hears this he engages himself immediately to find the solution rather than discussing with the team. Roberts emphasized coming to a solution as a team. But Rankle
The specific job that the listener is being oriented to is not important to the story, either. The setting is a generic office atmosphere. “These are the offices and these are the cubicles.” By using this stereotypical and conventional setting, Orozco makes the things that happen to individual employees even more outrageous.
Erik Peterson faced a number of challenging situations with Jeff Hardy, a high level employee with CelluComm, the parent company of GMCT. At first we see an awkward relationship with Jeff Hardy whom Peterson had been assigned to work under by Ric Jenkins, partly due to the lack of concrete relationship guidelines between the two (Sami, 2013). Hardy had very little operational experience, and Peterson felt that he was unable to receive constructive guidance from Hardy. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company. Consulting Hardy by letting him know of his concerns would have been a more efficient and respectful manner in handling the situation. This relationship building would also have been integral in facing the Peterson-Hardy communication issues with respect to the local municipalities and fire department. Operant Learning Theory (Johns & Saks, 2014, p.54) suggests that as a result of this negative consequence Peterson should be able to improve his interpersonal skills specifically with superiors within the organization moving forward. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company.
Early in American history during colonial times and into the middle of the 19th centry, relations between employers and those whom they employed were many times hostile and adversarial. Sometimes these disagreements between employee and employer would explode into violent confrontations. Workers wether skilled or not would fight with management over improved/safer working conditions, fair pay, long exhausting hours by uniting and form...
These mind games reveal a lot about the politics of the sexes. How men think the female mind operates and the irony surfaces when they are wrong in their assumption. This is how the grotesque is created with the mutual understanding , or shall I say, misunderstanding between the sexes, which is a major theme in Mamet’s
Paul Evans should not have been allowed to report information to Gable before reporting to Gary because Gary was the head of the project team while Gable was a management support. This fissure in leadership contributed to communication breakdown. Evans knew from experience that Gable was increasingly manipulative and he needed to manipulate results prior ...
Thirdly, we are going explore how Mamet’s protagonists show various degrees of personal stability. They are strangers of their own lives, with no particular sense of identity because for them the world is essentially meaningless, competitive, alienating and cold. It is my contention that the fragmentation of the society is mapped on the characters. In his article “Dominance and Anguish: The Teacher-Student Relationship in the Plays of David Mamet”, Hubert-Leibler draws attention to the construction of the characters:
Competition, tyranny of goals and money are three more traps violated in this case. Competition has more to do with the company rather than Chantale the person. Chantale can empathize why her superiors’ want to ignore the situation, because they are a smaller company and in competing against larger companies, they would not be able to m...
He begins to describe his workplace as rather simple and small, but it is when he realizes Mcteague's passions towards his craft that he, in a sense, abandons those examination and transforms it to hope for his future. This is easily seen when realizing that the passages that include long details regarding Mcteague and his workplace, are essentially longer than the single five sentence paragraph at the end that compliments Mcteague and accepts his dreams with open arms. This can be interpreted in a way that shows that the author would rather focus on what shows that the author would rather focus on what is wrong with Mcteague rather than praising him to high heavens for working hard and pursuing what makes him happy. This is shown through the tone shifts from the first two passages to the third and fourth. The author cleverly organizes his thoughts through the paragraph structure to easily mirror his thoughts from the beginning.
The morale and job satisfaction of the team is generally low. Either they don’t like working here or not as much as before. People are concerned about the stability of their job. One camp believes that it’s Dave’s desire to fire them all – possibly moving the IT function to NY. The team is unsure what steps Dan or Dave may be take in...
The manager is put into the novel to show how the adaptation to uncivilized life can be very costly, while the poem exemplifies on that idea and that these “hollow men” are missing something vital to life. However both characters express the same uncaring personality, despite the fact that they unappreciated meaning and initiative, they seem to embrace that fact that everything happens for a reason and they accept it for the way it is.