Lit Essay Essay Example

Lit Essay Essay Example Lit Essay Essay Lit Essay Essay Essay Topic: A Streetcar Named Desire In a Streetcar Named Desire, the mall characters demonstrate aspects of both power and weakness in their relationships to each other. I strongly agree that, in Tennessee Williams play, A Streetcar Named Desire, the main characters display characteristics of both Power and weakness throughout the plot. The Main Characters Stanley, Stella and Balance are constantly partaking in power plays where they experience dominant and submissive stances. Firstly I am going to discuss how Stella is depicted as both powerful and weak through her succumbing to balance and Stanley. Secondly I am going to explore how Balance eludes strength in her manipulative skills but simultaneously is masking her ever present weakness. Finally will take a look at the power play that exists between Balance and Stanley and demonstrate how both have moments of submission and dominance. In this play Stella, Stanley wife and Blanches younger sister, is depicted as both controlling and submissive to the other characters. We see that when Stella leaves Stanley after he hits her he becomes extraordinarily distressed and desperate for her return; so he (Screams with heaven-splitting violence) Steel-Allah this suggests that Stella as a very strong hold over him possessing the power to control Stanley and his actions. Although the next morning when Stella is forced to rationalize why she forgave Stanley for the abuse, almost immediately; she Remarks I am not in anything that I have a desire to get out of Indicating that she Is In a desperate denial of how unhealthy their annalistic relations are and seeks to be submissive because she relies on him too much. We also see how weak Stella is when Balance says Id Forgotten how quiet you were in their first encounter, This Statement reveals to us hat Stella does not have an affirmative personality and usually surrenders to the suggestions and demands of others. Balance Is both a velveteen and desperate character throughout the play. The first time Balance sees Elysian Fields she reminds herself Vie got to keep hold of myself this suggests that there is a reason for her to fall apart and this essentially Is the uncertain struggle that she faces throughout the play. Then when her and Mitch go on their first date Balance exclaims l guess It Is just that I have-old fashioned ideals we understand that she is manipulating him as she rolls her eyes knowing he cannot see her this action symbolizes dishonesty and frustration that she has to pretend to be someone shes not. Additionally we are shown how desperate Balance Is Just as she Is being dragged away to the asylum: she exclaims l have always depended on the kindness of strangers indicating that Balance is desperate for kindness and companionship and her main fear in this world is being alone. In every encounter between Stanley and Balance we see both of them struggle to establish a position of power above the other. During the first encounter Stanley asks do you mind if I make myself comfortable? And proceeds to remove his shirt; this is a symbolic masculine action that demonstrates that she is in his territory and he possesses all the power. Then we see Balance Take power in the second encounter she tells Stanley he has a Little boys mind when he cant make sense of the legal papers of Belle Reeve and this statement totally undermines Stanley masculinity essentially striping him of his power. Sadly though there 1 OFF fantasy world to say in desperate desperate circumstance! Help me! Caught in a trap demonstrating for us that she has finally lost all her power and Stanley is using he rape as a final proof of his relentless power over her helpless position. In Conclusion Stella, Stanley and Balance all experience situations in which they possess varying quantities of power. They all have aspects of their personalities that shows us that they have a fundamental weakness whilst simultaneously we watch them take control and manipulate other into desperate and dependent roles. They also have the potential to dominate others whilst other moments they are helpless to the strength of the other characters. So the statement that the characters display strength and weakness has evidently been proven.

Managerial Entrenchment In the Corporate World

Managerial Entrenchment In the Corporate World One of the biggest threats to long-term success is managerial entrenchment, which occurs when corporate leaders put their own self-interests ahead of the companys goals. This is of concern to people working in finance and corporate governance such as compliance officers and investors because managerial entrenchment can affect shareholder value, employee morale, and even lead to legal action in some instances. Definition Managerial entrenchment can be defined as an action, such as investing corporate funds, that is made by a manager in order to boost his or her perceived value as an employee, rather than to benefit the company financially or otherwise. Or, in the phrasing of Michael Weisbach, a noted finance professor and author: Managerial entrenchment occurs when managers gain so much power that they are able to use the firm to further their own interests rather than the interests of shareholders. Corporations depend on investors to raise capital, and these relationships can take years to build and maintain. Companies rely on managers and other employees to cultivate investors, and its expected that employees will leverage these connections to benefit corporate interests. Some workers also use the perceived value of these transactional relations to ensconce themselves within the organization, making them difficult to dislodge. Experts in the field of finance call this a  dynamic capital structure. For example, a mutual-fund manager with a track record of producing consistent returns and retaining large corporate investors may use those relationships (and the implied threat of losing them) as a means of earning more compensation from management. Noted finance professors  Andrei Shleifer  of Harvard University and  Robert Vishny  of University of Chicago describe the problem this way:   By making manager-specific investments, managers can reduce the probability of being replaced, extract higher wages and larger prerequisites from shareholders, and obtain more latitude in determining corporate strategy. Risks Over time, this can affect  capital structure decisions, which in turn affects the way in which shareholders and the managers opinions affect the way a company is run. Managerial entrenchment can reach all the way to the C-suite. Plenty of companies with sliding stock prices and shrinking market shares have been unable to dislodge powerful CEOs whose best days are well behind them. Investors may abandon the company, making it vulnerable to a hostile takeover. Workplace morale can also suffer, prompting talent to leave or for toxic relationships to fester.  A manager who makes purchasing or investment decisions based on personal bias, rather in a companys interests, can also  cause  statistical discrimination. In extreme circumstances, experts say, management may even turn a blind eye to unethical or illegal business behavior, such as insider trading or collusion, in order to retain an employee who is entrenched. Sources Martin, Gregory, and Lail, Bradley. The Downside to Limiting Manager Entrenchment. Columbia.edu, 3 April 2017.Schleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert W. Managerial Entrenchment: The Case of Manager-Specific Investments. Journal of Financial Economics. 1989.Weisbach, Michael. Outside Directors and CEO Turnover. Journal of Financial Economics. 1988.Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania staff. The Cost of Entrenchment: Why CEOs Are Rarely Fired. UPenn.edu, 19 January 2011.