“Bards Guide” and “Shakespeare in Charge: The Bard’s Guide to Leading and Succeeding on the Business Stage” Critical Review Essay (Critical Writing)

The book subtitled “Bards Guide” to Norman Augustine and Kenneth Adelman’s “Shakespeare in Charge: The Bard’s Guide to Leading and Succeeding on the Business Stage” (New York: Hyperion, 1999) gives the full expression of the transformations of consumptions appropriate to late Shakespeare’s ideology of shakespearism.

(Burt 46) Business by Shakespeare on Management reflects the time-honored practice of appropriating Shakespeare in the form of concise description we now think of as sound bites.

(Burt 46) Asserts that, “not only has the ‘market’ now become in this latest stage of marketing a niche in itself, the whole swallowed up by the part as in the other management books.”

Thus, the key conceptual framework of this reflective critical review is an in-depth analysis of the book “The Bardʼs Guide to Leading and Succeeding on the Business Stage” by Norman and Stephen’s “Fail better! Beckettʼs Secrets of Business and Branding Success”. Besides, this exposition review alternative management practices as discussed in these writings.

Augustine and Kenneth Adelman

This book represents a new trend in the Shakespeare business: the business of marketing Shakespeare as a connoisseur on business. As the most recent and most successful of these works, “Shakespeare in Charge” affords a fascinating window into the bard’s new businesslike appeal.

Leadership and management have been the focus of much literature since the beginning of time: biblical scriptures questions the decisions of King David (Corrigan 56). Technology advancement has provided many new tools (computers, mobiles, and phones, e-mail) to assist in management, principally in the management of resources.

Shakespeare places management within its social, economic, and political perspective, and examines how management approaches and activities are closely related to the environment in which they are practiced. Despite these changes, the basics still hinge on human nature, and human nature essentially do not change.

Issues such as the significance of diversity in the workplace and the need for ethical approaches to management are given serious attention, even as both theory and practice are brought together by discussing the management, drive, communication, and marketing of the organization.

As an introduction for management, Shakespeare in Charge offers basic but fundamental advice on how to carry out business activities. Undeniably, at its most basic level, Shakespeare in Charge is a self-help book for those who want to re-acquaint themselves with their leadership abilities.

The book offers some insights on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in management. The management according this book should care about employees, accept challenge, and grab opportunities. In contrast, managers are advised not dally during a crisis, be an absentee leader and should embrace change.

According to the authors’ people that Shakespeare refers as ‘office pests’ people are as common at the workplace as they are in life, and a capability to tell the-the boardroom waffler-Kents from the Nestors (Troilus and Cressida) can help the executive make a distinction among dependable, incompetent, and disruptive workers (Allan 2).

Nestor a character in the play Troilus and Cressida presents himself as old, wise and respected. However when Nestor talks, he adds no depth or breadth; he is bereft of ideas and wallows other peoples contribution (Allan 3).

Although Augustine and Adelman are fundamentally writing the corporate equivalent this book becomes, through the clever structure employed by the authors, the book becomes creative work itself (Burt 8).

It is worth noting that authors do not align themselves with the Dr. Laura’s of the self-help scene, instead they dress up their purpose in well thought-of exaggerated attire, capitalizing on Shakespeare’s universal appeal to lend their own writing an atmosphere of undying influence.

Augustine and Adelman are not an iota too restrained about this aim. They state that several business managers think they lack the time for ‘Shakespearism’, or the training to comprehend the ancient language of Shakespeare.

They argue that mangers who do read Shakespeare find that he offers skillful and fascinating explorations of the world of power which remain as pertinent today as they were in the sixteenth century. The first chapter, for instance, covers Henry V, the type who fits in contemporary business success stories.

He praise by the authors for his sheer competence, dogged perseverance, grand scheming and creativity (2). Explored here is Shakespeare’s keen insight into group dynamics (12) join up Shakespeare’s plays as professional studies in human nature permits the authors to masquerade a conduct handbook as a guide to high culture.

Smart and enthralling as Shakespeare may be, he is also complicated. Augustine and Adelman recognize that few people, principally those in the fast-paced business world, don’t have time to read Shakespeare.

The book is therefore, an effort to tie together Shakespeare for an audience that has neither inclination nor time to peruse Shakespeare’s work, but wants, on the other hand, to profit from what he has to say.

Structured like a play, the book’s five chapters called “Acts” which give plot summaries of five major plays, generously dotted with quotes from the plays themselves. These summaries yield indispensable insight into leadership, which the authors respectfully list as “Acting Lessons” at the end of each chapter.

In Act One, Henry V is represented and he reveals the art of leadership; in Act Two, The Taming of the Shrew‘s Petruchio illustrates how to generate and manage change in people and institutions; in Act Three, Julius Caesar supplies a manual for setting and realizing goals, communicating, recruiting, and encouraging teamwork.

In Act Four, The Merchant of Venice outlines the art of corporate risk-taking through the figure of Portia. Lastly, in Act Five, Hamlet represents a case study in disaster or crisis management.

These acts outline the authors’ efforts to show that the management is at times strained and prone to irrationality. For instance, CEOs such as Michael Dell are described as living embodiments of Shakespearean characters. Also, this concept applies to cases when kings such as Lear and Antony are described as CEOs.

In fact, the analogy upon which the book is based is poor. The book’s own business connections offer an answer to that question.

For example, the award-winning Shakespeare in Love (1998), and Shakespeare in Charge may be presented as the businessman’s analogue to the film: where the idea of the bard in love sells Shakespeare to a movie-going public with a voracious interest in the lifestyles and love lives of the rich and famous.

Therefore, the idea of the bard in charge vends Shakespeare to a corporate world whose persistent drive toward financial success has become identical with an awkward lack of culture.

The benefits of such an approach are multitude. The invocation of Shakespeare not only gives the book recipe-for-success format, but also casts the work of management as a stage show, and as an art form in its own right.

As a matter of fact, if we validate the argument that Shakespeare was the first CEO, no matter how poorly that argument is defended, then it logically follows that today’s CEOs are descended more or less directly from Shakespeare.

Presenting the contemporary CEO as a revitalization of Shakespeare in this way not only instill the CEO with wide cultural significance, but also configures his employees as players on a business theater which is itself, is the contemporary equivalent of the Elizabethan theater.

In conclusion, the authors’ presenting Shakespeare as CEO in Shakespeare in Charge is actually in the business of finding the bard in the contemporary businessman. The book thus fails to offer much insight into either Shakespeare’s art or the art of leadership. Nevertheless, it is a masterful combination whose ultimate value lies in its capability to make business management seem significant.

Samuel Buckett

‘Fail Better! Samuel Beckett’s Secrets of Business and Branding Success presents Samuel Beckett as a highly regarded Irish playwright, and embodiment of art for art’s sake beauty. Unlike Shakespeare, Samuel Buckett loathed any kind of salesmanship, famously describing it as “mercantile gehenna” (Brown para 1).

Despite the antagonistic view that Samuel Buckett had about business and management; Samuel Beckett still remains an ideal role model for the contemporary managers during this contradictory times.

According to Brown, Buckets’ viewpoint is very consistent with the modern-day ‘creativity-driven, hyper-competitive, warp-speed world of fads, fashions, and here-today-gone-tomorrow consumer crazes’ (para 1).

The article has been sub-divided in to nine sub-topics: first; think differently about thinking is play that is neither a comedy nor a laugh sensation when it was first premiered. Samuel Buckett had failed in almost everything he had tried before trying Godot.

He thought better and turned around his fortunes and took a career in advertising. The idea put forward in this play is that unrelenting hard work coupled with perseverance when practiced in any filed including business is bound to succeed.

Second, in waiting for tenacity Buckett describes the indefatigable determination to conquer all odds. The concept presented by Buckett here is what most managers and entrepreneurs is concerned about-tenacity. Buckett however, overstates the importance of perseverance in business management.

Sandage 2005 cited in Brown (para 4) supports this argument; he argues that Buckett present a face of repeated, abject and heart wrenching failure among individuals as the driving force distinguishing those who succeed and those who fail.

According to Buckett the most successful mangers know how to attain success, sustain it and how to unleash it but still the vast majority of business ventures ending in failure. This assertion by Buckett might not be the reality as there are several examples of successful businesses in comparison to the number of failed businesses.

Schumpeter (1994) cited in Brown gives an even more exaggerated view by stating that most businesses fail- mergers, product launch-except for those that take into consideration and make prediction of what Schumpeter refers to as ‘creative destruction.’ Bucket notes that people learn from their failures and that those who accept failure and refuse to be beaten are the most successful.

Third, waiting for brevity describes the conciseness of Bucketts’ plays. Brevity might have been Samuel Bucket’s most important personality trait. Buckett wrote short plays and his works became increasingly shorter over time. Perhaps Buckett realized that brevity was the most important aspect in playwriting.

Alvarez (1974) cited in Brown (para 5) argues that Buckett was minimalist’s minimalist. In the business context manufacturers have realized the importance of minimalist brilliance. I out rightly disagree with Buckett disagree that minimalism has a place in the market place rather; maximalism is the trait for which marketing gurus are known.

In a world where competition is the order of the day, each manager needs to be concise in product development to able to out match the other competing products.

For example, “Armani is proof positive that minimalist concept works in the contemporary business society- the look is low-key, the range is narrow, the cut is singular, the fabrics are unique, the color palette is muted, the retail stores are few, the ancillaries are limited, the diffusion lines are confined, the concessions are controlled, and the preeminent promotional tactic is celebrity endorsement.

The Armani brand whispers class, elegance, and restraint. Less is always more where Armani is concerned, and understatement is the order of the day, every day” (Brown, para 5).

Fourth, the waiting contingency describes an episode in 1939, when Buckett was stabbed by a pushy panhandler almost to death. Buckett later learnt that the attack was by chance and he survived out of sheer luck. In most business ventures luck is not among their agenda.

In the management sciences, luck do not exist rather events occur as a result of predictable or presumed calculation which is obtained by robust models. Although there are a few scattered examples of business where sheer luck has contributed to their immense successes.

For example, the McDonald’s fast-food empire was founded by chance when milkshake shaker-supreme Ray Kroc paid a visit to the San Bernardino roadside stand that ordered eight of his machines. This is a successful company that owes its beginnings to elements of fortune.

Fifth, waiting for ambiguity describes Buckett’s decision not disclose the meaning of his plays. Buckett refused to divulge the meaning of his plays. Ambiguity has been observed with suspicion in the modern business cycles. Managers are required to avoid ambiguity.

Buckett argues that ambiguity increases customers’ curiosity, thus intensifying their involvement. This concept of ambiguity stipulates that the businesses should create products that raise questions rather than provide answers.

There appears to be some coincidence in the timing of the juxtaposition of the terms “management” and “leadership” and the correlation to the fact that the two literature post seems to cross pollinate the two phrases.

This plays were written during a time when management of business was a key to the success of business organizations. The contemporary business managers do not have to follow either of the two playwrights in order to achieve success.

In conclusion, the article argues that, in a world where every organization is customer oriented. Beckett reveals several prominent secrets of business and branding success. Bucketts presents business success in stages through the plays. Despite organizational limitations and constraints, the two playwrights have proved rather successful so far. Managers are offered an alternative approach for improving their managerial skills.

Managers who might not have had good managerial skills are introduced to it all the way through a connection with work-related topics in the plays.

Finally, everybody else who might not have been interested in business get a foretaste of it by approaching it through theater. Besides the usual strengths that characterize the use of theatre activities, using plays to represent the business success in makes business look like an act rather than a venture.

Works Cited

Augustine, Norman, and Adelman Kenneth. Shakespeare in Charge: The Bard’s Guide to Leading and Succeeding on the Business Stage. New York: Hyperion, 1999. Print.

Burt, Richard. Shakespeare after Mass. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Print.

Corrigan, Paul. Shakespeare on Management: Leadership Lesson for Today’s Managers. London: Kogan Page, 1999. Print.

Brown, Stephen. “O customer, where art thou?” Business Horizons 47.4 (2004):61– 70. Print.

Brown, Stephen. “Fail Better! Samuel Beckett’s Secrets of business and branding success,” Business Horizons 49 (2006):161—169. Print.