Enron Paper
“Something was very rotten in the state of Enron.” This quote by Michigan Senator Carl Levin is a twist of words from a famous playwright, Shakespeare’s Hamlet; “Something was very rotten in the state of Denmark.” From the play, this was recited because there was a lot of corruption in Denmark from the betrayal in royalty. In comparison to Levin’s quote, there was betrayal of Enron leaders to their employees, as well as the company itself.
Between the years of 1979 and 2001, Enron was known for the largest market of electricity and gas. The question that still subsides is how they managed to go bankrupt with no recollection of a downfall? Who’s to blame for the end of Enron? Was it the traders or the executive leaders? Could it be both? Analyzing the executive social styles, motivation methods, and leadership; there could be a solution to the plummet of one of the largest companies in the U.S.
What’s the difference between motivation and manipulation? By definition motivation is the general desire or willingness of someone to do something. On the other hand, manipulation is exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one’s own advantage. Similarly, both definitions mean for someone to do something whether or not for the person’s advantage. How does this relate to the Enron scandal? To determine whether Enron’s executives were either motivating or manipulative, we need to look at what type of leaders they were.
The CEOs of Enron were Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling; very wealthy men, at the start of the company that is. On the other hand, Lou Pai wasn’t named a CEO, but was one of the company’s top executives. Leaving before the bankruptcy in the late 1990s allowed Pai to keep his wealth from the company without losing any of it from loss of stocks. Pai was known to be an aggressor or a driver. A driver is task oriented and expects efficiency from everyone with little emphasis on building relationships with others. He had no interest in the employers,
Between the years of 1979 and 2001, Enron was known for the largest market of electricity and gas. The question that still subsides is how they managed to go bankrupt with no recollection of a downfall? Who’s to blame for the end of Enron? Was it the traders or the executive leaders? Could it be both? Analyzing the executive social styles, motivation methods, and leadership; there could be a solution to the plummet of one of the largest companies in the U.S.
What’s the difference between motivation and manipulation? By definition motivation is the general desire or willingness of someone to do something. On the other hand, manipulation is exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one’s own advantage. Similarly, both definitions mean for someone to do something whether or not for the person’s advantage. How does this relate to the Enron scandal? To determine whether Enron’s executives were either motivating or manipulative, we need to look at what type of leaders they were.
The CEOs of Enron were Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling; very wealthy men, at the start of the company that is. On the other hand, Lou Pai wasn’t named a CEO, but was one of the company’s top executives. Leaving before the bankruptcy in the late 1990s allowed Pai to keep his wealth from the company without losing any of it from loss of stocks. Pai was known to be an aggressor or a driver. A driver is task oriented and expects efficiency from everyone with little emphasis on building relationships with others. He had no interest in the employers,