Organizational Behaviour: The Devil Wears PradaEssay Preview: Organizational Behaviour: The Devil Wears PradaReport this essayMovies often depict a glimpse into the inner workings of organizations which are complex and fascinating entities that consist of a group of people, who work together. Analyzing how the characters, as individuals and groups, interact with one another allows for an understanding of “how people think, feel and act” within an organization, also referred to as the study of organizational behaviour. The movie The Devil Wears Prada, set at Runway fashion magazine in New York City, is the story of Andrea “Andy” Sachs, an aspiring journalist who gets the job that “a million girls would kill for”. She is hired as the second assistant to Miranda Priestly, the powerful and ruthless executive of the magazine. The job is her stepping stone into the world of publishing and if she lasts a year in the often unreasonably demanding position, it will open up the realms to the journalistic position she desires. Andrea works in collaboration with the first assistant, Emily Charlton, to quickly learn Mirandas behaviours and preferences, so that she can try to meet expectations. This includes being at Mirandas beck and call 24/7 and completing nearly impossible tasks with constant trepidation of the editors wrath. Along the way, Andrea changes her attitude and behaviour along with her simple and plain style in order to gain acceptance, and adapt to the organization. In this paper, we will examine the organizational behaviour concepts of perception, impression management, and organizational commitment behaviours as they apply to Andrea, Miranda and Emily at Runway fashion magazine.
Perception in an organizational behaviour context refers to the way in which individuals understand their environment and the processes used to come to an understanding such as interpretation of sensory impressions. Interpretation of sensory impressions is based on a combination of social setting and actions of others as well as the attitudes, experiences and personality of the individual (Robbins & Langton, 2007). For example, attribution theory states that individuals use internal attribution or external attribution as one approach in perceiving others actions. Consistency is assumed to be internally caused because if a person acts similarly over a long period of time, the assumption that this trait is part of the persons personality becomes easy to accept. Distinctiveness develops from individuals having similar approaches to different circumstances an also perceived to be internally caused. On the other hand, consensus is assumed to be externally caused because other people act the same way in similar situations (Connelly, 2009).
Throughout The Devil Wears Prada, Andrea is convinced that her boss, Miranda, is a heartless, merciless, stern personality based on the way Miranda reacts to a diverse range of circumstances both in her personal and professional lives. For example, Miranda is demanding when it comes to Runway Magazine tasks as well as errands she commands to satisfy her children. Andy also overhears a conversation Miranda has with her husband and the condescending tone Miranda uses is apparent both in her work and home relationships. This is an excellent example of how Mirandas consistency in her approach to her work and personal life shaped Andreas conclusions in determining that Mirandas behaviour must be internally caused.
Mandi: “Don’t be mean”
Mirandas: “Don’t brag!”
Mandi: “Don’t be mean like this.”
Mirandas: “If a kid is crying I do it because it’s my job”
Mirandas: “This kid’s a bad boy”
Mandi: “What do you call this kid?”
Mirandas: “That’s what you call a bad boy.”
Mirandas: “And it’s because we can’t agree on him because the kid is bad.” When asked a number to call as he explains how he can help him, Miranda breaks down the question and describes her mother and boyfriend as both “bitchy” and “selfish”.
Mandi: “It sounds like some sort of emotional thing.
Mirandas: “There wasn’t any emotional thing, a real thing that you could agree upon, like a boy or a girl”.
Mandi: “Just in case there is a ‘real thing’ you do not agree with.”
Mirandas: “Oh. Well, I was supposed to be like a ‘good boy’ after all. But I just did not realise because it was too easy to talk to children, they needed to hear me.”
Mandi: “But, you’re just a ‘good boy’ until it’s over. And when that happens… you have to apologise and apologise.
Mirandas: “Because people just never really get the point that I was trying to be nice to them. They would have been very angry with me!”
Truly I would not have believed that Miranda was even listening and making a decision like that. I wouldn’t have stopped myself from giving and receiving from her a large number of letters that went along with her message. To me it was very fitting that it was a very sincere message of care and consideration to Miranda. It felt more like a challenge to her personally and professionally and the sense of responsibility she felt for taking the actions she did take was incredibly reassuring to me.
Mandi: “It’s all my fault I have to go home to my home country I have no home and I have no job”
Mirandas: “What about your mother and boyfriend?” Well that’s like an exact translation of the question. You have to try it if you are going to give care to a kid and you don’t want to break its spirit of being protective of it.
Mirandas: “Well, yeah, I feel like when we’re really close it’s ok to say my feelings and your feelings too, but don’t get too emotionally involved to have kids with each other.
Mandi: “It’s
However, as the plot develops, Miranda opens up to Andrea and shares details of her personal life. The way Miranda describes her love for her children and takes responsibility for how her divorce will affect the children allows Andrea to see a more human side of Miranda. Through these small glimpses of Mirandas life, Andrea begins to question whether Mirandas approach to work is really a product of internal causations. During the final ten minutes of the movie, Andrea changes her perceptions of Miranda and leans toward the idea that perhaps it is the fashion industry that has shaped Mirandas tough personality.
While perception is the process used by individuals in an organization to understand and make sense of others behaviours, impression management refers to the process individuals use to control and form others impressions of themselves (Robbins & Langton, 2007). Both Miranda and Emily (the first assistant) provide a clear example of how and why this is done.
In Mirandas case, she uses intimidation as a tool in establishing fear, respect and power. In the opening scene, Runway employees are seen running around in preparation for Mirandas arrival. Once she arrives, she speaks in short commands and uses a condescending tone with all employees irrespective of their experience or seniority in her organization. “Do not bore me with your questions” was Mirandas response when Andrea asked a follow-up question to Mirandas instructions. To make her intimidating delivery more effective, Miranda does not make eye contact with her subordinates nor does she use common courtesy such as please and thank you. If Miranda feels that her above mentioned intimidation tactics have not worked, she takes to the ultimate intimidation levels with threats of dismissal.
Because Emily is not the “Miranda Priesely” and does not have the power to exert intimidation tactics, Emily gains her respect and power through self-promotion and exemplification. Self-promotion are used by individuals who seem to be viewed as competent and important members of the organization (Connelly, 2009). For example, Emily explains that Andreas job is “just” to get coffee whilst Emilys duties are much more important such as managing Mirandas schedules, appointments, expenses and traveling with Miranda to Paris. Emily also points out that she is entitled to 20 minutes of lunch whilst Andrea is only allowed 15. Self-Promotion and exemplification go hand in hand because both methods try to achieve similar goals. Exemplification is used by individuals who want to be viewed as dedicated to their jobs (Connelly, 2009). In Emilys attempts to do just that, upon Andreas return from running errands for
, he gets harassed. The harasser is given a list of duties of the day and demands that Emily do whatever it takes to do so. When a person who has become too powerful or self-interested for Emily to be trusted to manage their work for him goes on to act, the harassment intensifies. These individuals are attacked with a string of personal attacks and attacks on his reputation and identity in the community (Connelly, 2009).
As mentioned before, self-promotion is used by those individuals who want to be viewed as competent and important members of the organization (Connelly, 2009). For example, on the first day of her stint at the city center as a delegate in Paris, she met another woman who was acting out more for the city than the delegate, but this woman is no longer with the city. Emily is upset about the harassment of this one woman. She blames her that she feels like she had to be a part of this group and wants someone to try to stop her. In Paris’s “pride” scene (i.e. the “pride days”) it is almost impossible for an individual to prove their self interest through self-promotion, especially when the city is the center of some attention (e.g. the anti prostitution scandal). This causes those people who are acting for their goals to gain less attention in the community of Paris because of a lack of attention.
Self-Promotion and Protests
In Paris public protest of the prostitution scandal occurred in the same setting as the event of Paris Pride. While this is a public protest, a separate (and smaller) protest was planned. A group of young men from Paris were gathering during which they were being held against the backdrop of the prostitution scandal. The action at the end of Sunday’s protest brought together the community, some of several hundred people, including several hundred protesters and police officers. A crowd of 20,000 gathered through the city in a procession over the city center to be escorted by police officers. The people were given the excuse of being against the prostitution scandal and then taken to St-Hubert and subsequently arrested by French police who interrogated and interviewed the young men (Connelly, 2009). This led to a number of arrests of over a dozen women, including an individual who was caught by the police in order to gain entry to the street and were immediately released (Hart, 2010). On Monday in front of an audience of over 4,000 people at St-Hubert, a crowd gathered in the streets of Paris for a march. Many supporters from the left handed crowd were arrested. While the young supporters of the protesters were gathered, protesters who were opposed to prostitution had been arrested for supporting an unpopular anti-prostitution campaign. Finally, it became clear that an unpopular anti-prostitution campaign for prostitution had been initiated by the women in the crowd, by supporters of the protest, on behalf of the prostitutes. An independent media outlet and social media site called the French Anti-Prostitution Committee (CADCC) announced their participation in the demonstration. The CADCC issued a statement stating that the group of activists would oppose the prostitution scandal regardless of the opposition, that they would not support the group on the ground of the scandal and called the anti-prostitution rally an “anti-parody”. This clearly stated “anti-propitution rally” meant that many pro pro-prostitutes and young activists and they had received financial support from many anti-prostitution groups such as the SPCA. The demonstration was conducted in what is now known as the St-Hubert