Because so many people have looked at the role of leadership in the film The Wolf of Wall Street this semester, and I have responded to a few of those posts, I decided that I should offer my own take on The Wolf of Wall Street by discussing the film in relation to our latest lesson on Ethics and Leadership. I initially had wanted to make this post a few weeks ago in relation to another lesson that we had discussed but am glad I didn’t, as this lesson on ethics is the perfect lens through which to view the film.
Ethics, as defined in our lesson content, “are the kinds of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable or appropriate” (PSU WC, L. 14, P. 3). This can be broken down further into the individual values (beliefs that a specific behavior is personally and socially acceptable over opposite behaviors) and morals (the motives that lie behind behavior based upon an individual’s concept of what is right and what is wrong) (PSU WC, L. 14, P. 3). Ethics, then, is a largely individual experience as different people will have different interpretations about what may be acceptable or not that guide their choices. Groups though, such as religions or social classes, may share similar opinions on what is agreeable or disagreeable, forming social mentalities of what values or morals are appropriate (PSU WC, L. 14, P. 3).
Clearly, if you have seen The Wolf of Wall Street, the lead character Jordan Belfort is completely devoid of any real time of ethical code. Where once he had been a somewhat humble, family man, the money he acquired through his time on Wall Street slowly turned him into a reckless deviant. At the outset of the film, Jordan is a married man with a wife he loves that feels let down when his job as a broker is eliminated on the day he gains his license (Scorsese, 2013). All it takes though is a little push before Belfort slides down the slope into anarchy. How did this occur though? There are several potential reasons for how Belfort found himself in the position that he, arguably, seemed happy in until it was too late.
One potential cause for Belfort’s downfall may have been a flaw in his moral reasoning, the process that is followed to help determine between ethical and unethical behaviors (PSU WC, L. 14, P. 4). Kohlberg (1981, as cited in PSU WC, L. 14, P. 4) theorized that the process of moral reasoning is based upon stages. There are three levels (preconventional, conventional, and postconventional) and each level has two stages. At each stage along the chain, the complexity of moral situations increases. Stage one, in the preconventional level, is that “bad” behavior is behavior that is unacceptable and should be punished (PSU WC, L. 14, P. 4). It’s arguable that Belfort, at some point, regressed from an advanced stage back to stage one. This may have happened when Belfort encountered Mark Hanna, played by Matthew McConaughey. Belfort came from the suburbs with his family life and encountered Hanna, a city living, rich broker who seemingly was rewarded for being an alcoholic, drug abusing, womanizer. In an instant, Belfort’s world seemingly crashed around him and his eyes were opened to the possibilities of his new world (Scorsese, 2013).
This downfall could also be potentially attributable to the conduct theories of ethical leadership. The conduct theories “focus on the behavior of individuals and the decision making process that lead up to the behavior” The conduct theories focus, in part, on “looking at the behavior or conduct of a leader” (PSU WC, L. 14, P. 6). After meeting Hanna, Belfort was given a completely different look at what it meant to be a leader. This meeting came after working with his first mentor at the brokerage firm, who belittle demeaned him. Jordan was clearly given a false image of what a successful leader in the stock broker world was from the outset, after Hanna showed that the reward for being deviant was wealth and power (Scorsese, 2013).
This is merely a small look at the film but perfectly encompasses so much about the experience of viewing The Wolf of Wall Street. Belfort was many things, including dishonest and unabashedly deviant, but looking at the theories shows that every horrible ending has a beginning that can explain it all. In this case, one chance meeting may have changed Belfort’s entire life.
References
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 14: Ethics and Leadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/002/content/14_lesson/01_page.html.
Scorsese, M. (Director) (2013). The wolf of wall street [Theater].
I found your relation of ethics to the Wolf on Wall Street to be of interest. It is always fascinating to see how theories tie into Hollywood scenarios and films. The main character, Jordan is constantly poised with decisions to be made that are not only unethical but immoral as well.
As far as how Jordan developed his moral reasoning, I would have been interested to know more about the character’s background as those details may have explained more about how the character’s values were developed. Values may be developed by contributions from the family, peers, education, religion, media, geography, and current events (PSU WC L14, p.4).
As far as the three levels of moral development, Preconventional thinking seems to take place by Jordan as he seems to only ponder good and bad decisions. Whereas, Jordan considered the reward, he failed most times to think beyond that to reason whether or not society would accept his behavior.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). PSYCH 485 lesson 14 ethics and leadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/14_lesson/04_page.html
I liked reading your analysis of Jordan Belfort in the film Wolf of Wall Street. Since you used the ethics leadership approach to analyze Belfort, I thought it would be interesting to use the trait leadership approach to also analyze him, and we could compare our thoughts on his leadership style.
The trait approach to leadership is probably one of the most widely used leadership theories, and this theory involves specific traits that make an effective leader (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2014, p. 1). “Intelligence is a person’s all-around effectiveness in activities directed by thought” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2014, p. 7). There is a high correlation between intelligent leaders and their effectiveness in influencing people (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2014, p. 7). Though intelligence is not a factor of leadership that guarantees effective leadership, it is certainly a positive trait for a leader to have.
According to the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, there are three types of intelligence. Analytic intelligence is “…general problem-solving ability and can be assessed using standardized mental ability tests” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2014, p. 9). Leaders with this type of intelligence are quick learners and excel in school (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2014, p. 9). Practical intelligence involves common sense intelligence and people know what to do when confronted with certain situations (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2014, p. 9). The third type of intelligence related to the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence is creative intelligence, which “…is the ability to produce work that is new and useful” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2014, p. 9).
If a specific kind of intelligence would be applied to Belfort, I think practical intelligence would most apply. Belfort is quick on his feet, cunning with his language, and able to read people and convince people to do things. Belfort seems to be analytical to an extent, and creative with his business plans of the pump and dump scheme, which is inflating stock in a fraudulent manner, but I think most of his intelligence involves a general common sense type of intelligence. Would you agree that Belfort displayed this type of intelligence?
References
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). PSYCH 485 lesson 2 Trait approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/01_page.html