See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308968773

Animal Farm as a Dismal Firm. Critical Interpretation of George Orwell's

Memorable Fable

Article · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 3,619

1 author:

Yuri Pavlov
Far Eastern University of the Humanities
24 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Military History View project

Russian Far East View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuri Pavlov on 10 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL

ANIMAL FARM AS A DISMAL FIRM

(Critical interpretation of George Orwell's memorable fable)

1. George Orwell and his Animal farm

George Orwell is a prominent English writer of the first half of the 20th century. He was
recognized as one of the most influential satiric writers whose works have merited detailed
scholarly attention. More than half a century after they were written, Orwell’s books are still
much in demand. John Rodden, the researcher of his works, wrote in 1989 that Orwell was ‘alive
today’ because the topics of his works are alive today, and this is equally true in the twenty first
century [Ingle, 2006: 22]. He is regarded as the greatest political writer in English during the
twentieth century. George Orwell’s world fame is due to a combination of high esteem from
intellectuals and immense popularity with the general reading public. Although he died at the
early age of forty-six, his last two works – Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four
(1949) – have sold more than forty million copies and stand as the most influential books of
political fiction of the twentieth century [Rodden, 2007: XI].
Orwell was rather a fabulist than a novelist, and in fact he always was a pamphleteer,
who sought to join English tradition that includes Defoe, Swift, Edmund Burke, Carlyle and
Ruskin, among many others.
The satirical nature of his books and ridiculing the defects of the society was derived by
him from Jonathan Swift. There is no doubt that Orwell admired Swift enormously. On one
occasion he even said that ‘Gulliver’s Travels has meant more to me than any other book ever
written’ [Bounds, 2009: 102].
Orwell's creative work is multi-aspect and he is often cited by other researchers. Orwell’s
influence, however, is not limited to literary studies: historians, anthropologists, sociologists,
philosophers, psychologists and political scientists find Orwell’s books useful in their research.
In his works they find answers to such questions as the psychology of management, leadership
theory, sociology of revolution, political culture, sacralization and symbolism of the power,
social stratification and social inequality, ideology and propaganda, conformity, etc.
[McLaughlin, 2007: 160-170].
Animal farm is one of the most famous books of George Orwell. It was published in 1945
and soon became a bestseller. The book is characterized by such features as fairy tale, fable,
satire, and allegory. The writer told a reader a fictional story as naive revolutionary ideals were
gradually transformed into a hard pragmatic dictatorship. The phrase 'all animals are equal but
some animals are more equal than others' became the basic idea of the book. The story of the
animals by Orwell resembles the ancient animal fables of Aesop about the defects of animals,
where an attentive reader easily sees the vices of the people.
Animal farm is a parody of the dictatorship and of the Soviet political regime. This fact
was confirmed by Orwell himself. He described the main focus of the book in a letter to his
agent Leonard Moore in 1946: 'If they question you again, please say that Animal Farm is
intended as a satire on dictatorship in general but of course the Russian Revolution is the chief
target. It is humbug to pretend anything else' [Quinn, 2009: 53].
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
2. Animal farm as a dismal firm
However in this article an attempt will be made to look at the Orwell's memorable fable
in a different way. The story of the farm will be analyzed here as the history of the firm. It is a
managerial interpretation of the fable.
What do we observe very early in the story in the beginning? Orwell shows us the crisis
of the farm. Its owner Mr. Jones drank heavily and economy went into decline. He failed in legal
proceedings and ran his business carelessly. Animals (main labor force) protested that they bring
90% of all profits to this organization, and yet people like Mr. Jones command them, they will
languish in poverty and the farm will deteriorate further. The animals begin Rebellion and seize
the power in their hands.
They change the organizational culture (make the Seven Commandments, hymn,
emblem, codes of conduct, etc.). The animals refuse to have contacts with other farms, where the
owners are the people. All animals were consumed with euphoria, they worked tirelessly and
every animal is pleased with the results of their work and their remuneration. They think their
dreams have come true. However, it is impossible to control the farm all together, and among the
animals were selected some leaders who is ready to lead others, these were the pigs. In the
future, among the pigs are chosen an idealist, enthusiast Snowball, and cautious conservative
Napoleon. They have a confrontation, during which Napoleon wins and establishes new orders.
Pragmatism was proclaimed is a new ideology. The farm is developing, contacts with the people
begin and economy shows growth. However, the standard of living of other animals (main labor
force) remains at the same level. The results of their work and their reward were correlated
weakly. The total farm's surplus profits were taken by the pig-leaders. As a consequence, a
number of the ruling class tends to enlarge and an extensive managerial class comes into
existence, followed by the appearance of bureaucracy. By the end of the fable it all came back to
where it had started. The pig-leaders are happy, they got everything they wanted, while other
animals got nothing. The naive illusion of the subordinate animals disappeared. The farm is
brewing a new change of the power. The circle is closed up.

3. Discussion
Is the Rebellion betrayed?
The destruction of the revolutionary illusions and gradual change in the 'game's rules',
that‘s what was bothering Orwell when he wrote this book. Was such ending inevitable?
Orwell’s answer was negative. But the researchers of social revolutions said ‘yes’. Such classical
authors as Alexis de Tocqueville, Gustave Le Bon and Pitirim Sorokin pointed that any
revolutionary period inevitably consists of two parts, inseparably linked with each other:
escalation and reaction. 'Reaction' is a phenomenon that does not extend beyond the revolution,
is an inevitable part of the revolutionary period. 'Reaction' means that the revolution enters the
stage of 'braking'. Revolution is inevitably replaced by dictatorship. The people can overthrow
old institutions, but cannot change their souls. Occupying the place of the old rulers, the former
revolutionaries take over their 'souls' and behavior, and begin reproduction of the old regime.
This is natural regularity that was manifested in many revolutions [Tocqueville, 2011; Le Bon,
1913; Sorokin, 1925].
Revolution as the pendulum swings from left to right, and get back. These facts were
confirmed in further studies [Eisenstadt, 1978; Huntington, 1968]. Nikolai Berdyaev, Russian
philosopher, wrote: all revolutions ended in reactions. It is inevitable. It is the law. The stronger
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
and fiercer were the revolutions, the stronger were the reactions. There is some kind of magic
circle in the alternations of revolutions and reactions [Berdyaev, 1923: 13].
Despotic, exploitative power causes dissatisfaction among subordinates and is
overthrown by them. But once that power collapsed, it is no longer either alien or repressive
[Jouvenel, 1962: 109]. The crowd always has conservative instincts. It has a sacred respect for
traditions and unconscious fear for any innovations, capable to change real conditions of the
people’s existence. The fact that so angered and disappointed Orwell has appeared a law
governing social development. The rulers are gone, but the power always remains. The King is
dead. Long live the King!

The Farm cannot have two executives!

A hundred years ago Henri Fayol, the French classic of management, described one of
the main principles of it: the employee should have only one boss. This academic thesis is
confirmed by the situation on the farm at the diarchy of pigs (Snowball versus Napoleon). The
farm could have neither two, nor three, nor ten CEO1. Between them inevitably arises a conflict,
which involves all employees. The ideological struggle ended with the victory of one of them,
Napoleon.

No contacts with organizational environment?

After Mr. Jones was thrown off his farm, the animals declared their farm isolated from
other ones, which were headed by the people. Closed economy and autarchy became the basis of
their system. At first all things went well. Soon, however, the animals revealed the lack of raw
materials and tools necessary for economic activity. The utopian initial idea has become more
pronounced. This fact made the animals to begin trade operations with the people. The farm as a
subject could not be a closed economic system. Therefore, it was transformed into an open
system that actively interacts with the organizational environment. Revolutionary idealism was
defeated by economic realism and pragmatism.

The workaholics
The workhorse, Boxer by name, is a prominent example of a workaholic on the farm. He
ate little and worked hard. His personal mottos were two phrases 'Napoleon is always right' and 'I
will work harder'. Unlike other animals, he got up much earlier and continued to work till night.
He worked till he was fit to drop. Much of what has been done on the farm after Mr. Jones’s
expulsion has been done with the active participation of the Boxer. Unfortunately, the furious
rate of work has affected his physical health. Constructing the windmill he injured his leg and
actually became a disabled person. Of the most active farm worker he has become a burden to
his comrades. When he could no longer fulfill his work, he ceased to be of value in the eyes of
the pigs, and he was secretly taken to the slaughterhouse.
Any organization requires from the employee as much as he can give it (physical and
mental abilities). If the organization requires from the employee a lot more than he can give to it,
this fact becomes disadvantageous for him, because his results will be less than the effort
expended them.

1
CEO (Chief Executive Officer)
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Chester Barnard, one of the classics of management, defined power as a form of
communication within any organization. The employee himself makes the decision to recognize
the order of the CEO as the act of the power, not CEO. If an employee believes that the order is
unacceptable to him, he did not perform it and leaves the organization. Barnard thought up the
term 'zone of indifference' within which an employee agrees to carry out orders uncritically. All
the orders coming from the CEO should be acceptable, i.e. to be within the 'zone of indifference'
of a subordinate. The good organization has always the rule: use only those orders that will not
encounter insubordination. The main aim of CEO is to expand the zone of indifference of an
employee [Barnard, 1938: 163-170].
This principle has been widespread on the farm. When the animals began to doubt of
economic achievements, Squealer usually intimidated them by the return of former owners and
their old orders. ‘Wouldn’t you like to see Mr. Jones come back?' The animals did not wish Mr.
Jones’ return. The temporary difficulties and a low standard of living for the animals were more
acceptable than the return of the old economic system with the people at the head.

Are all animals equal?

'All animals are equal', this rule has been written on the barn by pigs after Mr. Jones has
left the farm. Later on the rule was changed into: 'all animals are equal, but some animals are
more equal than others'. This formulation has been the subject of the most controversy among
the researchers. It is immoral, it is wrong, it is insidious such was the opinion of many critics.
However, none of the critics was indignant at watching various animals when reading the book.
They were distinct from each other: strong and weak, clever and stupid, industrious and lazy,
careless and vigilant, prudent and impulsive, ambitious and modest, attentive and inattentive.
How could they be the same? How could they be equal?
Inequality is naturally reflected in the hierarchical structure of the farm. At the very
beginning of the tale it was a three-level structure like a pyramid: Mr. Jones - his workers - other
animals. After the rebellion it became a single-level (all animals are equal). However, this fact
gave rise to a new round of the controversy. It was an unviable economic structure. There was a
conflict of the roles: all animals were both managers and subordinates too. The function of
commanding and obeying is the decisive one in every society. As long as there is any doubt as to
who commands and who obeys, all the rest will be imperfect and ineffective [Ortega y Gasset,
1957: 140].
Soon, the hierarchical structure was again transformed into two levels: pigs and other
animals. Better educated and more proactive pigs occupied command offices. Other animals
have occupied a subordinate position. Then it became a three-level hierarchy: pigs - dogs - other
animals. At the end of the fable, we see four levels of hierarchy: Napoleon (pigs leader) - other
pigs - dogs - other animals. Dogs, loyal to Napoleon, began to support his personal power. As the
tale progresses we see how one group of the animals from the object of influence becomes the
subject of influence. Another group of animals remains in a subordinate position, a powerless
object of manipulation.
The educational level of animals became the basis for constructing a new hierarchy. The
success in education became to influence directly on the amount of power enjoyed by the
different animals. Their knowledge of the human speech corresponds roughly to their levels of
control over their lives in this new farm [Fowler, 2009: 72]. Thus, education finally formed and
legalized social and economic inequality. By the end of the tale we have already noted class
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
stratification: newborn pigs inherit places in the ruling class, newborns of other animals inherit
the lower positions2.

Is knowledge power?
Knowledge is power, said Francis Bacon. He affirmed that this is not a metaphor, but a
reality. This idea acquired a new perspective in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel
Foucault. In their books the ideas of knowledge and the power were closely related. Both
philosophers believed the knowledge to be a tool of power. Knowledge is growing according to
the growth of power. The power creates knowledge that serves it. Power cannot be done without
knowledge, but knowledge cannot be spread without power. Knowledge (ideology) plays the
role of symbolic violence in any society. The power allows to simplify and schematize the world
and to give it the desired shape. Every ruling class seizes so much reality as it can take and make
it to serve itself [Nietzsche, 1968: 266, 278; Foucault, 1980: 34; 1980а: 52].
In every community there is a group, whose main task is to create the necessary
interpretation of the world’s picture. This group of intellectuals monopolizes the right to interpret
the truth. The sanctioning of the uniform knowledge of the world around is one of its main
functions [Mannheim, 1936: 9].
Community members see the outside world is not as it seems to an outside observer, but
how the leader and his advisers interpret it. If the leader reports to his subordinates that the world
was not threatening them, they will lead common activities. If the leader reports them that the
community is threatened by the world, they are expected to become suspicious. Therefore, a key
role in determining the behavior of the community members will be played by the leadership and
its values rather than the actual state of the external world. A leader may exaggerate the threat or
distort the situation of the world to mobilize community members to fight against external
threats [Berne, 1973: 28].
Pigs were such a group on the farm. In Orwell's fable Squealer was a prominent
propagandist and PR manager. He created a positive image of his leader (Napoleon) inside the
farm and outside it. On the farm, only pigs were educated, other animals while learning initial
teaching alphabet have not moved beyond the first three or four letters. Therefore, a few animals
could control the information coming from pigs. The monopoly on knowledge and the monopoly
on the truth became the privilege of pigs. They knew what... They knew who... They knew
how... They knew where... They knew why...
Knowledge of all these processes created new opportunities for them (including abuse of
power). Wilhelm Windelband, the German philosopher, has properly pointed out: lack of
knowledge limits the freedom of our choice. So other animals were in a less advantageous
position in relation to the pigs.
Uneducated animals were sure of no things, because they did not understand the meaning
of many words. The animals were caught in a semantic network: they could not decipher the
complexity of the secret jargon of pigs and their senseless sounds.
The animals’ learning disabilities impeded all efforts to improve their life on a renewed
farm. Until most of the animals are unable to make out what is written and the words themselves
2
Gradually the pigs have received the privileges as follows: (1) apples and milk and then
beer became a bonus for pigs only; (2) pigs woke up an hour later than other animals; (3) pigs
lived with comfort in the former house of Mr. Jones; (4) pigs had the double ration of meal; (5)
only pigs wore clothes; (6) only pigs had the best education access.
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
they cannot take any action upon the semantic word association perception. Their dependence on
the pigs was conditioned by their linguistic and cognitive deficiency along with unthinking
acceptance of facts and historical amnesia [Elbarbary, 2009: 38-42].
The monopoly on the knowledge is a kind of expert power. One who perceives
information from the expert, thinks this way: 'He is an expert and knows it better than me. Even
if I do not fully understand what he is saying and why, I will do what he says' [Gold, 2011: 68].
Farm pigs were undoubtedly experts. They were designers, engineers, and managers. Secret
knowledge, together with the linguistic casuistry became the basis of their power.
Some psychologists consider that the language has three major functions: (1) describe
and denote a reality; (2) express a thought and a state of the speaker; (3) have influence on the
interlocutor. All of these functions are used when persuading the people [Landré, 1998: 115].
Other ways to influence through speech are: (1) the choice of words and expressions; (2) the
choice of grammatical forms; (3) the choice of the sequence of presenting the facts; (4) the
choice of intonation; and (5) the choice of hidden prerequisites [Rimé, 1984: 417-418].
Orwell showed that the pigs knew these methods perfectly. From year to year, the
animals got less and less food, but Squealer, appearing before them, told them quite different
information. He told them about over-fulfillment of the economic performance by 100-200
percent and excellent economic results on the farm. But sometimes the animals would sooner
have had less figures and more food.
Gustave Le Bon, a French social psychologist, wrote: an orator wishing to move a crowd
must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to
repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning [Le Bon, 1896: 37]. Squealer
understood it well. He actively made use of such methods.
The most important thing in Squealer’s speeches was not only what he spoke but also
what he omitted. Silence implies precise knowledge of what is silent. Since it is impossible to be
always silent, an orator has to make a choice between what can be said and what should remain
silent. To conceal the real facts from the people is the best known method for those who have the
power [Canetti, 1981: 294].

Enroning on the Animal farm?

Systematic concealment of losses of the company by falsifying of accounts was named
'enroning'. Enron Corporation was the company involved in energy production, consumer goods
and securities. Its headquarters was in Houston. The company has long deceived shareholders
and investors by publishing false information about the income and hiding debts.
In 1998, when analysts from the Wall-street paid a visit to Enron, its CEO Kenneth Lee
Lay hastily mobilized 70 employees, who were forced to play the role of traders. Their task was
to make a due impression on the analysts. Lay wanted to create illusion of hard work. False
traders imitated calls, exchanged remarks on fictitious sales of oil and gas. Lay wanted to make
an impression on the analysts from Wall Street and was successful in it, but did it through a false
facade.
In 2001, Enron Corporation became bankrupt. The failed firm was charged with false
statements. The action was aimed at misrepresentation of true financial position of the
corporation. Enron's shady business was not in concealing the income but hiding the losses.
Among the causes of the crisis and the collapse of the Corporation were primarily the lack of an
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
effective system of internal and external control, as well as the conflict of interests between top-
managers and other employees [Siegfried, 2005: 289-290].
The situation on the animal farm during the pigs’ management also resembled enroning.
Manipulation of figures, hiding some facts and the exaggeration of other ones, unsubstantiated
arguments were a common thing. For example, it was revealed during the food shortages. In one
of the winters on the farm there was a threat of famine. Dangerous rumors that could undermine
the pigs’ reputation and their economic program spread themselves. It was necessary to conceal
the fact of famine from the outside world. In this situation Napoleon decided to use a trick.
He invited Mr. Whymper, his old commercial partner, to visit the farm. This visit should
show that actually everything is all right on the farm, and the problem of famine is a fabrication
of his rivals. Napoleon ordered to fill the empty granary with sand, and to scatter the rest on the
surface. Mr. Whymper went in front of the granary and he convinced that the farm has no
problems with famine. A false facade with the grain helped pigs to create the illusion of stability
and success. However, these manipulations could not continue permanently. (p. 29-30)

Who and how managed the Animal Farm?

To illustrate this fact we will use a managerial grid model developed by Robert R. Blake
and Jane S. Mouton. This is a 2-D model obtained the title of a coordinate leadership grid. Each
of the grid axes represents a nine-level scale ranging from 1 (low) to 9 (high). The model is
represented as a grid with relation to the production process as the x-axis and attitude to the
people as the y-axis [Blake and Mouton, 1964].
In accordance with this grid it is possible to determine the position of leadership on the
farm. We do not know what kind of strategy was used by Mr. Jones when he became a farmer.
Orwell does not show it to us. He begins the tale from the point of economic collapse and
personal crisis of Mr. Jones. It is obvious that at that moment Mr. Jones’ strategy was 1.1 (the
lowest attitude to the workers and lowest relation to the work process). The leader who uses the
style of management like that was interested neither in employees nor in production plans. After
he was driven out of the farm and the animals gained the power, the strategy has changed.
Probably the index varied about 5.5 (moderate attention to employees and to the production
activity). Under Napoleon’s the leadership style was transformed. Now the index was 9.1 (the
highest to the production and the lowest to the workers).
This approach may be characterized as follows: (1) a rigid total control; (2) production
targets had a higher value than concern for employees’s welfare; (3) organizational culture was
like a 'voluntary prison; (4) the subordinate did not want to take responsibility and solve
problems independently; (5) there was a constant distance between the leader and his
subordinates; (6) often absent were direct communication and understanding.
At the end of the book when the delegation headed by Mr. Pilkington came to the animal
farm, Mr. Pilkinton made a solemn speech in honor of its leader, Napoleon. Pilkington has seen
here not only the most advanced methods of farming, but also discipline and perfect order. The
animals were working harder, but they could be paid for their work lesser money. Pilkington
eagerly wished to employ these methods at his own farm. This fact illustrates a great popularity
of the style 9.1 among managers of the last century. It appeared to be more realistic as compared
to the style 9.9. However, Blake and Mouton believed the position of 9.9 to be the most effective
leadership style. Yet, however, to use this style in practice is difficult because it required a high
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
degree of coordination and control. It is rather ideal for which to strive, constantly improving all
elements of the organization.

Power distance
One of the symbols of power is the space structure. The space should be organized so as
to emphasize distance and thus the difference in status between the ruler and the subordinates.
The structuring of the territory often divides the space into two parts - the 'centre', where are the
holders of power, and 'peripheral sectors', where are all the rest.
In business negotiations the person with a higher status sit closer to the centre of the
table, the others rank in the distance. The lower status of an employee, the farther away from the
centre of negotiations and decision-making centre he is. The employees of very low status are
not invited to important negotiations at all.
CEO Office is often distant from the entrance and usually is rather more elevated,
demonstrating the superiority of the person occupying it. In large organizations, the access of
ordinary workers to CEO is limited. For this aim there is a staff of vice-presidents, assistants and
advisors. They act as a filter screening out unnecessary information and unwanted people from
their leader.
The buildings of large corporations resemble the hierarchy: the higher the position of the
employee, the closer to the top is his office. A leader located at the top gets a psychological
advantage, because it made him look down at those who took their places at the bottom. In many
countries the phrase in the lift 'I am to the highest floor' sometimes identifies the people, who
have the highest authority in corporations. Command is a high achievement. They can breathe
fresh air and new prospects were opening up before them. They are crazy about the order and
genius of construction. The man who has grown great sees from the top of his tower what he can
make, if he so wills, of the swarming masses below him [Jouvenel, 1962: 116].
In modern corporations the portraits of CEO in the offices of the employees embody his
'body'. At the same time they symbolize the all-seeing eye, which oversees employees and
supervise their work. Everyone should see who is their leader. Everyone should know the leader,
but he does not have to know everyone personally.
The theme of power distance is described by Orwell in detail. It is possible to consider
this fact on the Napoleon's example. At first, he was one of the two leaders of the farm, who had
no special privileges. All animals were sitting together at the bottom of a big granary and took a
collective decision on the farm management. The position of Napoleon was changed after
Snowball’s expulsion from the farm. The animals no longer sat together in the granary at the
same level. Napoleon and other pigs climbed up to the top surrounded by loyal dogs. Other
animals were placed at the bottom.
Power distance is appeared. Napoleon announced that no meetings will be held. At
present they are unnecessary. To hold meetings is a waste of time. All collective discussions
were canceled. From his point on, all economic problems of the farm will be addressed to a
special committee of the pigs, headed by himself. The Committee will meet separately and report
its decisions to other animals. Napoleon read out the orders for them, and all the animals were to
carry out their duties. (p. 56, 58-59)
At first, Napoleon made orders to the animals personally, but then he delegated these
functions to Squealer. When Napoleon sometimes appeared in the farm's courtyard, he was
always protected by six dogs and this ceremony was solemn. Then this ceremony became more
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
complex. Now he was accompanied not only by six dogs but also a black cockerel that loudly
greeted Napoleon. It was also announced that the gun would fire every year on Napoleon's
birthday. It has become a tradition give Napoleon the credit for habit every success achieved on
the farm. On the granary wall was hung a large portrait of Napoleon for all animals to see who is
their leader. At the end of the tale Napoleon became the president of the farm and actually the
absolute ruler.

Dysfunctional management?
Organizational culture of the farm is gradually changing. New commandments, emblem,
hymn, rituals and ceremonies, and other items were established after Mr. Jones’ expulsion.
Changes in the organizational culture reflected the transformation of all elements on the farm.
The leaders of the animals had a great influence on this processes. As Edgar H. Schein,
prominent sociologist, rightly pointed out that a leader’s talent is determined by his ability to
understand the culture and to work with it, and one of the most important manifestations of the
leadership is the destruction of culture, when it becomes dysfunctional [Schein, 2004: 11, 410].
Unfortunately, the leadership of the pigs (especially under Napoleon) was typical of such
dysfunctional culture. Instead of trying to improve and create perfect examples of management,
the pigs have created a vicious system. They were not 5-level leaders (as interpreted by Jim
Collins). 5-level leaders are not implemented through their own success, but through the
attainment of a significant goal (the creation of a great company). This does not mean that the 5-
level leaders have no ambition. Of course, they are ambitious, but their ambition relates
primarily to the companies they control, and not to themselves. They do not like to praise
themselves and they talk more about a 'good team' with which they were lucky to work together.
(Probably Snowball could eventually become such a leader!)
But pigs have created the opposite management system. When the farm showed excellent
results, all merits were attributed to Napoleon. In the case of failures the pigs were looking for
the animals responsible for the failure outside the farm. It was Snowball, the former leader of the
animal farm, who was chosen guilty. Snowball blamed for slow construction of a windmill, a
broken fence, poor harvest, hunger and disease on the farm. Although it was clear to an outside
observer that the reasons for the failure was bad planning, coordination and control of Napoleon
and his assistants.
Among the indications of ineffective teams modern researchers distinguish the following:
(1) you cannot easily describe the team’s mission; (2) the meetings are formal, stuffy, or tense;
(3) there is a great deal of participation but little accomplishment; (4) there is talk but not much
communication; (5) disagreements are aired in private conversations after the meeting; (6)
decisions tend to be made by the formal leader with little meaningful involvement of other team
members; (7) members are not open with each other because trust is low; (8) there is confusion
or disagreement about roles or work assignments; (9) people in other parts of the organization
who are critical to the success of the team are not cooperating; (10) the team is overloaded with
people who have the same team-player style; (11) the team has been in existence for at least
three months and has never assessed its functioning [Parker, 2006: 677-679]. Many of these
signs appeared when the pigs came to power. The closer the end of this fable we come, the more
of signs were coincided.
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
A dichotomy of power and dependence: why some get everything that they want,
while others that remain
Table 1 shows the difference of the personal positions of the pigs and other animals.
The pigs had a high power motive; they were proactive, more enterprising and cunning; they
relied only on themselves; they had a high self-appraisal; they believed in reason and logics, but
were able to manipulate feelings and emotions of other animals; they were pragmatic executives
focused on personal success and personal privileges in prejudice of other animals; they were
snobs and considered other animals only as a tool for fulfillment of their desires and realization
of their dreams.
Other animals were naive idealists, they believed almost to all that they were spoken by
pigs; they respected the authority of pigs and their educational level; they had a low self-
appraisal and little thought; they acted passively reacting to external motives and incentives; they
wanted a lot of things, but their desire for security and conformity will not allow them to realize
their dreams.
While some of them chose the way of Machiavellianism, others were true to their base
principles. For some, morality was determined by the phrase 'if it is forbidden thing, but you
would like it, it is permitted for you'. For others the words 'rules of the game cannot be broken'
were their principles. Certainly, the economic results in both cases differed significantly.

Table 1
A comparison of personal positions of the pigs and other animals
Pigs Other animals
High power motive Low power motive
Proactivity Reactivity
Internal locus of control External locus of control
Freedom is a primary need Safety is a primary need
High self-estimation Low self-estimation, conformity
Rationalism Idealism
Interpersonal relation based on "I-It" Interpersonal relation based on "I-Thou"
Power and authority Dependence and obedience
Think at first, do then Do at first, think then

The Inner Ring

In 1944 Clive Lewis gave his memorial lecture “The Inner Ring" to the students at
University of London. He spoke about the basic desire of every individual to belong to any
community, to be a member of the Inner Ring. Everyone wants to be inside this ring and is afraid
to be outside. This fact leads many individuals to sacrifice their interests and desires only in
order to remain a member of the Inner Ring. This fact can be extended to such a phenomenon of
management as organizational commitment and engagement. More than 40 years ago L. Porter et
al. have described three main factors why the individual does not leave the organization and
keeps loyalty to it. The factors are: (1) a strong desire to remain a member of the organization;
(2) a strong belief in, and acceptance of, the values and goals of the organization; (3) a readiness
to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization [Porter et al., 1974].
Let's return to the Orwell's tale. Why did not the animals under the pigs’ power leave the
farm, though dragged a miserable existence? What kept them inside the farm? I think these were
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
the above-described phenomena. Animals have been a loyal to the farm because (1) their dreams
have come true; (2) their farm became the first farm ruled by animals, but not humans; (3) their
farm is an island of harmony and happiness in the ocean of violence and sufferings; (4) their
farm is an ambitious project for the reconstruction of agriculture. It is a great pride for all
animals to be involved in such large-scale events. They understood that for them there is only
one hard way forward, no way back.

Spoon of Tar in a Barrel of Honey or Spoon of Honey in a Barrel of Tar?

Orwell's tale Animal Farm and the discussion that took place around the theme that has
the English writer has touched upon, is one of the main in the social sciences. It is the eternal
question. Who is to blame in this finale: the leaders or the system? If we focus on the books like
Parkinson's Law by C. Northcote Parkinson or The Dilbert Principle by Scott Adams, it is a
logical ending, to avoid which was hardly possible. If chickens or cats were placed on the pigs’
place, the result was the same. No one can fight against the natural causes, it should be taken as a
due. If we focus on the books Good to Great and How the Mighty Fall by Jim Collins or
Organizational Culture and Leadership by Edgar H. Schein, the fault here lies entirely on the
leaders who, by their wrong actions, have brought their organizations to the crisis and the fall.
And the research like Managing Corporate Lifecycles by Ichak K. Adizes comprises both
viewpoints.
In this book George Orwell played two roles: as an anti-utopian and utopian writer. He
debunked the myth of freedom and equality, which quickly led to economic stratification and
social inequality. But at the same time Orwell was writing this book as a humanist and an
idealist. There is no doubt that Orwell was a dreamer who wanted to improve the lives of the
workers. In this case he was like Robert Owen, his fellow countryman humanist and educator
who dreamed in the 19th century of creating an ideal factory at New Lanark and find harmony
between the labor and the capital... As history has shown, their ideas appeared to be vain dreams.

References
Barnard C.I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Berdyaev N. (1923) The Philosophy of Inequality. Berlin: Obelisk. (In Russian)
Berne E. (1973) The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Blake R.R. and J. Mouton. (1964) The Managerial Grid. The Key to Leadership Excellence.
Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Bounds P. (2009) Orwell and Marxism. The Political and Cultural Thinking of George
Orwell. London & New York: I.B. Tauris.
Canetti E. (1981) Crowds and Power. New York: Continuum.
Eisenstadt S.N. (1978) Revolution and the Transformation of Societies. A Comparative
Studies of Civilizations. New York: The Free Press.
Elbarbary S. (2009) Language as Theme in Animal Farm // George Orwell's Animal Farm.
Ed. by Harold Bloom. New York: InfoBase Publishing: 35-44.
Foucault M. (1980) On Popular Justice. A Discussion with Maoists // Foucault M.
Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings. 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon
Books: 1-36.
 THE UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Foucault M. (1980а) Prison Talk // Foucault M. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and
Other Writings. 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books: 37-54.
Fowler R. (2009) Animal Farm // George Orwell's Animal Farm. Ed. by Harold Bloom. New
York: InfoBase Publishing: 59-78.
Gold G.J. (2011) Bases of Power // Encyclopedia of Power. Ed. by Keith Dowding. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications: 66-71.
Huntington S.P. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Ingle S. (2006) The Social and Political Thought of George Orwell. A Reassessment. London
& New York: Routledge.
Jouvenel B. (1962) On Power. Its Nature and the History of Its Growth. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Landré A., Friemel E. (1998) Opérateurs et Ejeux Discursifs // Langages, 32e annee, no 132:
108-123.
Le Bon G. (1896) The Crowd. A Study of the Popular Mind. New York: The Macmillan.
Le Bon G. (1913) Psychology of Revolution. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
Mannheim K. (1936) Ideology and Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge.
London: Routledge.
McLaughlin N. (2007) Orwell, the Academy and the Intellectuals // The Cambridge
Companion to George Orwell. Ed. by John Rodden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:
160-178.
Nietzsche F. (1968) The Will to Power. New York: Vintage Books.
Ortega y Gasset J. (1957) The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W.W. Norton.
Parker G.M. (2006) What Makes a Team Effective or Ineffective? // Organization
Development. A Jossey-Bass Reader. Ed. by Joan V. Gallos. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 656-
680.
Porter L.W. et al. (1974) Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among
Psychiatric Technicians // Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 59: 603-609.
Quinn E. (2009) Critical Companion to George Orwell. A Literary Reference to his Life and
Work. New York: Facts on File.
Rimé, B. (1984). Langage et Communication. // Psychologie Sociale. Sous la Direction de
Serge Moscovici. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France: 415-446.
Rodden J. (2007) Preface // The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. Ed. by John
Rodden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: X-XI.
Schein E.H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Siegfried M. (2005) Enron Corporation // Encyclopedia of White-Collar and Corporate Crime.
Ed. by Lawrence M. Salinger. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Vol. 1: 289-290.
Sorokin P. (1925) Sociology of Revolution, Philadelphia & London: J.B. Lippincott.
Tocqueville A. (2011) The Ancien Regime and the French Revolution. Ed. by Jon Elster.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

View publication stats