Assignment: Into the Mouths of Babes (by James Traub; NYTimes Magazine 7/24/88)
Total size: three-page maximum double spaced.
Throughout the ‘case’ described in the NY Times, Hoyvald & Lavery say and do ‘one thing’ while Licari, their subordinate, says and does ‘another thing’, as they are at odds with each other. The question to be addressed in this paper is: who did the “right” thing (with legitimacy and authority) and who did the “wrong” thing (without legitimacy and authority) in this case and why is this so? Address these questions: first, just from Weber’s perspective and, then separately, just from Barnard’s perspective.
Hoyvald & Lavery, on the one hand, and Licari, on the other hand, engaged in a number of activities in this Beech-Nut case. Take the theoretical perspectives of Max Weber and Chester Barnard separately (with one and a half pages, maximum, for each of these 2 perspectives) and then (first for Weber and then for Barnard) do the following: name and evaluate the actions of Hoyvald & Lavery and Licari separately (with ½ of one and a half pages maximum for each “character” from each of the two theoretical perspectives). How would Weber see these actions and why, in his ‘language’, would he say so? And then how would Barnard see these actions and why would he, in his ‘language’, say so? That is, in this case for Weber, what were the “important” actions of Hoyvald & Lavery, on the one hand, and Licari, on the other hand, and were those actions legitimate (i.e., with “authority” and “right”) or illegitimate (i.e., without “authority” and “wrong”)? And why would Weber say this is so (using the language of his approach)? And then do the same thing for Barnard and explain why would Barnard say this is so (using the language of his approach)?
That is, for a page and a half maximum, adopt Weber’s perspective and assess the legitimacy of Hoyvald & Lavery versus Licari (half a page each) and justify that assessment in Weber’s “language.” And then, for a page and a half maximum, do the same thing from Barnard’s point of view, using his “language.”
Do NOT address how one would go about fixing things (if they need to be fixed).
Do NOT address whether or not YOU think anyone in the case acted rightly or wrongly. Just provide an assessment of the legitimacy of the important actions as you name and describe them from Weber’s versus Barnard’s point of view and their respective justifications for these assessments.
Just address, for Weber versus Barnard: what happened, who did the “right” versus “wrong” thing, and why is this so?
