His Girl Friday

Critical Movie Analysis of Leadership Practices

For my University Foundations 300 class

His Girl Friday

     The movie, His Girl Friday, is a screwball comedy made in 1940.  At first I didn’t think this production would be appropriate for our UF 300 assignment, but then I decided to watch it and see if I could find any immerging leadership patterns – even in a screwball comedy. 

     One of the main characters is Walter Burns (played by Cary Grant).  He is a hard core editor of The Morning Post, who was once married to the other main character, Hildy Johnson (played by Rosalind Russell).  She is a top notch reporter for the same newspaper.  The story begins as Hildy is telling Walter that she is quitting the paper to marry Bruce Baldwin, a rather bland insurance man.  She wants to leave the life of a crazy, fast paced newspaper and have a respectable life as a married lady, away from the city and away from Walter.  It is apparent that Hildy and Walter still have a rhythm and ease together that create the question from the very first scene, “Should these two people really part company?”

     I had watched this movie long ago and knew the general story, but this time I watched it looking for leaders and leadership qualities.  I was also curious on how the theme of strong women was handled, given that this was 1940.  I am quite sure there were only a few, if any female reporters at that time.  I assume it must have added to the comedy, to see an unrealistic character such as that.  But for my purposes, I wanted to see a female leader from that era. 

     The Mayor and the sheriff, who had the two traditional leadership titles, were the worst examples of leaders in the entire movie.  Again, I’m sure this was for comedy sake.  But strictly going by our readings, I would classify the Mayor and sheriff as having the Coercive Power style.  According to the book, “Exploring Leadership”, this kind of a leader can deliver negative consequences or remove positive consequences.  And indeed, in this movie, these two leaders accomplished what they wanted by coercion, bribes, and threats.  They went so far as to hind the fact of a reprieve of execution solely for reelection purposes.  Ultimately, their plan backfired, but it wasn’t from lack of trying.  I thought, if these two men were real leaders, I can’t image what a mess their organizations must be with those kinds of leadership skills.  Coercive power accomplishes change, but at great cost to the relationships of those involved.  And strong relationships are fundamental to a healthy organization. 

     The character of Walter Burns was certainly considered to be a leader by the others in the movie.  As an editor, he seemed to carry some clout; and in the hierarchy of a newspaper, he was above the myriad of reporters in the story.  I couldn’t help but think about the Leadership Theories in the chapter, The Changing Nature of Leadership.  According to this list, the generational concept of leadership in 1940 was the Trait Approach.  This theory took root in the early 1920s and lasted until almost 1950.  This was only the second generation of leadership traits, the first being the Great Man Approach, which is based on hereditary properties of leadership.

     If leadership abilities were not something someone was born with, then the next emerging theory (Trait Approach) was that it was from characteristics of those seen as leaders.  Some of these traits were intelligence, height, and self-confidence which is very apparent in both the character Walter Burns, and the actor who played him, Cary Grant.  It was believed that these characteristics made the leader.  And indeed, in the movie, that seems to be about all Burns had going for him.  Comedy aside, it was confusing to me because even though everyone seemed to admire him as a leader, I found his leadership skills appallingly lacking.  He manipulated, lied, and negatively used just about everyone in the movie to get what he wanted – a great story for his paper.  He was certainly not any kind of leader I would want to be near, let alone follow. 

     Now for Miss Hildegard Johnson, better known as Hildy.  As a 1940s female character, I certainly admire her.  Even if she does seem to want to give up a career she loves, to have a life that would include “no thought”.  I cut her a whole lot of slack given the era, and count her as a hero for being one of the first to address issues such as love, marriage, having babies, and careers.  These are conflicts women struggle with to this day. 

     It was most interesting to watch Hildy for leadership traits.  She was in a man’s world doing a man’s job, and yet everyone seemed to admire her.  I think part of that can be clarified by the French and Raven’s Bases of Power.  I think of her as a leader because she has Informational Power.  This is attributed to a person who has information that is not readily available, but which the group needs.  And it can often refer to highly effective verbal or written communication which is exactly what she had.  She was a very good reporter and they all knew it.  There is a scene where Hildy has typed out a news story, but has to suddenly exit the room.  She inadvertently leaves the story behind, still in the typewriter.  After she leaves, all the other reporters walk over to the desk where one reporter reads her story out loud, and they all admire its quality.  They respect her for her ability.   She is also seen as a more compassionate reporter than the rest, and they all genuinely like her.  She may not be their boss, but they all look up to her as a leader. 

     I found it interesting that those with the official leader roles were by far the worst leaders, and the people that no one admired.  And the least likely to be a leader – a woman in 1940 – was the person most respected and listened to.