The Argument:
The best way for society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.


The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. Leaders of governments or organisations are often left with the decision friend or foe. A government should instill a sense of cooperation within young people, however in practice a small amount of competition is what ultimately is the cause for innovation.

Firstly, the ultiamte goal of any leader within in a organisation is to futher that organisation and to make a good impact on society. Cooperation between organisations is great thing, that can often lead to companies working together resulting in further advances in society. An example of which is the motor car company Tesla. Tesla back in 2013, was the forefront company in developing electricity powered cars, with no other company being able to match their designs or performance. However, Tesla was blighted by high costs for the cars, as well as convincing people to adopt electicity powered cars. To solve this, Tesla announced that it would repeal their patents, allowing other companies to make use of their technology, with the ultimate goal of decresing prices, and causing more electricity powered cars to be released. Since then there has been a surge in the amount of electricity powered cars being realeased and produced which has ultimately reduced fossil fuel consumption and helped to further society. By working with the competition Tesla as company and Elon Musk as the leader was able to
increase his chance of achieving his dream goal, which is by 2020 for the number of electricity powered cars to outnumber the petrol powered cars.

Moreover, competition can also stifle both individuals and innovation, resulting in wasted time. An example of this would be during the "War of the Currents (AC vs DC current)" between Thomas Edison and Nicolas Tesla. During this time, the competition between the individuals lead to Thomas Edison, the richer individual, to launch smearing campaigns and verbal attacks to stymie Nicolas Teslas' use of AC currents to dsitribute electricity across long distances. Eventually the better idea of AC currents prevailed however not at the cost of 5-10 years being wasted in competition between the individuals. The example shows that competition can actually delay the process of society adopting good ideas, ultimately leading in the prevention of further enhancing humanity. It is thus better to spurn a cooperative environment where people work together rather than against to ensure ideas are not inhibited but promoted.

On the other hand, the largest spur of innovation occured in the 20th century during the cold war era, between the US and the Soviet Union. Both countries were considered to be in direct competition with each other. During this period, humanities greatest challenge space travel, was solved, with the United States Apollo mission program landing on the moon. In addition, birth of the jet engine also occured in a competitive environment during the World War 2. It is evident, that innovation can also occur in competitive environments, which often push people to the edge, getting the best out of individuals to further humanity. However, it is not without the cooperation of individuals within the respective countries that could have resulted in space travel.

In conclusion, cooperation can lead to great things and can often help in the mass adoption of ideas, and a reduction in the amount of time wasted in competition. However, evidence shows that a competitive environment can also often push people to the edge, getting the best out of people and hence furthering humanity. Nonetheless it is the healthy balance between the two that will result in successful leaders.

The Issue:


"According to a recent report from marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super-Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public 's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising"

Super-Screen makes the assumption that its movies are of high quality in comparison to others, and that ailing numbers of viewers, is due to positive reviews not being read by the public. However a number of questions need to be answered before Super Screen allocates more of its budget towards advertising.

Firstly, Super Screen mentions the fact that fewer people have attended Super-Screen produced movies in the past year, however it fails to relate the reduction in the number of people viewing its movies and the total reduction or increase in viewers of all movies. Super-Screen would first have to identify whether the reduction in number of people, is correlated with the reduction in number of people going to the cinemas, if it has fallen at the same rate, that would mean that it would be out of Super-Screen's hands and they should not allocate more budget to advertising, as this may ultimately impact the quality of their movies. However, if its decreased whilst it the rate of people going to movies has increased this would strengthen the recommendation.

Secondly, Super-Screens main argument for increasing advertising budget is the fact that there have been an increase in the percentage of positive reviews, but a decrease in the number of people attending the movies. However, that specific percentage is not the most reliable data to base the change in budget on, because if there has been a reduction in the number of people attending, there will have been less reviewers. Hence a positive review is much more likely to have a greater impact on the overall percentage of positive reviews . For example, if there had been 100 positive reviews out of 200 this would give you a percentage of 50%, but if there had been 50 positive reviews out of 75 this would give you 66% but in fact the number in postiive reviews have decreased. Therefore the company should first identify the ratio of postiive to negative, and correlate it with critics reviews first before basing they're changes on the specific results of the reviews they have previously collected.

Finally, the production company does not take into account the market at the time of decreasing numbers. In addition, it assumes that just because its movies have received positive reviews everyone will come see the movie. Although the Super-Screen movies are producing positive reviews, there may be other films on the market which have received even better reviews than that of Super-Screen. This would mean less people attending there movies as they are more inclined to view the better rated movies. Therefore, the positive reviews have been received by the public, but the public have opted for higher rated films. Before Super-Screen makes the decision to increased its advertising budget, it should first compare its reviews to other films on the market, this may indicate whether Super-Screen actually needs to improve the quality of it movies, rather than the advertising budget. This could also mean Super-Screen could time its films to be released at a time where there is iless competition on the movie market, which would be a cost-free fix to its problems.

In conclusion, Super-Screen, need to identify whether the reduction in the number of people attending there films is out of trend with the market conditions. Moreover, it needs to identify a better index for determining how its movies are perceived by its viewers; whilst also comparing its reviewed movies to that of those on the market, to identify the quality of its movies in comparison to other films on the market.