ETHICAL LEADERSHIP MOVIE ANALYSIS

The Social Network a 2010 movie directed by David Fincher was a biographical drama
based on the book written by Ben Mezrich. It details the makings of Americas most popular
social media platform, Facebook. As the brainchild of Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin
during their early days at Harvard University, the screenplay written by Aron Sorkin draws on
the legal battles Mark faces on the cusp of the explosive success of Facebook.
There are dual ethical dilemmas that present themselves in this film. The first being Mark
defending himself in a case against the Winklevox twins, fellow classmates who enlisted Mark
for his expert knowledge of computer programming for a business venture, a dating website
exclusive to Harvard students. Mark agreed to work on their site while he simultaneously
developed his own idea for The Facebook based on his personal experience with campus
directory information and an understanding of the needs of his peers (to hook up with other
students). The Winklevox claimed that Mark stole their idea and created Facebook on the
backbone of their creation, even though no work was ever done to complete the website the
Winklevox twins had in mind. According to Mark, the twins lacked the knowledge, skills and
creativity necessary to execute their vision.
The second ethical dilemma at play is the suit against Marks former best friend, Eduardo
Saverin. He claimed that Mark forced him out of his share of the company, even though it was
Eduardos personal capital and intellectual contribution to the idea that made Facebook possible.
By enlisting private investors and venture capitalist, Mark was able to take the company from a
small, trendy social site to a worldwide phenomenon that has spring-boarded the social media
industry. Eduardo had other things happening in his life alongside Facebook (that appeared to
make Mark slightly jealous) and missed out on the opportunity to be included in many of the

Lavette Dow-Jones, Movie Analysis

new organizational meetings which caused his demise. The ethical decision at hand is whether or
not Mark should be responsible for paying the plaintiffs their fair share or fight them in court
for what he believed was rightfully his.
The issue of business innovation, startup and ownership are issues that are not new to
business leaders. The court is riddled with cases where a law suit has been filed against former
partners or shareholders of a business venture for what they believe is their rightful ownership
share of profits in the development of a business idea, especially once it is worth millions (or
billions at the time of this writing). The power based expressed by Mark, the key protagonist of
the movie, is that of expert power. Mark was clearly skilled at computer programming and for
that became the instant head of the company as CEO due to his expertise. Eduardo, who at the
inception was the head of Harvards investors club, was the companys CFO. This substantiated
them as adequate leaders until the company became too big for them to grow into what they had
envisioned. Mark recruited additional experts (such as Sean Parker, founder of Napster and
venture capitalist Peter Green) to propel Facebook to the next level.
With power, there comes a struggle of what is good leadership and what is bad. In the
text, Johnson presents these as light (good) and dark (bad) shadows that are cast by leaders and
the basis for what makes a leader ethical, effective and in turn a good (or bad) one. The Shadow
of Power is vital to deciphering the ethical dilemmas presented in this movie. Power, in the
hands of the right people can be good and lead to thriving organizations with followers who are
content. On the flip side, power in the hands of the wrong people can lead to disaster. Although
Mark was an expert in his field, he was pretty immature to other nuances that make good leaders.
Honesty, trust and loyalty being a few. However, he did not grossly commit any of the brutal
boss crimes that include deceit, constraint, coercion, selfishness, inequity, cruelty, disregard, or

Lavette Dow-Jones, Movie Analysis

deification as explored in the text. Mark was simultaneously guilty of casting The Shadow of
Misplaced Trust and Loyalty. In both cases, Mark was entrusted to be trustworthy and loyal in
his dealings with partners and when that did not happen, the lawsuits ensued. Loyalty is a
significant burden placed on leaders. (Johnson, 2012) Managing this burden is no easy task and
has often led leaders down the wrong path, especially those who are inexperienced. Mark was a
young adult, not yet completely developed as a leader and followed the advice of others. His
decisions had selfish connotations and acts of disloyal such as that with his friend Eduardo.
Many leaders today, still do not know where there loyalties should lie and end up making
decisions that only benefit them and not the greater good.
Ultimately, Mark must make a decision as to whether he should settle out of court for an
undisclosed amount in both cases or take them to trial and spend a multiple of the settlements
amounts trying to fight the allegations. This decision is limited to the small group involved in the
matter and does not have a societal or organization impact. Because of Marks immaturity, he
again takes the advice of a young attorney who advised him to settle out of court to get the case
over and done with and to limit the amount of money spent on litigation. Witnessing Marks
decision-making it can be inferred that he has a follower ethic versus that of the five main
general perspectives introduced in the text. This simply being due to the fact that because he was
so young and inexperienced at business, he took advice from others that led to him making
decisions that only looked out for his benefit and not necessarily that of his partners. In this
sense, he engaged with new leaders and resisted the leadership (first with the twins and their
venture and then of his best friend Eduardo) and took a course of action that was given to him by
third parties, some who later became leaders within the Facebook organization itself. Marks
engagement with these individual gave them a level of leadership and power over him that he

Lavette Dow-Jones, Movie Analysis

may not have realized. Most of the advice his was given caused him to focus on his own selfish
interests (seeing Facebook become as great as it has) versus that of what is best for his
community or the public good.
At the end of this ordeal, Mark suffered the consequence of losing relationships. He
compromised a genuine friendship with Eduardo in order to climb to the top. He also
compromised a future business relationship with the Winklevox twins. Had he been honest and
forthright with his dealings with them, they would not have had a leg to stand on it court. He
could have simply told them that he would not be available to work on their idea but instead he
misled them to believe that he would develop their site, perceiving him as untrustworthy. Mark
breached an express contract that led him to pay the Winklevox twins a lump sum of money that
could have otherwise been avoided. In the long run, Mark seemed to continue to surround
himself with knowledgeable counsel that pointed him in the right direction and make Facebook
what it is today.
The decision ethical I defend relative to the film, The Social Network, is whether or not to
sue your best friend over a business deal gone wrong, like Edaurdo Saverin did to Mark
Zuckernerg. Using the Kiddlers Ethical Checkpoints, my decision analysis comes down to the
following:
1. Recognize that there is a problem. The overlying ethical dilemma at play in this film is
whether or not Facebook was an invention all attributable to Mark Zuckerberg or was
some credit due to Eduardo Saverin for its formation. According to the film, it appears
that Mark at least owed his friend more credit than what was allotted. Eduardo was the
financier of the organization and help contribute intellectual property (the algorithm) that
allowed for the creation of Facebook as a whole.

Lavette Dow-Jones, Movie Analysis

2. Determine the actor. The individual responsible for addressing the problem in this case is
Mark who had a personal relationship prior to this invention. Business changes people
and if Mark and Eduardo could have come back to the basics of their relationship then I
believe a better outcome could have developed.
3. Gather the relevant facts. The facts presented themselves as Eduardo being the financial
support of Facebook by allocating capital resources that were essential to its existence in
the beginning. Mark was the brains who ensured that Facebook became a reality.
4. Test for right-versus-wrong issues. My altruistic bias lead me to believe that the best
course of action that could have been taken by Mark, was to be sure that his best friend
Eduardo was taken care of just as he was when the decision was made to take on
additional investors. Love thy neighbor entails being sure that the next person is being
cared for before yourself. That is not to say that I believe Mark should have given
Eduardo more equity than him, but he should have at least given him an rightful share.
5. Test for right-versus-right values. The two right choices that are up against each other in
this film are personal needs vs that of the community and by the community I am
referring to Marks business partners and friends. If Mark would have given Eduardo his
fair share then he may not have been a billionaire as quickly as he wanted too but he
would have preserved a lasting friendship that is worth more than money.
6. Apply the ethical standards and perspectives. Ultimately, Kants Categorical Imperative
comes into play in this situation, Do whats right no matter the cost. Mark should have
taken the position to do what was right by his business partner and given him a fair share
of the business because without him (and his financial contributions) there would have
been no business due to Marks limited means. The company was set up and established
prior to any additional investors being taken on and Mark should have ensured that his
friend and partner received the same level of advisory that he had.

Lavette Dow-Jones, Movie Analysis

7. Look for a third way. Another alternative to Mark and Eduardos ethical dilemma would
have been to discuss Eduardos lack of focus and direction for the company and how to
make him a silent partner (reducing his voting shares but not his profit shares), who
would collect his fair share of the profits for the initial investment he provided. This
would have arbitrarily led the friends to an agreement that could have preserved their
personal and business relationship.
8. Make the decision. All in all, I would have sued Mark for the same rights to Facebook
that Eduardo felt entitled to. They both contributed (even though not equally) to the
makings of the business and should have been advised on how to proceed in order to
make it into the mainstream while conserving their friendship. One the decision was
made to dilute Eduardos shares of Facebook, the friendship suffered irreparable damage.
With all trust and loyalty gone the two did not have a leg to stand on.
9. Revisit and reflect on the decision. The issues that arise from this case than can be used
on future decisions is the value of personal relationships. In my opinion, this is one of the
most sacred covenants of humanity. We are given the ability to build relationships with
people based on our intellect, mental capacities and emotions and should never take that
for granted. That is part of what separates us from other species and gives us an edge over
all living creatures. I will always seek to preserve relationships and build the trust of
those who have laid their loyalty in me and any invention or business idea I come up
with.