FILM CASE ANALYSIS OF

ANIMAL FARM
Aadish Goel, Riddhiraj Singh Sehgal, Palak Minda, Shreyas Kafle, Akansha
Chaudhary
FILM CASE ANALYSIS ON ANIMAL FARM BY GEORGE ORWELL

Executive Summary

Animal farm is a fiction in which Animals of initially Manor farm, collectively form a team

and take over the human owner of the farm. The farm was initially ruled by the major, who

motivated the farm by indoctrinating them with his vision of Animalism. Shortly after the

major died, the animals did a radical revolution. In the movie, the pigs take the lead and

direct the other animals’ tasks. The pigs have been depicted giving commands to animals on

whom to attack during the fight with human beings. Team dynamics have been clearly

portrayed in the movie. The role of each animal has been portrayed to be very essential.

Shortly, after the farm was taken over, the pigs took the lead. There were two pigs with

contrasting leadership styles. While Napoleon was an autocratic leader, snowball was a

democratic and charismatic leader. Napoleon attacked Snowball using vicious dogs, and

threw him out of the organisation. Consequently, Napoleon took lead of the organisation.

Napoleon solely focused on making profits. He didn’t interact with any animals in the farm.

Farm animals were exploited and made to work like they used to under human leadership. At

the end of the movie, its shown that the animals cannot differentiate between humans and

Napoleon.

In this paper, we will analyse Animal farm with Management theories. We firstly, state the

problem statement, and then move towards identifying the cause of the problem. In this part,

we use SWOT and Stakeholder analysis to assess the status of the firm. After establishing the

cause of the problem, the alternatives are discussed. We conclude by recommending the

alternatives the farm should opt for.

Problem Statement

Why did the autocratic leadership style not provide the means to the animals to break

free from the oppressive and exploiting characteristics of the humans and achieve an

egalitarian society and through which leadership style and managerial solutions can we

accomplish it?

The main problem that arises in the movie is the autocratic leadership style followed

by Napoleon and the pigs after disbanding Snowball from the farm. This leadership style

made the vision of free England which was proposed by the Old Major for the animals, null

and void because the pigs eventually followed into the footsteps of the repressive rule of the

humans towards the animals.

The prevalence of this leadership style lead to the exploitation of the workforce, the

animals were not given breaks and their working hours were increased, fall in productivity

and the quality of the final outcome which also served as one of the reason for the fall of the

windmill and suppression of subordinate animals and curbing creativity, the views of other

animals were cut by the sudden outburst by the goats of various slogans eventually praising

Napoleon. It also led to unequal distribution of resources and ration, the pigs could live in

Mr. Jones house and were given more milk and apples whereas the other animals had to stay

in the barn, there was a decrease in the quality of life of the other animals, elongated work

hours and zero incentives to encourage the animals to work.

SWOT Analysis of the Farm as an organisation and its implications on leadership

Strength  Weakness 

* Strong labor force motivation  * Selfish goals of the top level management 

* Strong and clear sense of goal  * Poor control 

* Highly specialized labor force  * Lack of strong leadership 

* Strong work ethics amongst the labor force  * Autocratic leadership 

* High efficiency  * Falling labor motivation 

Opportunity  Threat 

* High industry growth  * Attempts by humans to capture animals 

* Ability to include other animals in the * High competition in the industry 

business (from around the country) 

As was seen in the movie “Animal Farm”, the animals overthrow their human counterpart

and choose to run the farm themselves. This was caused due to the harsh autocratic style of

leadership that the humans possessed. This lead to extremely low levels of motivation in the

labour force (as in the animals themselves). This rooted a conflict between two key

stakeholders of the organization and resulted in the banishing of the manager from the farm

itself. This was possible because under this conflict, the animals (workers) had both high
interest and high power (as the production process solely relied on them) allowing for the

decision to be weighed in their favour. 

However, the key concern of lack of proper leadership still prevailed. Therefore, with the

help of a SWOT analysis, an attempt to find the problem in the leadership and determining

the right leadership style has been made. SWOT stand for Strength (internal), Weakness

(internal), opportunity (external) and threats (external). The analysis of both internal and

external forces helps us to clearly outline the right leadership style for the farm that is

workable both as per the animals in the farm (internal) and the entire farming industry

(external). 

The key strengths possessed by the animals was in terms of high self-motivation when the

human leader was thrown out. This is because they saw a higher sense of belonging in the

firm and felt more secure (as there was no human that could cause them harm). This

increased motivation is supported by Maslow’s theory as the first three levels of the

motivation pyramid were now met. This resulted in a highly motivated and productive

workforce, which was seen in the exponentially increased yield of the animal farm.

The animals also had a clear sense of the objective that they were working towards in terms

of a better lifestyle. This common goal of removing all the suppressed animals from their

agony helped the animals stay focused and united as they all shared a common vision.

However, the lack of “measurability” of this objective later lead to the distortion of the farm,

as the animals were working on a goal that had no quantifiable limit attached to it. Leading to

falling motivation as they did not see the results of their goals surfacing (due to the sheer

magnitude of the goal being to liberate animals everywhere). 

Another key advantage that the animals held over the humans (their competitors) was that

they had high amounts of specialization in what they did. This resulted in greater efficiency
of production and minimal amounts of resources were wasted. This brought down the costs

that the farm had to bear to hold the animals and lead to higher productivity in yield and

money (when the pigs start selling the farms output). 

On the contrary all these strengths were quickly put at risk due to the ineffective leadership

that was shown by the pigs. Primarily because the pigs (as leaders) and the animals (as

workers) did not share the same goals. This lead to a drift amongst the two and lead to greater

inefficiency in the farm as the labours started to get demotivated. The pigs also showed poor

management skills where they changed and broke the rules of the farm as per their

convenience. This set forth a wrong example for the workforce as the subordinated learn

from their superiors. At the same time the pigs took little to no input from the other animals

in decision making process. That resulted in them setting goals that were too rough for the

animals to handle (like the building of the windmill) and at the same time the hygiene factors

were taken away from the animals (by creating poor working condition and giving them less

food). This resulted in them becoming highly demotivated and turned their strength of

motivation into a weakness as they now lacked motivation due to poor management. 

The autocratic form of leadership also took away the animals’ sense of belongingness (as

they wished to create an environment that was all including). The animals also lost their key

purpose for which they had overthrown their last leader which was to treat all animals

equally. This resulted in the animals spiralling back into a form of leadership where they had

little to no say in what happened. Showing how improper leadership was the key reason for

poor efficiency and low levels of motivation that had turned the animal farm’s strengths into

its weaknesses. 

At the same time Animal Farm operates in an FMCG industry. In the rapidly growing society

it could be safely assumed that the industry was expanding. At the same time the farm had
record breaking producing and sales. Which meant the almost all their products were “star”

products, being of high profit value. However, as the change in leadership kicked in and as

the pigs started to slow down the entire process by building the windmill it was seen that the

farm saw a decline in the production of all their products (which is not a strategy used to

produce and market star products), showing how ineffective leadership caused the farm to

stoop down from being stars to question marks. Another opportunity that animals at the

animal farm had was in terms of great availability of labour. Animals from all around wanted

to be a part of the animal farm and leave their human counterpart. However, this was also

severely hampered by the ineffective leadership that was shown by the pigs resulting in

labour force demotivation and falling profits. 

Moving further, the animal farm faced threats from humans and the industry as a whole, in

terms of high competition. This meant that it was essential for animal farm to change its

tactical objectives towards survival and facing completion. However, their failure to do the

same resulted in them facing continuous revolts from both humans and their own workforce

due to lack of effective leadership. At the same time humans attempt and suppressing and

taming animals was a major threat that was to be overcome by the animal farm should they

wish to survive and continue operations; for which to happen an effective form of leadership

and effective two way communication must be established if animal farm wishes to escape

this threat.

Stakeholder Analysis of the Animal Farm

A stakeholder of an organization anyone who has a stake in the organization. In simpler

words, a stakeholder is anyone who is affects or is affected by the acts of an organization.

Once organizations start to grow, they should be aware about how their actions impact people

in proximity. The stakeholders of the farm are: the animals in the farm, the neighboring farms
and buyers and consumers of their product. We will do a stakeholder analysis on two

perspectives of two leaders of the farm: Napoleon and Snowball. Animal farm can be

classified as an organization that has now been producing goods under their leaders Napoleon

and Snowball. All the animals in the farm were assigned roles and duties that they had to

abide by. Napoleon and Snowball had contrasting leadership mechanisms. On one hand,

Snowball was a democratic and a charismatic leader who listened to and communicated with

the animals, and focused on the overall welfare of the farm. On the other hand, Napoleon

was an autocratic leader who didn’t listen to and communicate with his fellow teammates and

subordinates.

Stakeholder Analysis (Snowball)

Snowball strictly adhered to the stakeholder theory of the firm 1. Snowball took suggestions

from his team and focused on making the farm a better place. He strictly followed the

principles of Animalism: All animals are equal. Snowball taught the animals to read and

write which would improve the skills of the animals which would in turn help the

organization to come up with creative and innovative ideas. Snowball understood that the

animals had the most salience and were very essential for the farm to function. Snowball

had also maintained a positive relationship between the neighboring farms, as they were a

stakeholder of the firm. Snowball wanted to create welfare for the entire organization.

Snowball focused most of his attention on Animals of the farm. They hold the most salience

in the organization, hence they should be of the most interest and have the most power.

Without the work done by the animals, the farm will fail to function. The consumers of the

products of an organization have the utmost power as the firm would fail entirely if their

products aren’t consumed or bought. While they are very essential to success of the firm,

1
Stakeholder theory of the firm states that organizations have to serve a boarder purpose
that is to create value for the society.
Snowball did not focus entirely on them. Snowball primarily focused on educating the

animals of the firm. Snowball also maintained peace between them and the farmers in

proximity.

Stakeholder Analysis (Napoleon)

Napoleon on the other hand was an autocratic leader. For him the welfare of the farm, growth

and development of the animals were immaterial. His focus was to create a surplus, by

overworking and exploitation of animals that worked in his farm. His dictatorship form of

leadership is not healthy for the firm in the long run and is certainly not contributing towards

the vision of the farm. The leadership technique of Napoleon and the previous farmers are the

same. The firm would fail to function once the animals lose the ability to work.

While Snowball focused on increasing the innovation and productivity of the animals,

Napoleon only wanted the surplus. Napoleon’s method kills innovation and efficiency. For

Napoleon, production surplus was only of high interest and the buyers of the product as the

buyers of the products buy the surplus.

 Figure 2 – Napoleon’s Stakeholders history

Decision Criteria and Alternative Solutions:

The flaws inherent in the prevalent mode of governance by Napoleon gave rise to many

complications which needed to be addressed. In this light there are multiple alternative plans

of action that can be recognised for the organisation depicted in ‘Animal Farm’. Enlisted

below are the very same alternatives classified by the criteria they are based on.

1) Leadership Model – The authoritarian leadership in the present organisation model of

Animal farm created certain problems where there was unequal division of labour,

giving rise to a leadership model where the ‘employee orientation’ was missing. An

alternative to the same would be switching to a democratic set up where a charismatic

leader like ‘Snowball’ heads the organisation, inculcating a strong human resource

framework into the organisation. The shift from the incumbent style to this style of
 leadership includes the con of possibility of a sudden lackadaisical attitude which was

not there in the authoritarian system since the strict imposition there ensured deadlines

being met. On the other hand, the major advantage of this system would be the

camaraderie and healthy working conditions that would extract innovativeness that

lacked earlier.

2) Marketing Model – The marketing model adopted by the animals currently is a B2B

i.e. Business to Business model where the trade is between various farm business. An

alternative would be to also adopt a B2C i.e. Business to Consumer model where the

organisation enters into retail to directly supply to the consumers. The abundant

production can be utilised to earn more profits by parallelly running this system. One

burden that this system would incorporate is the need for increase in the sales force.

3) Working Hours and conditions – Labour at the animal farm was done from ‘dusk till

dawn’. This overburdening although helped to achieve the tasks earlier but had a huge

impact on the efficiency and innovativeness. An alternative to the same would be

reduction of the working hours so keep the animal workers ‘satisfied’ with their job in

order to keep them motivated. Moreover, since the organisation lacked any animal

resource management team, it can be incorporated to maintain a healthy functioning

of the organisation by addressing the management of labour in the organisation.

4) Diversity in the higher executive positions – Since, all the higher executive positions

in the animal farm are occupied by pigs, it creates a risk of resentment among the

other labouring animals, hence being a potential threat to the functioning of

organisation. The pro of bringing diversity into the higher executive positions, is not

only bringing a feeling of mutual respect but a better understanding of the

organisation which has a plethora of different animals working under it. It is

imperative under the ethics of business as well. The only con of the same is that since
 the pigs have been running the whole administration, they have a better understanding

and experience of the executive functioning. The inexperience of other animals in

managerial positions may be an impediment to the growth for some time.

Recommended Solution, Implementation and Justification:

The Animal Farm, deviating from its vision of ‘Animalism’, is on the verge of becoming a

failing organisation. To counter the same, a set of solutions should be implemented to tackle

the problems at hand. The first step towards solving these problems would be a change in the

leadership structure. A democratic leadership structure following the Situational Leadership

theory of Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard should be adopted to ensure a healthy working of

the organisation so that the leader does not only direct but also support the backbone i.e. the

employees of the organisation. This is a four-step model where directing, coaching,

supporting and delegating is done to ensure a healthy workforce. It would work in the present

set up because the authoritarian form of leadership has consistently imposed a feeling of fear

which when done away with would bring back the efficiency which was being died out by

lack of motivation as the leader itself was not charismatic.

The next step would be to implement some organisational changes that would ensure smooth

functioning of the farm. A board of directors should be formed among the animals which

should be of a diverse nature so that all animals by having representation can avoid conflicts

and build upon their reputation in the market. This is highly essential as the pigs’ autonomous

control has created a tense atmosphere for other animals where it has started to build up

feelings of resentment in the them against the top executive body of the organisation.

Moreover, an ‘Animal Resource Management’ team should be introduced to deal with issues

relating to performance management, organisational development, safety, safe work place

environment, motivation and training. This is highly needed for the personal development of
animals which was previously done by Snowball and bridge the gap that exists between the

labour and the top tier executives. Moreover, they should also ensure equal distribution of

work among the animals to uphold the principles of ethics and equal and fair treatment in

business. The working hours of the animals is essential to be reduced to ensure the best

innovativeness of them and a sense of well-being for the employees that every organisation

must have.

The next solution would be to make use of their uniqueness as a branding and marketing

strategy. ‘Animal Farm’ being the first farm industry run autonomously by animals brings

them in a position to bring a market revolution where they can promote their vision of

‘Animalism’ to other farms that have the potential to be run by animals. If it can inspire more

animals to run industries and establish a chain of such farms, it can move towards the path of

become a global industry with its own exclusivity, eliminating the competition.