Shooting an Elephant by George OrwellFew supervisors experience disrespect and denunciation from workers because of their position in a company. Supervisors take actions to maintain the image of authority before subordinates and to avoid being ridiculed by their employees, even if supervisors oppose these types of actions. The essay "Shooting an Elephant" refers to this situation. The author of this essay is George Orwell. The author talks about his work and personal experience which highlights the impact of imperialism on a sociological and psychological level. This article will discuss Orwell's essay, how artistic choices shape the facts in the essay, how the relationship between facts and artistry contributed to the essay, the technique used, and how the tension between facts and artistic intention in his thesis is connects to the workplace. Essay, artistic choices and the relationship between facts and artistic ability. The author joined the Indian Imperial Police as a colonial constable in Moulmein, Lower Burma, located in the part of the British Empire. This story took place in the late 1920s or early 1930s (Orwell, 1996, p.150). The story explains a cultural conflict between the English (subjugated) and the Burmese (subjugated). Few Englishmen are present despite British rule, and the narrator, as a sub-divisional police officer, is an agent of that rule. This contradiction is part of the context, as is local resentment against the British presence. The Burmese hate the narrator and manifest this hatred through deception rather than directly. The Burmese would not raise a revolt, but they would let the British know how they felt. The author states that if a European woman wandered alone through the bazaars someone would probably... middle of paper..., animals and people's psychological space. Imperialism is described with a compelling metaphor. This essay with its metaphors, irony and imagery relates well to today's workplace. Conclusion Some supervisors have the idea that their decisions are the only matters that matter. They become "the main actor". They don't need to listen to anyone else, so they have the strength to act on their own. The irony is that they are mocked by every petty instigator who manages to convince them that petty bickering and debates belong to them. So supervisors, like Orwell, do what can be identified as reckless and improper. Reference Orwell, G. (1996). Shoot an elephant. In C. LaRocoo & J. Coughlin (Eds.), The art of work: An anthology of workplace literature (pp. 142-150). Cincinnati: South-Western Educational Publishing