German Management System :: essays research papers

German management, as it has evolved over the centuries and has established itself since World War II, has a distinct style and culture. Like so many things German, it goes back to the medieval guild and merchant tradition, but it also has a sense of the future and of the long term. The German style of competition is rigorous but not ruinous. Although companies might compete for the same general market, as Daimler-Benz and BMW do, they generally seek market share rather than market domination. Many compete for a specific niche. German companies despise price competition. Instead, they engage in what German managers describe as Leistungswettbewerb, competition on the basis of excellence in their products and services. They compete on a price basis only when it is necessary, as in the sale of bulk materials like chemicals or steel. The German manager concentrates intensely on two objectives: product quality and product service. He wants his company to be the best, and he wants it to have the best products. The manager and his entire team are strongly product oriented, confident that a good product will sell itself. But the manager also places a high premium on customer satisfaction, and Germans are ready to style a product to suit a customer's wishes. The watchwords for most German managers and companies are quality, responsiveness, dedication, and follow-up. Product orientation usually also means production orientation. Most German managers, even at senior levels, know their production lines. They follow production methods closely and know their shop floors intimately. They cannot understand managers in the United States who want only to see financial statements and "the bottom line" rather than inspect a plant's production processes. A German manager believes deeply that a good-quality production line and a good-quality product will do more for the bottom line than anything else. Relations between German managers and workers are often close, because they believe that they are working together to create a good product. If there is a third objective beyond quality and service, it is cooperation--or at least coordination--with government. German industry works closely with government. German management is sensitive to government standards, government policies, and government regulations. Virtually all German products are subject to norms--the German Industrial Norms (Deutsche Industrie Normen--DIN)--established through consultation between industry and government but with strong inputs from the management associations, chambers of commerce, and trade unions. As a result of these practices, the concept of private initiative operating within a public framework lies firmly imbedded in the consciousness of German managers.

Comparing America’s Economy in the 1920s and the Current Economic Situation Essay

Few periods in America have influenced the current government structure, size, and economy rather than the â€Å"Roaring Twenties† and the â€Å"Great Depression†. At the beginning of the 1920s, the United States was converting from wartime to peace time economy at the time weapons for World War I were no longer useful. In this decade, America became the richest nation in the world and a culture of consumerism was born. People spent money for better roads, tourism, and holiday resorts. Real estates booms sent land prices soaring (DeLong, 1997). Looking at technology, it played a vital role in delivering the economic and cultural good times that most of America enjoyed during the 1920s. The automobile’s popularity, construction of roads and highways, poured fresh public funds into the economy. This resulted to tremendous economic prosperity. Technology enhanced communication with the first public station being established, KDKA, the year 1922 introduced the first movie made with sound- The Jazz singer. It is in this time that the United States became a modern middle-class economy of radios, consumer appliances, automobiles and suburbs. Mass production had made the United States the richest society the world had ever seen (DeLong, 1997). The economy today seems to negate the glory it received in the 1920s. According to Leonhardt (2010), it produced $ 15 trillion worth of goods and services in 2008 in estimates, making it the largest in the world. The US economy however has shown a downward trend since in 2007, it began to slow significantly mainly because of a real-estate slump and other financial problems that has led the economy into a recession. The recession continued up to early 2009, making it the longest one in decades. August 2009 came with some hope with the Federal Reserve Bank’s policy-making committee saying that they believed the recession was ending. The bank cautioned that the recovery would be slow and there was a possibility that unemployment was to remain high for another year. The year 2010 is seen as the year of severe economic contraction. According to Whitney (2010), reports in the financial media believe that the effects of ongoing credit contraction and the massive injection of the central bank liquidity have prevented the collapse of financial markets. A lot is still to be done in order to leverage households and stimulate the general economic activity. The financial crisis has stripped the economy $ 13 trillion in equity and Americans have grown gloomier about the economy and the nation’s direction over the past few months, although it shows signs of moving to recovery. The country is persistent with high unemployment with ordinary working people continuing to fight to keep their jobs and maintain their standard of living. This is a contrast on what was happening in the 1920s. US had transformed in less than a decade to become the richest Nation in the world. High pay of $5 a day showed the low unemployment rate that existed. Industries were booming with high profits and numerous companies opened their doors to start operations. The US might be the world’s leading economy, but the current unemployment rates, the number of businesses closing their doors as a result of inability to pay their debts and the constraints the government face in order to fully fund the budget requirements are overwhelming. The government, the Fed and the whole economy need to work towards alleviating bottlenecks that cause the economy harm. They need to uphold policies that will see to it that economy does not run to the stagflation condition of the 1970s.

How firmly was the Tsar in control of Russia before 1905? Essay

Russia was an Autocracy before 1905 and the Tsar was Nicholas 2nd. Many people dispute over whether he was in control or not, the main factors being: The Tsar’s leadership, Opposition to the Tsar, Social and Economic conditions and finally means of control. It can be argued that some factors are more important than others, but they are all significant in how I believe the Tsar was losing control. The Tsar’s flaws as a leader were an extremely important reason as to why he was losing control of his country. Russia was an autocracy- this meant that the Tsar had full control of the country and had the final say in every decision. This could have been positive, but I think it was a negative thing. He was not a very decisive person, and he would not delegate to others (An example of this being, how he interfered in the appointments of local midwives.) While he was busy doing the wrong jobs he needed employees that were capable of the best. Another flaw of Nicholas’ was that he was extremely suspicious of those cleverer than him and fired many of his best workers (Count Witte) and preferred to hire only family and friends. This helped to weaken his control on Russia because not only did he lose respect from his people, but also he was not doing his job and as the only ruler of the country, Russia did not have a focused authority figure. The Tsar had a lot of opponents within Russia and he did not deal with them to the best of his abilities. This meant he was not firmly in control of Russia at all. The 4 main opposing groups were: The Liberals (Cadets), The Social Revolutionaries (SRs) and The Social Democratic Party (Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks) Although the different groups were all angry at different things, the one thing they had in common was that they were all unhappy about Russia’s Social and Economic Situation. In my opinion the Bolsheviks were the most dangerous group towards Tsar and the government, followed by the SRs then the Mensheviks finally the Liberals. Even though the Liberals had the most supporters, they were a peaceful group; they were not doing any damage to Russia. The Tsar did not believe they were a threat so chose to ignore them. However with the Bolsheviks they had a huge following (the working class.) Their approach to change was violence as was the SRs. The SRs managed to get close enough to the government to kill 2 of their officials. The Tsar dealt with the Bolsheviks and the SRs by killing them or exiling them. By exiling them he showed a lot of inexperience with how he dealt with these groups .All he did was send them away; this did not stop them from coming back! Siberia is in the east of the country (the opposite side as to where the Tsar was), but it is also a desert. This meant that the people the Tsar exiled became resentful towards him, as they had to live in a desert. An advantage to being exiled was that it was in the middle of nowhere. The organisations could discuss ideas and produce plans of future rebellions without the Tsar knowing what was going on. By not knowing this he lost an element of control because he did not know what his most violent organisations were doing. Every group in the Feudal system (except the aristocrats) had an organisation to rival the Tsar. This was bad because that meant at the very least only 1.5% of the population (aristocrats) were in full support of him. By not having the full support of his people the Tsar lost a lot of control because as a leader your people need to respect you but also have faith that you will do the right thing for the country in general (not just a specific group.) The monarchy was mostly made up of aristocrats, so was the government and army officials. By having only aristocrats in important positions the Tsar was not being fair, the 80% of the population that were peasants had a lot of reasons to despise the Tsar. This further allowed his control on Russia to loosen, it lost him support of people and the public started to realise that the Tsar was not the leader they needed to help them receive a better way of living. They needed someone that was not desperate for the power and someone who could hold control. Finally the fact the organizations even existed meant that he had lost some control already. If people respected him they would no t have started oppositions and formed plans. The groups all had plans. Whether they would work or not was a different issue. His weak leadership meant that he would not let anyone help him, he had resorted to last attempts by exiling people and had become desperate this shows how out of control he was and he knew it, because no one helped him he did not have a well thought out plan as to how to deal with the groups. The social and economic conditions in Russia would have made it hard for any leader to keep control, never mind the Tsar (a poor leader who had a lot of opposition.) 80% of Russia were peasants where as the aristocracy who owned 25% of the land and were only 1.5% of the population. This suggests that the gap between the rich and the poor was extreme. As the number of peasants moving to the city increased, more and more people started to realise how big this gap truly was and did not like it. Having to walk past lavish mansions on their way home, to rooms they probably shared with at least 1 other family created tension between the two social groups. The rich were getting richer and the poor poorer and nobody could move up the system. To make matters worse Russia spans 12 time zones and 60% of the population did not speak Russian. The Tsar lived in the far west so if a problem occurred in the east he would not be able to deal with it for days which meant his control of the situation decreased. If only 40% of you population speaks the national language it makes it harder for internal communication. The laws in Russia may have been harder to understand and those who did not speak the Tsar’s language would not have been as easy to control. The Tsar did not have as much domination as he thought he did because he could not control what was happening with some of the people and circumstances in the other end of his country. The Tsar used a lot of resources to try and keep his people under control, but to me it became apparent that the more resources he used the more the people refused to submit to his rules. One of his many means of control was the religious persecution of the Jews. All throughout history dictators have used specific groups of people (mostly the Jews) as scapegoats. Trying to pass the blame of the country onto someone else showed that the Tsar feared he would lose all of his control over the people if they thought it was his entire fault. Other means of control the Tsar used were: Secret police, regular police, prisons, and the army. In Leo Tolstoy’s letter to the Tsar in 1902 he says, â€Å"The numbers of regular police and of the secret police are continually growing.† This shows that the Tsar had started these policies but they were not working. People refused to be led by a man that was not objective to all groups in society and did not have the leadership required to be a successful Tsar. Overall I think that in the long-term it weakens his control but in the short term in strengthens his control. Showing the force he has the power to use might scare some of the population into behaving (but not for very long, I think they will see right through him.) However, having to rely on force (only at the point of a gun) shows his concern of the control he has over his country. The fact that the severity of the situation ended in armed forces patrolling the people, carrying live ammunition also shows his concern and ever shrinking clasp of control. After reviewing all of the evidence I believe that the Tsar was not in control of Russia before 1905. The Tsar’s poor qualities as a leader lost him respect from the people, as did the organizations opposing him. His desperation showed a lot in the decisions he made. If you are in control you are not desperate, you believe in the decisions you make, and the Tsar did not. Almost all of his forms of control failed in the long-term. The opposing groups managed to create plans and had a substantial number of followers. The social and economic situation made it ever harder to control Russia and his flaws isolated him from help and minimized the 1.5% of people that believed in him. The strongest evidence in my opinion is the opposition to the Tsar. All of the other facts contributed to the main point that he had opposition. If a leader has friction between him and his people he will always struggle to have control but the Tsar just had to many recurring problems to have control.

Recreational Hunting and Fishing †A Great Time with Family

Recreational Hunting and Fishing – A Great Time with Family Free Online Research Papers Ever since I was younger I have really enjoyed a nice morning hunt or fish, it has always been something I look up to doing. Hunting and fishing are great ways to relive stress and relax after a long day. They are big recreational sports these days fathers and there children get the shot guns or fishing poles and hit the water or the woods just as we have since we were younger. Different than 20 years ago now we have peta groups and animal rights groups trying to take away a completely humane sport. Hunting and fishing is viewed by many as inhumane and disgusting. These people say this because they don’t think it is right for humans to go and hunt and fish innocent animals. Hunting and fishing for your food is a way of saving money and eating the animals you hunt or fish witch I consider sport. But if you kill an animal and don’t have it mounted or eat it I would not consider it a sport because the meat has gone to waist. Another thing that the anti hunting groups bring up is animal rights. Yes I will admit if you shoot an animal and then let it run and don’t recover it or catch a fish tear its gill and through it back that is cruel but that is the down side you have to take hunting or fishing. Animals have rights but going out and hunting to eat the meat is normal just like an animal with dominance will go and hunt a smaller animal to fill the stomach it is part of life. These groups say we are really destroying the population of the animals that we hunt or fish. We may be endangering the species a very little bit. But the department of natural resources has bag limits on species to regulate how much of each species is being killed. If there isn’t hunting these species will become over populated and then that is how diseases spread that can wipe out a whole species. With hunting we regulate the population which will keep these animals in better living. Why do we have CWD in deer because they are over populated and that’s how this all begins that is the best example on why hunting is humane. Hunting and fishing are very good ways of spending time with family and will help you take your mind of the stressful things in life. You also get to get a lot of free meat and it is inexpensive. A real sportsman will eat and butcher every thing they kill so nothing will go to waist. There is not any thing wrong with hunting it is a very fun an entertaining way to spend your free time peacefully. Research Papers on Recreational Hunting and Fishing - A Great Time with FamilyGenetic EngineeringCapital PunishmentThe Effects of Illegal Immigration19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraPersonal Experience with Teen PregnancyThe Spring and AutumnDefinition of Export QuotasMarketing of Lifeboy Soap A Unilever ProductQuebec and CanadaLifes What Ifs

Female Genital Mutilation essays

Female Genital Mutilation essays Around the world at least one women in three has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in their lifetime. (Population Report 1) Physical, sexual, psychological and economic abuse are what would be included in a description of violence against women and girls. These four different types of abuse are established most frequently as gender-based for the unique reason that they enhance the inferiority of women as compared to men. (Population 1) Violence that is gender based is seen as a huge health concern and infringes upon a womans rights as a human being. All over the entire world countless women and girls experience violence through a fixed practice known as Female Genital Mutilation, which involves the cutting of the female genitals. This practice of Female Genital Mutilation usually takes place, during infancy, childhood or adolesence and can have permanent effects on the girls physical or cognitive well being. Many women who may be traumatized by their circumsion experiences, worried about a physical complication or fearful of sex have no acceptable means of expressing their feelings and suffer in silence when the pressure reaches a certain level their condition can progress to psychological levels (Taubia 19). Female Genital Mutilation is indecent, and pointless; female circumsion takes away from the integrity of women , and the right they have to their own bodies. Female Genital Mutilation has traditionally been called female circumcision, by identifying its harmful consequences the term circumcision is a much gentler form, that does not categorize between the process used for that of male circumcision. Female Genital Mutilation is the common practice that includes the cutting and removal of sexual organs. The severity of female genital mutilation varies in different cultures, it involves the removal of part or all of the genital organs clitoris a...

Spontaneous Process Definition and Examples

Spontaneous Process Definition and Examples In a system, whether it be in chemistry, biology, or physics there are spontaneous processes and nonspontaneous processes. Spontaneous Process Definition A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own. For example, a ball will roll down an incline, water will flow downhill, ice will melt into water, radioisotopes will decay, and iron will rust. No intervention is required because these processes are thermodynamically favorable. In other words, the initial energy is higher than the final energy. Note how quickly a process occurs has no bearing on whether or not it is spontaneous. It may take a long time for rust to become obvious, yet when iron is exposed to air, the process will occur. A radioactive isotope may decay instantly or after thousands or millions or even billions of years. Spontaneous Versus Nonspontaneous Energy must be added in order for a nonspontaneous process to occur. The reverse of a spontaneous process is a nonspontaneous process. For example, rust doesnt convert back into iron on its own. A daughter isotope wont return to its parent state. Free Energy and Spontaneity The change in Gibbs free energy for a process may be used to determine its spontaneity. At constant temperature and pressure, the equation is: ΔG ΔH - TΔS Where ΔH is the change in enthalpy and ΔS is the change in entropy. If ΔG is negative, the process is spontaneous.If ΔG is positive, the process is nonspontaneous (but would be spontaneous in the reverse direction).If ΔG is 0 then the process is at equilibrium and no net change is occurring over time.

Cultural Diversity in the U.S Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2

Cultural Diversity in the U.S - Essay Example Even though Brazilian and Mexican citizens have similarly been insecure and subject to social injustice by the abusive civil authorities, police enforcers as well as corrupt politicians, Mexicans still afford, by articles 6 and 7 of their constitution, to obtain the proper implementation of the provision that grants each citizen the freedom of speech or of any other forms of self-expression which the Brazilians are mostly anxious to put into practice having been confronted with constant risk of harassment and killings in the process (MIEPA). When reviewed, Brazil’s state has had difficulty in stabilizing institutions to accord with the established policy as in the time when there occurred imbalance due to economic factors associated with inflation and unresolved issues on human rights violation alongside. On the other hand, Fox administration had managed to align economic policies of the government with the desired institutional stability. On a greater scale, however, on reforming certain policies by a government which comprised officials who are inadequately knowledgeable of handling the tasks to maintain a stable Mexican economy, there ought to be alternative means of exhibiting political effectiveness to expedite economic growth and thus affect other sectors in a favorable manner. It may additionally be pointed out that when it comes to providing reinforcement of environmental protection laws, neither Brazilian nor Mexican government agency has been found blameless of inefficient employment of appropriate measures. IBAMA of Brazil, for instance, has relied upon tools and resources that are rather scarce or have limited capacity to aid in analyzing corporate plans in relation to environmental impact. In the same way, while the Mexican government has identified specific means to regulate the worsening case of air pollution in the country,