Introduction
Hitler and Stalin were two political leaders who had a considerable impact on the development of the world that cost millions of lives. Some tend to evaluate the impact of these historical figures calculating the death toll associated with the war, concentration camps, and the Gulag (Snyder). Both were equally responsible for people’s deaths and the destruction of the world order (Snyder). However, this is not the only similarity between the two notorious men. This paper includes a brief comparison of these historical figures that shows that they had many similarities but paved their way to power in different ways.
Analysis
Hitler and Stalin had quite similar childhood issues with their fathers. The two future leaders had many problems during their school years. For example, Hitler gave up his studies at the age of 16 due to some health problems and never entered the higher educational establishment of his dream (the Vienna Academy of Art) (Jones 394). Stalin was expelled from the Theological Seminary of Tiflis for his “propagating Marxism” (qtd. in Jones 790). The two men took part in military conflicts and gained certain respect and honors from their compatriots. They joined the parties that became their political platforms and pathways to the absolute power in their countries. They both used different tools to become leaders, and those strategies were often illegal, uncivilized, and cruel. Nevertheless, millions of people truly believed and admired them, and there are their fans even in modern society.
At the same time, the differences between the two dictators can tell even more about their personalities and the nations they led. Unlike Hitler who fought for his country in WWI, Stalin took part in terroristic activities that were against the state (Jones 790). Hitler used (mainly) legal methods to enter the political arena. For instance, his party won the elections (Jones 394). On the contrary, Stalin was imprisoned several times, was regarded as a terrorist, and he went up the political ladder without any elections (Jones 790). Hitler was a talented speaker who made his people believe in him and his ideas (Jones 394). Stalin was a “dull” speaker and was often underestimated by his rivals within the party, which was one of the major reasons for his success (Jones 790). These differences show that Hitler was regarded as a charismatic leader by the Germans while the Russians had little power to choose their own leader and accepted the one who managed to win the race within the party. Finally, the two leaders had different views concerning the most appropriate political regime.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible to note that Hitler and Stalin had much in common as they both had difficult early years, a difficult way to absolute power and people’s love. However, unlike Stalin, Hitler used more legal tools to achieve his political goals. Irrespective of this fact, both dictators did not value human life, which resulted in the prosecution of different groups and the start of the Second World War.
Works Cited
Jones, Barry. Dictionary of World Biography. ANU Press, 2016.
Snyder, Timothy. “Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Was Worse.” NYR Daily. 2011.
Credit Quality In Banking Lending And Investment
Introduction
For the last 30 years, bank institutions have represented more than half of the commercial lending sector and approximately a quarter of the entire corporate credit market1. The institutions are cautious creditors and repeatedly work to make credit accessible to credit-worthy companies and individuals throughout the country. Bankers analyse several factors before lending or investing. The features are corporate plans, cash flow forecasts, asset base, auctions, market inquiry, and commercial feasibility2. Banks come up with loaning choices on a case-by-case basis. The conditions of the lending rely on the economic status of the specific commerce in the context of commercial market situations. For instance, if economic problems have an undesirable effect on a company’s monetary condition, then the risk to the financial institution loaning to the organization will be high3. During such situations, the financial institution will be required to request for more security before the lending or the credit might be more costly. However, if the company is creditworthy and the lending institution believes it can pay the loan, the credit will be issued. The article below analyses the credit quality problems of banking institutions’ lending and investment decisions over the last 30 years.
Analysis
In the last 30 years, credit quality issues affecting banking institutions have been associated with regulating credit rating agencies, CRA. Between the year 1990 and 2000, investor confidence was high4. However starting from the year 2000 to 2006, investor assurance decreased, leading to a recession that saw the rise in interest rates as indicated in figure 1 below. Based on the business scandals that devastated investor confidence towards the year 2006, it is apparent that credit quality problems in the last 30 years are the results of let downs on the role of issuers, mediators, stakeholders, supervisors and CRAs. The events that led to the 2006-2009 Recession are largely attributed to the problems caused by CRAs. The top CRAs in Canada are Dominion Bond Rating Services, Canadian Bond Rating Services, Moody, Fitch, and Standard & Poor. Before the 1980s, these CRAs used to earn their incomes through subscriber fees5. However, they have changed their business model. Currently, they charge their issuers for their evaluation facilities. The above agencies offer an assessment of the creditworthiness of issuers in the market. The assessment illustrates how an issuer will probably make timely disbursements of his or her credit.
One major problem that has affected the credit quality is the transparency of the CRAs7. As such, CRAs are mandated to rate issuers using specific metrics. In the recent past, concerns have arisen on how the agencies evaluate their issues. The companies have been accused of not being transparent in their ranking and rating processes. The criticisms have highlighted insufficient revelation by CRAs of their procedures. Financial institutions have been questioning their basic assumptions and assessment criteria. Critics have also highlighted that CRAs are not satisfactorily helpful on the limitations of their evaluations.
For instance, concerns have been raised on whether these institutions offer a satisfactory revelation of the lack of solid substantiation of the information they are provided prior to the release of the assessments. Equally, financial institutions have raised issues with the fact that CRAs do not continuously offer them certifiable and effortlessly comparable past performance date on their scores. The above concerns are considered a credit quality problem by banks because it affects their lending and investment decisions.
Another problem that has affected the credit quality over the last 30 years is the quality of the rating process by CRAs8. Between the years 1990 and 2006, the prices for RMBS and CDOs witnessed considerable growth9. During the same period, the products continued to become more multifaceted. At the same time, CRAs also experienced an increase in growth’s volume and complexity. The above led to difficulties in the quality of their rating process. As such, their staff numbers did not match the advancement in the market. Therefore, it was more common for scores to be released without concerns being addressed. During the same period, resource limitations prevented agencies’ capability to monitor in a well-timed manner the score assigned. Thus, CRAs were blamed for being slow to appraise and lower existing assessments. The above issues are also considered a credit quality problem by banks because it negatively influences their lending and investment decisions.
Conclusion
In the last three decades, concerns have arisen over the role of these CRAs. They are blamed for the 2007-2008 Recession that affected the global economy. As such, the institutions are responsible for the credit quality problems that affect financial institutions’ lending and investment decisions. One major problem that has affected the credit quality is the transparency of the CRAs. Another problem that has affected the credit quality over the last 30 years is the quality of the rating process by CRAs. The issues are major credit quality issues experienced by banks because they adversely influence their lending and investment decisions.
References
Beller, Alan. Lessons Learned from the Market Meltdown. New York: Practising Law Institute, 2008.
Boyarchenko, Svetlana. “Credit Risk, Credit Crunch and Capital Structure.” SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal 12, no. 3 (2007) : 585-625.
Cole, Harold. “Credit Where Credit’s Due.” The Economist. 2014.
Evanoff, Douglas. The First Credit Market Turmoil of the 21st Century. Singapore: World Scientific, 2009.
Farzad, Roben. “The Cliff Is Not a Credit-Rating Crisis.” Bloomberg. 2012. Web.
Foley, Stephen. “Ratings from Credit Crisis Haunt Agencies – FT.com.” Financial Times. 2013. Web.
Leonard, Robin. Credit Repair. 8th ed. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2007.
Saunders, Anthony. Financial Institutions Management: A Risk Management Approach. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2010.
Footnotes
- Robin Leonard. Credit Repair. (8th ed. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2007), 378.
- Alan Beller. Lessons Learned from the Market Meltdown. (New York: Practising Law Institute, 2008), 271.
- Anthony Saunders. Financial Institutions Management: A Risk Management Approach. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2010), 156.
- Svetlana Boyarchenko. “Credit Risk, Credit Crunch and Capital Structure.” SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal 12, no. 3 (2007): 585.
- Harold Cole. “Credit Where Credit’s Due.” The Economist. 2014.
- Stephen Foley. “Ratings from Credit Crisis Haunt Agencies – FT.com.” Financial Times. 2013.
- Roben Farzad. “The Cliff Is Not a Credit-Rating Crisis.” Bloomberg. 2012.
- Stephen Foley. “Ratings from Credit Crisis Haunt Agencies – FT.com.” Financial Times. 2013.
- Douglas Evanoff. The First Credit Market Turmoil of the 21st Century. (Singapore: World Scientific, 2009), 78.
Google Company’s Employee Behavior Management
Google has managed to stay competitive in its industry because its employees understand its values and culture. The firm’s employees have a deep appreciation of the company’s organizational culture because it helps them achieve their personal as well as corporate objectives. Google’s management has made all employees understand its goals and how it wants them to achieve them. This has made them more satisfied with their jobs (Google Corp, 2013). All employees are proud to be associated with a firm that has a strong brand because of the way it conducts its operations in the market. Google continually encourages employees to be more creative in tasks they perform to enable them to acquire more skills and knowledge in crucial work processes. The work environment is relaxed, which workers positive energy needed to achieve goals set.
The firm has strong teams of committed employees who work in different locations across the world. It has recognized the positive contribution employees have in their operations. The firm instituted an effective human resource system, which enhances the level of satisfaction employees have in their jobs. Google has made its employees have positive perceptions about it because of the strong connections it shares with them. The firm’s employees perform their tasks well because they are satisfied with how their duties and responsibilities are designed. The company’s job design takes note of each individual’s skills, talents, and abilities. This approach makes Google nurture its employees to be more competent in their duties. Therefore, the firm benefits from the enthusiasm shown by its employees at work, and this has given it a competitive edge in the industry (Google Corp, 2013). The firm improves its internal processes continuously, and this enables it to performs consistently well in the market.
The company’s working systems give employees more responsibility to perform their duties with little or no interference from their supervisors. This makes employees have a strong belief in the company because they learn new ways to solve crucial work problems on their own. The firm’s employees can test their abilities at work more, which leads to excellent overall performance. Employees are more willing to try out new tasks and responsibilities, which improves their knowledge of crucial work processes. The company has open communication platforms that encourage employees to interact easily with senior managers with fewer restrictions (Scholl, 2003). This openness encourages employees to share ideas on issues that affect them at work with their colleagues. Google’s employees understand that sharing is one of the firm’s fundamental values, and this encourages them to collaborate to attain organizational objectives.
Google offers its workers more benefits at work, which enables them to perform their duties in a friendly environment. The company offers its employees generous salaries and perks, which make them feel they are cared for by the firm. Google’s employees value the relationship they have with their employer because the firm cares about their welfare and happiness. There are cafes on company premises, which serve meals to employees at any time of the day. This encourages more excellent bonding leading to improved performance outcomes. Employees are allowed to participate in different activities that are not related to work. This helps them relax to enable them to perform more complex future tasks effectively. The company’s organizational culture is relaxed, and this gives employees the flexibility they need to perform well (Scholl, 2003). The firm also has good reward schemes where workers, where perform their duties well, are rewarded with bonuses.
Google’s organizational culture is open and works well for it because its brand is recognized positively all over the world. The company has bridged the communication gap between senior management and employees. The two groups interact freely in open sessions where employees contribute ideas on how to improve internal processes. However, Google’s organizational model cannot be suitable for every organization. An individual organization serves a unique set of customers with different attitudes and behavior. An organization structures its corporate values and cultures to respond to functions it performs in a given industry (Locke & Latham, 2006, p. 265). This makes it possible for an organization to come up with goals and objectives which guide its operations in the industry. Business organizations should ensure that they outline the goals and objectives they seek to achieve in their long term strategies. This will guide them on how to implement their business strategies.
Business firms need to understand their workers’ perceptions of their internal processes. They need to improve how their managers and employees communicate because this has a significant impact on organizational performance. A system that allows employees to share their concerns and ideas on internal work processes makes a firm more competitive in the industry. Business organizations need to implement effective communication policies that suit their internal operations. This will ensure employees understand which goals have been set and how they can achieve them effectively(Locke & Latham, 2006, p. 266). Business firms need to relax some workplace rules to encourage employees to collaborate at various work tasks. This will make them improve their results and performance.
Organizations need to assess factors that improve employee commitment to their duties. This makes it easy for an organization to understand the needs of its employees and how they can be addressed. Business organizations need to ensure each individual employee is assigned a task that he or she can perform well. This will ensure that employees do jobs that they are skilled in to save time and other resources. Employees need to be encouraged to align their personal goals with overall organizational goals (Office of Personnel Management, 2013). This will ensure they contribute positively to internal processes in the firm. Workers should be encouraged to try out other tasks they are not skilled to make them expand their knowledge. It is also necessary for business organizations to reward employees who perform well in various tasks. This motivates them to work hard to achieve quality outcomes.
Modern human resource practices take note of organizational change and development. Therefore, an organization needs to be well prepared to take advantage of various trends and opportunities in the market. Positive change in an organization can only be achieved if managers recognize the critical role employees play in making a firm competitive in its chosen industry. Senior managers need to involve other employees in making crucial decisions that have a bearing on the future of an organization (Office of Personnel Management, 2013). This will make workers appreciate their association with the organization they work for, which will boost the level of satisfaction they have in their jobs.
In conclusion, an organization needs to make its employees aware of set goals and objectives. This will enable them to understand the role they need to play to make the organization successful in the industry.
References
Google Corp. (2013). Our culture. Google Company Overview. Web.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2006) New directions in goal setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 265-268.
Office of Personnel Management (2013). Organizational goals can be powerful energizers. Performance Management. Web.
Scholl, R.W. (2003). Job satisfaction. Schmidt Labor Research Center. Web.