Student Role in Politics Essays

Student Role in Politics Essays Student Role in Politics Essay Student Role in Politics Essay Subject: Research By: Making a Difference, Not a Statement: College Students and Politics, Volunteering, and an Agenda for America Peter D. Hart Research Associates 1724 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009 April 2001 Date: From February 24 to March 2, Hart Research surveyed a national representative sample of 809 students in four-year colleges and universities; this research, conducted on behalf of the Panetta Institute, gauges students’ views of and involvement in civics and politics. This report summarizes our key findings. The margin of error is  ± 3. 5% for the overall sample and higher for specific subgroups. Forty years ago, something began to stir on the nation’s campuses. In March 1961, President John F. Kennedy, sensing the potential idealism of the nation’s youth, signed an executive order creating the Peace Corps, and a few months later, the first cohort of Peace Corps volunteers embarked for Africa. That same year, college students traveled south to join the Freedom Rides, risking life and limb for the civil rights cause. It was the beginning of a youth movement that ultimately changed the face of America, as it touched everything from race relations to women’s rights to war and peace. Four decades later, could students once again provide the energy and idealism that drive social and political change? The results of our national survey among college students suggest that the potential is indeed there. Indeed, the civil rights and women’s movements are now a source of inspiration. And if this potential is realized, this generation is clearly poised to move the country in a progressive direction. In their issue preferences and political leanings, the youth of Generation Y embrace a progressive agenda while rejecting the anti-government cynicism of their Generation X forerunners. Yet, only a fraction of this great potential has been realized so far. Unlike their predecessors four decades ago, today’s college students enjoy the legal right to vote, but only a small minority of Americans age 18 to 21 exercised that right in 2000. These young people care about the issues of the day, yet few believe that working on a political campaign or contacting their congressional representative, for example, can help make society better. They say they want to contribute to their society and make a difference, but most spurn government service as a career option. Their values and priorities seem disconnected from their level of political engagement. Certainly, neither presidential candidate managed to connect with this generation. Today’s students are simultaneously progressive and apolitical; they embrace many government solutions, but evince little interest in government itself. Nevertheless, the survey results indicate that it is possible to get college students involved in the nation’s political life. Indeed, today’s generation of students is like tinder awaiting a spark. New political leadership, making the right kind of appeal and challenging young people to get involved as President Kennedy did in 1961, could once again awaken a powerful response on the nation’s campuses. I. College Students’ Current Outlook 1. Today’s college students are progressive in their views. College students’ agenda for the nation is strongly progressive. Among all the policy priorities tested in the survey, the top three are improving schools by hiring teachers and reducing class size (85% very top or high priority), strengthening and preserving Social Security (76%), and providing assistance to low-income families (73%). The three lowest priorities are strengthening the military (34%), reducing the size of government (23%), and allowing oil exploration in the Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge (21%). Looking back at our history, today’s college students identify with progressive social movements. Overwhelming majorities feel that the civil rights (89%) and women’s rights (78%) movements did a great deal or quite a bit to make American society better. Smaller majorities say the same about the environmental movement (58%), human rights organizations (56%), and the Democratic Party (57%). In contrast, far fewer believe that the Republican Party (45%), the war on drugs (40%), the campaign for teen abstinence (29%), or the anti-tax movement (23%) has changed things for the better. In anticipating the future, many college students look far afield and point to progressive solutions to both international and domestic problems. A majority (59%) believe that most problems facing their generation will be domestic in nature (e. g. , Social Security), but a significant proportion, 37%, think that most will be international in scope. This outlook is reflected in the majorities of students who believe that the following global issues should be either the top priority or a high priority for Congress and President Bush to address: dealing with the worldwide AIDS epidemic (70%), promoting human rights abroad (64%), and cracking down on imported goods made in sweatshops or with child labor (59%). College students’ political affiliations provide further evidence of the progressive environment on most campuses; by a considerable 48%-to-33% margin, students identify more with the Democratic Party than with the GOP. To a lesser extent, this progressive viewpoint is evident in their vote- Gore edged out Bush by 46% to 42% among those who reported voting (another 9% supported Nader). And had they voted, non-voters with a preference among the candidates would have supported Gore by an even larger margin: Half (52%) would have voted for him over Bush (38%); 7% would have voted for Nader. Nevertheless, their votes make clear that neither of the major party candidates managed to connect with these younger voters. Gore, in particular, had the most to gain from the political disposition of the majority students and the issues they believe are important. Yet, while Democrats enjoy a 15-percentage-point advantage over Republicans on campuses nationwide, Gore held only a 4-point lead over Bush in the college vote. 2. Students do not see politics as a primary means of bringing about positive change. Young people are political voyeurs- they watch, but they don’t participate. Students clearly question the efficacy of getting more deeply involved in the political process. Only 12% believe that volunteering on a campaign is a way to bring about a lot of change (40% say some change). Only half that proportion, 6%, actually participated in a federal, state, or local political campaign during the 2000 election cycle. Students also question the effectiveness of other forms of political action. Only 17% say that attending a demonstration can bring about a lot of change (46% say some change). And as far as contacting an elected official about an issue, only 13% to 17% (depending on whether they are e-mailing or writing) say that this is a way to bring about a lot of change. Because students are not sure that their individual involvement will make much of a difference, most students choose not to get involved other than in the easiest, most convenient ways. Although 56% tell us that they have signed a petition, only 19% have participated in a demonstration, and only 18% have written to a member of Congress. 3. The 2000 presidential election may have sparked an interest in politics and an appreciation of the importance of voting. If the election had a single legacy, it would be arousing this generation’s interest in the political process. Students took an active interest in last year’s presidential election: The vast majority (88%) reports checking the latest news at least once a week during the election. Two in five (42%) say they kept up on the news every day, whereas only 6% say they checked the news no more than once a month. One of the most compelling findings from this research is the respect that students say they have for the vote, which perhaps is a result of the historically close election and the equally historic controversy surrounding the Florida recount. A strong majority (84%) believe that voting in a presidential election is a way to make a difference: 47% say that it can bring about a lot of change, and 37% say that it can effect some change. For most students, voting is far more effective in bringing about change than is volunteering on an election campaign, as only 12% say that the latter can bring about a lot of change. The power of one’s vote is recognized particularly among freshmen (88% a lot/some change), women (87%), and students affiliated with one of the major parties (84% Democrats, 85% Republicans). 4. Students believe in and prefer the direct benefits of volunteering. What’s the alternative to politics? An overwhelming majority (86%) of students tell us that doing volunteer work for groups that help the needy is a way to bring about needed change (50% a lot of change, 36% some change). Most students believe that volunteer programs- more so than the two political parties- have made society better. Solid majorities say that youth-mentoring programs, such as Big Brother/Big Sister (68%); private charities (66%); and groups like AmeriCorps (59%) make a great deal or fair amount of difference toward the betterment of society. Because they believe that getting involved in volunteer programs is a way to help their local communities, most students volunteer during their time in college. A large majority (68%) say that they have been involved in volunteer or other types of charitable activities. Sixty-three percent have volunteered at a local school, hospital, or neighborhood center; 38% have been tutors or mentors; and 27% have helped raise funds for a local cause. Volunteering has become part of the college experience. Among students who have gotten involved in their communities, two in five (39%) have volunteered through a program offered by their college or university. Alternatively, they have worked with an organization (13%) or a religious group (12%) with which they are affiliated. The value that students find in volunteerism is evident in their willingness to consider a longer-term commitment to an organization. Nearly three in four (73%) students would consider volunteering for either Habitat for Humanity (42%), the Peace Corps (21%), AmeriCorps (7%), or VISTA (3%) after they finish college or during a break. The vast majority (83%) of students also says that working for an issue organization is an effective way to make a difference. Most students admire progressive issue organizations for their contributions to society: 59% believe that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other groups promoting alcohol awareness have made a great deal or fair amount of difference; 56% say the same of international human rights’ groups such as Amnesty International. 5. Young people are committed to making a difference, but not through government service. Half (49%) of all college students say that in choosing a career, it is very important (a 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) that it contribute to society. Yet, only about half as many (26%) tell us that they are very or fairly interested in government service; two in five (42%) say that they have no interest whatsoever in working for the government. In part, students question the government’s ability to make changes for the better. While 50% believe that doing volunteer work to assist the needy can bring about a lot of change, only 20% say the same about choosing a career in government. As a result, even those who put a premium on a career’s potential for making a difference are unwilling to consider government service; among this group, only 26% say that they would be interested in working for the government. Sixty-four percent of students say that providing financial aid or forgiving student loans might be an incentive to participate in public service. Three in ten say that it might help to have a parent or professor encourage them to participate. 6. Today’s students don’t hate the government, but they feel disconnected from it. Generation Y is not hostile toward government. Only 23% say that smaller government should be a top or high priority for the nation; 68% say that they are satisfied with the country’s political leadership; and only 38% feel that a candidate’s working to change the way things are done in Washington is a very important quality. If anything, Generation Y would like to see more from government: 85% say that hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes should be a top or high priority for Congress and President Bush; 76% believe that government should be strengthening and preserving Social Security; 73% want government to assist low-income families with children; and 69% say that the President and Congress should put prescription-drug coverage for seniors on the national agenda. Students don’t know what to make of government. When asked whether they think about government as the government or our government, 60% say the government and 39% say our government. Of course, the degree to which students (and presumably most Americans) feel any ownership of government may depend on who is in power- 47% of Bush voters and 46% of Republicans say our government, compared with only 36% of Gore voters and 35% of Democrats. II. How Can We Engage Young Adults in Politics? tudents’ concern about and willingness to help the vulnerable and disadvantaged demonstrate that they can be engaged. But this is not the 1960s- they are concerned more with the impact they will have and less with the ideal they will serve. If candidates, political parties, and social-change organizations hope to involve young people, they should understand the following: 1. Young people want to make a difference, not just a statement. While today’s generation is drawn to ideals, whether in voting or volunteering, it also wants tangible results. Asked what they would most like to see in a political candidate, half (50%) of college students say that it is very important that they be idealistic and stand up for principles, but more (63%) say that it is very important that candidates be practical and realistic. This pragmatic orientation is reflected in the 50% who believe that volunteering in one’s community can bring about a lot of change; only 17% say the same about participating in demonstrations. Three in four students say that people can make a difference just by living their lives in a way that is consistent with their social and political values. Thus, to inspire college students, political leaders must offer a vision and back it up with concrete action. 2. Students are looking for honest leaders who understand young people’s concerns. This generation has tremendous respect for the gains made by the civil rights and women’s movements. Hence, today’s students want candidates who can address similar challenges as well as be forthright in face of great adversity. They want candidates who are honest (65% say this quality is very important) and who say what they think, even if their positions are unpopular (51%). Nearly half (46%) of students feel that a candidate’s understanding of their values is very important. 3. Provide avenues for individual empowerment and celebrate the power of voting. Today’s students are empowered by volunteering because they believe their individual efforts contribute to a larger cause that makes a difference. Students do not feel the same way about volunteering for a political campaign, however. But the 2000 election left a legacy, a legacy whose effects may be felt for quite some time to come: Students now believe strongly that their individual votes truly count. We must build on this belief by giving young people ways to participate in the political process (e. . , aggressive voter registration and GOTV). 4. Build a bridge between direct service, and politics and public service. Many have already volunteered in their communities, and even more are open to working with Habitat for Humanity or the Peace Corps after graduation. Cultivate their willingness to act on their beliefs, not as an alternative to political engagement, but as an additional reason to either participate in the political process or make a career of public service. The challenge for political leaders and parties is to show young people who are willing to help Jimmy Carter build affordable housing, for example, that public policy and government can accomplish even more, or show Peace Corps volunteers that only the world’s governments have the resources to tackle global problems such as AIDS or exploitative child labor. The potential is already there- students want a government that does more, whether it is hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes or providing assistance to low-income families. 5. Support and encourage young women. Female students (59%) are much more likely than male students (39%) to say that making a difference is a key consideration in choosing a career, and they are more likely than male students to believe that volunteering for a campaign can make a big difference (59% vs. 43%). Moreover, female students already are more involved than their male counterparts- by 35% to 23%, women are more likely to have boycotted a product because of a manufacturer’s wrongdoing, and by 72% to 64%, women are more likely to have volunteered in their community. Yet, women are much less likely than men to say that they would seek elected office: Only 24% of women, compared with 39% of men, report any interest in running for a federal office, and just 24%, versus 43% of men, are interested in running on the state or local level. And while 31% of men say that they are very or fairly interested in a government career, the same can be said of only 21% of women. Young women’s commitment and idealism is there, but it has not yet been linked to politics or public service. They need role models and support. . To reach this generation, go on-line. The attention that many students paid to the election may have been facilitated by the Internet. While television was almost certainly their chief news source about the election (51% say they get most of their political information from TV) a significant proportion also looked to the Internet. Three in ten (29%) say they follow the latest news about politics and civic affairs on-line. Of those studen ts who followed the presidential election each day, 35% say they rely on the Internet for their news. Of those who checked the news once a week or less during the election, only 23% say that most of their news comes from an on-line source. In fact, the Internet has surpassed the newspaper as a chief news source on most college campuses- just one in five (21%) students say that they get most of their news from a city or national newspaper. 7. Parents must lay the groundwork. Ideally, college is a place where young people are on their own for the first time; it’s a place where they can begin to express themselves politically or choose whether to volunteer in their community. On many if not most campuses, students will have the opportunity to see speakers or authors address political issues; they will be asked to sign petitions for a range of causes; they will witness or even participate in demonstrations; or they may become a volunteer through a program offered by their school or an on-campus organization. Whether students take advantage of these new freedoms depends in large part on their parents. When children grow up discussing politics with their parents, they grow up to be far more interested and involved, both in the political process and in their community. Half of all students say that while they were growing up, they discussed politics with their parents very or fairly often; 39% indicate that they rarely did so; and 11% say that they never discussed politics at home. Of those college students who regularly discussed politics with their parents, 50% report checking the latest political news every day during the 2000 election, compared with only 34% of those who grew up in households where politics was not a topic of conversation; 10% of those reared on politics have volunteered on a political campaign, compared with only 2% of students from apolitical households. In addition, young people raised on politics are more likely to believe that a career in government or public service leads to change (24% major change, 47% some change); among students in non-political households, only 16% believe it would make a major change, and 50% say it would bring about some change.

Understanding Cultural Materialism in Sociology

Understanding Cultural Materialism in Sociology Cultural materialism is a theoretical framework and research method for examining the relationships between the physical and economic aspects of production and built society, social organization and social relations, and the values, beliefs, and worldviews that predominate that society. It is rooted in Marxist theory  and is popular in anthropology, sociology, and the field of cultural studies. History and Overview The theoretical perspective and research methods of cultural materialism emerged in the late 1960s and were developed more fully during the 1980s. Cultural materialism was first introduced and popularized within the field of anthropology by Marvin Harris with his 1968 book  The Rise of Anthropological Theory. In this work, Harris built on Marxs theory of base and superstructure to craft a theory of how culture and cultural products fit into the greater social system. In Harriss adaptation of Marxs theory, the infrastructure of society (technology, economic production, the built environment, etc.) influences both the structure of society (social organization and relations) and the superstructure (the collection of ideas, values, beliefs, and worldviews). He argued that one must take this whole system into account if one wants to understand why cultures differ from place to place and group to group,  why certain cultural products like art and consumer goods (among others) are produ ced in a given place, and what their meaning is to those who use them. Later, Raymond Williams, a Welsh academic, further developed the theoretical paradigm and research method, and in doing so, helped create the field of cultural studies in the 1980s. Embracing the political nature of Marxs theory and his critical focus on power and the class structure, Williamss cultural materialism took aim at how culture and cultural products relate to a class-based system of domination and oppression. Williams built his theory of cultural materialism using already existing theoretical critiques of the relationship between culture and power, including the writings of Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. Williams asserted that culture itself is a productive process, meaning it is responsible for making intangible things that exist in society, like ideas, assumptions, and social relations. The theory of cultural materialism that he developed holds that culture as a productive process is part of the larger process of how a class system is made and remade, and it is connected to the class-based inequalities that pervade society. According to cultural materialism, culture and cultural products play these roles through the promotion and justification of certain values, assumptions, and worldviews within the mainstream and the marginalization of others that do not fit the mainstream mold (consider the way rap music has been routinely vilified as violent by mainstream critics, or how twerking is often framed as a sign that someone is sexually loose or morally deficient, while ballroom dance is held up as classy and refined). Many scholars who followed in Williams tradition expanded his theory of cultural materialism, which was focused on class inequalities, to include the consideration of racial inequalities and their connection to culture, as well as those of gender, sexuality, and nationality, among others. Cultural Materialism as a Research Method By using cultural materialism as a research method we can produce a critical understanding of the values, beliefs, and worldviews of a period through close study of cultural products, and we can discern how they connect to the greater social structure, social trends, and social problems. Per the framework that Williams laid out, to do so one must do three things: Consider the historical context in which the cultural product was made.Conduct a close analysis of the messages and meanings communicated by the product itself.Consider how the product fits within the greater social structure, its inequalities, and the political power and movements within it. Beyoncà ©s Formation video is a great example of how we can use cultural materialism to understand cultural products and society. When it debuted, many criticized it for its imagery that appears critical of police practices. The video features images of militarized police and ends with the iconic image of  Beyoncà © laying atop a sinking New Orleans Police Department car. Some read this as insulting to police, and even as a threat to police, echoing a common mainstream critique of rap music. But apply cultural materialism as a theoretical lens and a research method and one sees the video in a different light. Considered in a historical context of hundreds of years of systemic racism and inequality, and the recent pandemic of police killings of black people, one instead sees Formation as a celebration of blackness in response to the hate, abuse, and violence routinely heaped upon black people. One can also see it as a completely valid and appropriate critique of police practices that desperately need to be changed if equality is ever to be possible. Cultural materialism is an illuminating theory.

Legal Framework for Securing the Repayment of Secured Loans Essay

Legal Framework for Securing the Repayment of Secured Loans - Essay Example Thus the two different varieties of debt were different not because they were founded on different kinds of relationships, but rather only because in one the plaintiff could present specialty to evidence the debt (=debt on an obligation) [obligation meaning specialty], whereas in the other the plaintiff only has suit, that is, two people (either actually there in the thirteenth century, or there only by obligation by early in the fourteenth century [contract meaning a transaction (not an agreement), such as buying, selling, lending, borrowing). Do not be fooled by this usage of the word â€Å"contract†: that word is now used for agreements whereas then, the word meant a transaction.1 The difference between the debt on an obligation and debt on a contract, the difference that it made whether one had a specialty or only suit, was in the form of proof that followed. If the plaintiff had a specialty, the defendant had two possible replies: (1) the specialty is a forgery (= not my deed) or (2) I have repaid as proven by your written acquittance under your seal. The debtor could not allege repayment unless he had the written acquittance. The only issue that could go to the jury was whether the specialty was forged (or, after circa 1380, whether the debtor was illiterate so that he did not know what the specialty said so it was, similarly, not his deed). Thus there was no possible discussion about the nature of the debt and a thus little chance for the development of a 1UK Legal Framework, Debt body of substitutive law. ... were founded on different kinds of relationships, but rather only because in one the plaintiff could present specialty to evidence the debt (=debt on an obligation) [obligation meaning specialty], whereas in the other the plaintiff only has suit, that is, two people (either actually there in the thirteenth century, or there only by obligation by early in the fourteenth century (=debt on a contract) [contract meaning a transaction (not an agreement), such as buying, selling, lending, borrowing). Do not be fooled by this usage of the word "contract": that word is now used for agreements whereas then, the word meant a transaction.1 The difference between the debt on an obligation and debt on a contract, the difference that it made whether one had specialty or only suit, was in the form of proof that followed. If the plaintiff had specialty, the defendant had two possible replies: (1) the specialty is a forgery (= not my deed) or (2) I have repaid as proven by your written acquittance under your seal. The debtor could not allege repayment unless he had the written acquittance. The only issue that could go to the jury was whether the specialty was forged (or, after circa 1380, whether the debtor was illiterate so that he did not know what the specialty said so it was, similarly, not his deed). Thus there was no possible discussion about the nature of the debt and thus little chance for the development of a 1UK Legal Framework, Debt 3 body of substitutive law. In debt on a contract substitutive discussion was usually avoided by the defendants plea: I owe nothing.2We

Brand Management - Create a new sub-brand for Ted Baker plc (new make Essay

Brand Management - Create a new sub-brand for Ted Baker plc (new make up range) - Essay Example bulences within the British and the international market, the firm needs to prepare in advance a careful plan for the relevant initiative estimating the effectiveness and the feasibility of this project in the long term. In order to design the plan related with a specific product, we should primarily examine its potential market in terms of the customers’ preferences as they have been observed in relation with similar products. In this context, it is suggested by Henderson et al. (2000, 112) that ‘the building of a brand starts with a precise definition of the target customer group and its needs and expectations and proceeds to a realistic assessment of how well the brand currently meets them’. From a similar point of view, Dennis et al. (2002, 355) noticed that ‘branding is well known for consumer products but power has shifted from manufacturers brands towards retailers while the term image is more common than brand in the context of shopping centres, but branding may become more important’. In accordance with the above, the design and the development of a brand can be a challenging task especially when the targeted market is a competitive one (like in the case of UK). The proposed product will include a series of sub-products. More specifically, the firm is interested in launching a series of make up products including: a make up crà ¨me, a make up powder, a mix – make up product (crà ¨me and powder in one product) and a compact make up product which will be characterized for its long duration. The careful examination of the British market – especially of the specific sector – showed that this market is offered for the specific product. More specifically, in accordance with a series of statistics published by Market Research Portal (2006) the value of British cosmetics market is estimated to approximately 1.5 billion Euros for 2006. On the other hand, it is noticed that ‘over the past five years the make-up market has seen vibrant growth of

Priesthood Of All Believers Theology Religion Essay

Priesthood Of All Believers Theology Religion Essay Luthers greatest contribution to Protestant ecclesiology was his doctrine of priesthood of all believers. It was a central teaching of Luther in the formation of Christian communities. Eric W. Gritsch has claimed, Luthers doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, developed particularly in his treatises of 1520, is one of the most revolutionary doctrines in the history of Christianity.  [1]  It is the clear biblical idea that we could see from the Genesis to Revelation. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers opposes the unbiblical doctrine of sacerdotalism  [2]  and the existence of a Brahman-like  [3]  priestly class within the church. When Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the door of Wittenberg Castle Church on October 31, 1517, he was declaring war against the idea that salvation comes through the priesthood via the sacraments. His theses were anti-sacerdotalistic and he spoke against the theology that ex opere operato  [4]  supernatural li fe could be created through baptism, brought to growth by confirmation, nourished by the Mass, and healed of all diseases by penance and extreme unction. Luther vehemently rejected the idea that through sacraments a priest could control an individuals life both here and hereafter. Luther claimed that everyone who does have faith in Jesus Christ is a priest. He wrote that his hope was for a day when we shall recover that joyful liberty in which we shall understand that we are all equal in every right, and shall shake off the yoke of tyranny, and know that he who is a Christian has Christ, and he who has Christ has all things that are Christs, and can do all things.  [5]  The concept that all who believe in Christ are priests came into mind to Luther after he became convinced that Scripture was the only authority for a Christian. Believers are called to be the salt and the light (Matthew 5:13), this is only possible when the believers understands Christs priestly ministry and its own priestly role. This also has serious eschatological implications, as Christ comes to be united with his bride, the Church. Will He find a fragmented body or a united family of believers? Hence this paper mainly examines that where from the concept of priesthood of all believers begins in the Bible and for what purpose; what is the context that steered Luther to raise this idea of priesthood of all believers; the coherence between Luthers idea and the biblical idea of priesthood of all believers; and its implication to the present church of India. I. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT OF PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE BIBLE A priest is one who performs the sacrifices, makes the rituals and doing the work of mediator between God and man. He is the one responsible for offering the divinely appointed sacrifices to God, for executing ceremonies relating to the worship of God. In other sense, he is the representative between man and God. Scripture says, For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.  [6]  The priestly office came first in time, when our first parents sinned and fell from the high estate into which they had been created. God Himself performed the priestly office when He slew animals and provided a covering for Adam and Eve.  [7]   A. PRIESTHOOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT There were three orders of men in the Old Testament times such as the kingly, the prophetical and the priestly orders. They were set apart by anointing with holy oil for a particular vocation. A king in the Old Testament was one who ruled men for God. A prophet was one who spoke for God to men. And a priest was one who spoke for men to God. Among all these three orders, even from the very beginning of the human race, the believers have performed priestly works. In the particular period, the head of the family was doing the priestly office. He would build an altar and offer a sacrifice for the help from God. Scripture gives enough evidence for that. 1. Priesthood in the Patriarchal Age In the Bible history, the first period is commonly known as Patriarchal Age. The word patriarch comes from two root words meaning father rule. It encompasses the period between the creation events, and the time when Israel was separated as a special nation at Sinai for the preparation of the coming Messiah. In Genesis 4:3-5 both Cain and Abel functioned in the capacity of priest in that each was responsible for his own offering to God. We could see that when Noah disembarked the ark following the great flood, he offered sacrifices on behalf of his family.  [8]  Abram, after a long march from Ur, came into Canaan and built an altar at Shechem.  [9]  Again and again, Abraham offered sacrifices to God, as did his sons and grandsons. Thus, originally in mans relations with God, every individual functioned as his own priest before God with no particular location established for sacrificing and with no intermediary between him and God.  [10]  When He gave the Law at Mount Sinai , the people of Israel had been given an opportunity to become a kingdom of priests. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.  [11]   Here God makes a covenant with all the people of Israel. Based on the above text, the people of Israel become Gods possession and are chosen for the privilege of service. God instituted the priesthood of Israel as a congregated unit for the purpose of service to the world. This is the vocation of the people of God of which each member stands under Gods call, and each is accountable for his or her response to it. 2. A Shift on Priesthood But Israel disobeyed and God removed the opportunity for becoming a kingdom of priests. When Moses went up to the mountain to receive a list of rules and regulations for the newly freed nation, God also gave him instructions to form a professional priesthood. Now each layman would no longer be his own priest, the individual could no longer take his sacrifices directly to God.  [12]  Here God selected Aaron and his family and the tribe of Levi to be His priests. They were set apart that when Israelites entered the Promised Land, the priests and Levites received no inheritance of land as the other eleven tribes. They had been set apart for the service of God and were to be supported by the tithes and offerings of the peoples sacrifices. The sons of Aaron and the tribe of Levi had at least three distinctive as priests. 1. They had direct access to God. At appointed times they went into the Holy Place and even the Holy of Holies to communicate with God. 2. The priests represented God to the people of Israel. They were mediators who communicated the Word of God to the people since they were considered holy. 3. The people represented the people of Israel to God. The people could not approach a holy God directly because of their sin. The priests were mediators for the people as they brought sacrifices before the altar. The high priest entered the Holy of Holies yearly once on the Day of Atonement to offer an atoning substitute of a bull or lamb offering. One of the most important features of the priestly system was to emphasize the absolutely holy nature of Almighty God. This is a concept repeatedly affirmed in the Scriptures.  [13]   B. PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIVERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT This was the situation continued Jesus Christ was crucified. At the same moment of Jesus death, the veil of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom.  [14]  From then on there has been no need for select group of priests. At that point in time and ever since then believers became priests, a part of Gods royal or kingly priesthood. The elimination of the office of priests as a select group of people is based, then, upon the physical sacrifice of Jesus, the ultimate High Priest. Jesus completed and fulfilled the role of priest in His substitutionary death. . . . but He became a priest with an oath when God said to Him: The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: You are a priest forever. Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant . . . because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to savecompletely . . . Such a high priest meets our need-one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. . . . Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself. For the law appoints as high priest men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.  [15]   The priest, then, is the person who himself has access to God and whose task it is to bring others to Him. While in the ancient world this access to God was the privilege of the professional priests, and in particular of the High Priest who alone could enter into the Holy of Holies. But now through Jesus Christ, the new and living way, access to God becomes the privilege of every Christian. The word priest comes from the Latin presbyter and the Greek presbyteros which simply means elder. This word was later used to describe the leader of a community. In modern usage the term priest seems to be derived more from the actual Greek word for priest hiereus.  [16]  In the New Testament this word is never used to describe a class or caste of people separate from the people of God. Instead, it is used in the sense all Gods people are a chosen race, a royal priesthood  [17]  The New Testament believers constitute the succession to the priesthood in old Israel, having been given the right of direct access to God through Christ. Furthermore, the ministry in the church has replaced the ancient priesthood. Hence, all the believers in Christ are priests in the New Testament. Put into historical perspective, the priesthood concept would look like this: for the first several thousand years mankinds history as recorded in the Bible, each man was responsible for functioning as a priest before God. Then, for approximately 1500 years, the time between Moses and when Christ appeared on earth, the priesthood of the professional existed. From the death of Christ until He returns again, we have reverted to the pre-Sinai days of the priesthood of the believer.  [18]   II. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MARTIN LUTHERS REFORMATIVE THOUGHT It is better to look back the history of the church to understand that how the New Testament idea of priesthood of all believers was perverted into the Roman Catholic Idea of Institutionalism. A. PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH HISTORY The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is found throughout the Scriptures and was practiced in the early church. As Dr. R. Laird Harris writes, First century Christianity had no priests. The New Testament nowhere uses the word to describe a leader in Christian service.  [19]  But this glorious doctrine was gradually replaced by sacerdotalism beginning in the third century, especially by Cyprian (c. 258) Bishop of Carthage. Cyprian treated all the passages in the Old Testament that refer to the privileges, the sanctions, the duties, and the responsibilities of the Aaronic Priesthood, as applying to the officers of the Christian Church.  [20]  He completely failed to grasp the central thesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He was blind to the fact that the only High Priest under the Gospel recognized by the apostolic writings is our Lord Himself  [21]  and not a solitary pope or bishop or priest of the church. So from the third century onwards the priesthood of all believers was not visible in theological thinking. But the Roman Catholic theologians justified sacerdotalism by saying that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, the rock upon whom Jesus would build his church. Further they says that Peter was the first pope of Rome, and so the pope of Rome by succession has the power of the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose, and even to save. Salvation is deposited in the Roman priesthood and dispensed through the sacraments. The sacraments are effectual ex opere operato, meaning the subjective condition of the priest or the recipient does not matter. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the priesthoods mediatorial function, and no person by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ may approach the Father with confidence! B. PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE MEDIVAL PERIOD By the successive centuries, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and other religious groups make a sharp distinction between the laity and the clergy. Such distinction was foreign to the early church where the ultimate authority in ministry traces back to the risen Lord. Along with the structural hierarchy is the sacrament of ordination. The church in Rome imposes the sacrament of ordination that results in the marked separation between the clergy and the laity.  [22]  Christianity had been plagued with it ever since. More and more the church began to structure itself on the basis of the former Levitical order, rather than on the purely New Testament idea of each man is a priest perspective. The change was slow and evolutionary, but pastors gradually came to be called priests and the believers laity. The communion table became an altar and the elements a sacrifice. At the dawn of the Reformation Era, the institutionalized church already would have two major distinguished bodies within the community of believers: the clergy and laity. The status lay people, both in principle and in practice, would not only subordinate to the priests, but also widens the gap between clergy and laity. The gap became synonymous with the sacred and the profane.  [23]   But godly men such as Peter Waldo, John Wyclif and John Hus saw the distinct difference and distance between the clergy and laity. They didnt like it, for it was in opposition to the teachings of the New Testament. Until the dramatic impact of the Protestant Reformation, these smaller movements had little pervasive influence.  [24]   C. PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE REFORMATION ERA During the Reformation era the concept of the priesthood of all believers became very contentious within the structures of the Institutional church. The Reformation era provides a framework in tracing the concept of the priesthood of all believers. An elucidation on how Martin Luther formulated the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers will be dealt with in the pages to follow. The concept that all who believe in Christ are priests occurred to Luther after he became convinced that Scripture was the only authority for a Christian. As he studied the Bible, especially Pauls Epistle to the Romans, he discovered that in and through Jesus Christ a believer possessed the righteousness of God, and therefore, immediate access to God without the mediation of an arrogant priesthood. Thus, the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is a sequel to the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. Those who are clothed in the perfect righteousness of God are welcome in the presence of God. No Christian needs a pontiff, meaning a bridge builder, because Jesus Christ alone is the way to the Father. There were other efforts at reforming the Catholic Church, seeking to bring it back to a more biblical posture, but they all fell short of their goal. It was not until such reforming seeds germinated in a favorable political climate that fruit would be born. The date was October 31, 1517. The place was Wittenberg, Germany. An obscure priest named Martin Luther nailed his grievances to the church door, the Reformation was born. A number of changes were called for by this bold, imaginative priest, but at the very core of the Reformation was the conviction that all believers are priests of the living God. He felt that all believers had the right and responsibility to study Gods Word, involve themselves in the ministry, make confession to God on their own, and even administer the sacraments.  [25]   What had started in 1517 as a protest against indulgences by an unknown monk, developed in 1520 into an irreconcilable conflict dividing the Western Church. The three treatises of To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and The Freedom of a Christian are the heart of Luthers protest against the church of his day. The first was written in August, the second in October, and third in November. In great part, Luthers tract is a catalog of the deplorable state of Christendom. The pope exalts himself over secular rulers as well as over the church, and lives in unconscionable luxury. Rome is a moral cesspool where licenses to live in open debauchery can be bought and sold. The Church has become a machine for making money, and the popes henchmen, having bled Italy dry, have now turned their attention to Germany. Because of their inability to live up to the arbitrary rule of celibacy, many pious priests keep wives, yet do so secretly and with a bad conscience. The universities ignore the Bible and lecture on commentaries, and on commentaries on commentaries. The common people are ignorant even of basic Christianity.  [26]  In such a situation, Luther did write his treatises. Primarily, his first treatise of To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation occupied the central theme of the priesthood of all believers. Here it is better to examine the background that led Martin Luther to raise the concept of priesthood of all believers. 1. To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation a) Priesthood of All Believers As Social Implication In his first treatise of To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation the concept of priesthood of all believers has social, ecclesiastical and spiritual implications. At the dawn of the Reformation era, the institutionalized church already would have two major distinguished bodies within the community of believers such as clergy and laity. Socially, he accepted the context of western Christianity, where temporal rulers belong to the body of Christendom. Within the Christian social order, the rulers are ordained of God to punish evildoers and protect those who do good. When pressed by the temporal power the Romanists have made decrees and declared that the temporal power had no jurisdiction over them, but that, on the contrary, the spiritual power is above the temporal.  [27]   Luther argues against the medieval division between the temporal and the church authorities and their separate jurisdictions in all matters. First of all, he attacked the social distinction that emphasized by the Romanists, It is pure invention that pope, bishop, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office.  [28]   He maintains that all Christians are equally Christian so that none is superior to any other as far possessing what is essential to the church, because we all have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel, and faith alone make us spiritual and a Christian people.  [29]   Relying upon 1Corinthians 12:12-13, which describes the Church as the body of Christ and each member a part of that body, Luther acknowledges differences between Christians, not as questions of status, however, but as occasions for service to others. All are not the same in what God has given them to do, but they are all the same in what God has given them to be in the Church, viz., His very own people. All Christians, therefore, have the same status. By quoting 1Peter 2:9 and Rev. 5:9-10, Luther describes that status as priest and ascribes it to every Christian, As far as that goes, we are all consecrated priests through baptism.  [30]  So what differentiates Christians is simply the work that God has given them to do: There is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests, prices and bishops, between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the same of status. They are all of the spiritual estate, al are truly priests, bishops, and popes  [31]   As part of the divine economy, God has given to each Christian a particular calling in this life whereby he serves others, Everyone must benefit and serve every other by means of his own work or office so that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily and spiritual welfare of the community, just as all the members of the body serve one another (1Cor.12:14-26).  [32]   As examples of such vocations in the body of Christ, Luther mentions cobblers, smiths, peasants, and temporal authorities besides the clergy. But what is noteworthy about the last, those who have as their vocation the administration of the Word of God and Sacraments,  [33]  is that they are exercising an authority that belongs in the first instance to every Christian. For besides designating ones status before God, Luthers concept of the priesthood of believers also includes spiritual power in the church. b) Priesthood of All Believers as Ecclesiastical Implication Luther rejects ecclesiastically, the clergys monopoly on interpreting Scripture. He attacks the second wall of Romanists that only the pope may interpret the Scripture, determining correct doctrine, forgiving sins, and exercising discipline. There is no Scriptural warrant at all for the claim that only the pope may interpret the Bible. Here Luther clarifies the illusion that some of the Romanists claim of the power that was given to St. Peter. Although they allege that this power was given to St. Peter when the keys were given him, it is clear enough that the key were not given to Peter alone but to the whole community. Further, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or government, but only for the binding or loosing of sin.  [34]   As handlers of Scripture the Romanists are manifestly incompetent, and this makes their claim to hold a monopoly on biblical interpretation absurd. The Romanists must admit that there are among us good Christians who have the true faith, spirit, understanding, word, and mind of Christ. Luthers main point is that the Pope isnt the only person able to read the scriptures. He writes, Has not the Pope often erred? Here Luther implies that the Pope isnt God, and that he makes mistakes.  [35]  The Pope, therefore, can misinterpret the Bible. Luther shows that the Pope is like everyone else, so therefore others can interpret the scriptures as well. Luther then uses the Bible as a way to prove the second wall wrong. Luther quotes Christs words, And they shall be all taught of God(St. John vi. 45). Everyone should be able to interpret the scriptures and be taught of God, without the Popes help. Furthermore he questions, Besides, if we are all priests, as was said above, and all have one faith, one gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith? What becomes of Pauls words in 1Corinthians 2:15, A spiritual man judges all things, yet he is judged by no one? And 2Corinthians 4:13, We all have one spirit of faith? Why, then, should not we perceive what is consistent with faith and what is not, just as well as an unbelieving pope does?  [36]   Even more, Luther attacks the third wall of Romanists. He argues that there is no basis either in the nature of a Christian society or in Scripture for the Romanists refusal to call a council. Luther brings up that St. Peter wasnt the only person to call a council: Thus we read in Acts 15 that the council of the Apostles was not called by St. Peter, but by all the Apostles and the elders.  [37]  Also, nowhere in the scriptures does it say that the Pope is allowed to call a council by himself. Therefore their threats can be safely ignored, and a council should be called without delay to deal with a long list of abuses in the Church. Ordinary people and temporal authorities have the right and duty to do this, not only by virtue of their status as kings and priests before God, but because the crisis in the Church demands it. Would it not be unnatural if a fire broke out in a city and everybody were to stand by and let it burn on and on and consume everything that could burn because nobody had the authority of the mayor, or because, perhaps, the fire broke out in the mayors house? à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦How much more should this be done in the spiritual city of Christ if a fire of offense breaks out, whether in the papal government, or anywhere else?  [38]   Therefore, Luther concludes that it is the duty of every Christian in the Church as having the responsibility of priesthood of all believers; he has to espouse the cause of the faith, to understand and defend it, and to denounce every error. c) Priesthood of All Believers as Spiritual Implication Luther declares that since we have one baptism, one gospel one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel, and faith alone make us spiritual and a Christian people. He quotes 1Peter 2:9, But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, Gods special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Yet all are alike consecrated priests, everyone must benefit and serve every other by means of his own work or office so that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily and spiritual welfare of the community, just as all the members of the body serve one another. Mainly all should share the three priestly functions such as prayer intercede with God on behalf of others, proclamation speak the gospel sharing it with the neighbor, and sacrifice living a cross-centered and servant oriented life. Since the Church is in a state of crisis and someone has to act. The temporal authorities and ordinary lay people can and should do so because there are no inherently unspiritual vocations, because all Christians in all vocations are kings and priests, and because the deplorable state of the Church is the concern of every Christian. 2. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church Nevertheless, the second treatise of Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church also has the influence of the idea of priesthood of all believers. In this treatise, he discusses and dismantles the medieval sacramental system. In a measured but powerful way, Luther subjects each of the seven medieval sacraments such as baptism, Eucharist, penance, confirmation, marriage, ordination, and extreme unction to the critique of Gods Word and concludes that there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the church of God baptism and the bread ( Eucharist). For only in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of sins  [39]   Not surprisingly, in his di

Carlos Ghosn Nissan Ceo

Carlos Ghosn as CEO of Nissan and Renault: Can He Rework the ‘Nissan Magic'? â€Å"We knew some people were concerned about the potential for culture clashes, between the French and the Japanese, but it was not an issue. Cultural differences should be used as a catalyst for change, not as a crutch that inhibits change. You can learn a lot from somebody who is not like you. â€Å"1 – Carlos Ghosn, CEO, Nissan. â€Å"Make sure you are focused on your own people. Bring in them motivation and sense of ownership, then you can do your miracle. 2 – Carlos Ghosn, CEO, Nissan. Introduction In 2002, Louis Schweitzer, CEO of Renault announced that Carlos Ghosn, the president and CEO of Nissan would also take over the reigns at Renault in April 2005, while Schweitzer would remain the chairman of the board. With the new position , Carlos Ghosn would lead two companies Nissan and Renault. As of 2004,Renault held 44%stake in Nissan and Nissan owned around 15%of Renault's shar es. ‘Turnaround artist', as Carlos Ghosn was called was behind the industry's most remarkable turnaround at Nissan.After he became the CEO of Nissan in 1999, he had brought in many un-Japanese changes in the Japanese company and had actively persuaded the employees to accept change. Carlos Ghosn was credited for reviving the company from$254million losses and $19billion debt in 1999 into profits within two years. After taking up his position as the CEO of Renault in April 2005,CarlosGhosn is likely to face many challenges. Heading two different automobile companies from two different countries was first of its kind and industry observers expressed doubts whether Ghosn would be able to take up the pressure and rework the ‘Nissanmagic'.Carlos Ghosn: The ‘Nissan Magic'In March 1999,Renault, the then ninth carmaker in the world announced its alliance with Nissan investing $5. 4 billion. Nissan was in losses for many years from 1990-1999 except for profits reported in 1 997(Annexure I) and looked out for partners to recover from the troubles. The brand recognition was very low and it was estimated that Nissan was losing $1000 for every car it sold in US. By the end of 1990s,Nissan exported cars to Europe and Australia and some parts of Asia. The company was in losses to the tune of $5. billion, had debts totaling around $19 billion and was suffering from a poor product portfolio and diminishing brand value. Nissan’s market share had dropped from 6. 6 %in 1991 to 4. 9%by late 1990s. Renault at the same time was expanding internationally through acquisitions. After the unsuccessful merger with Volvo, Renault under Louis Schweitzer entered into an alliance with Nissan acquiring a 36%stake in the company. Triggering the alliance was Nissan’s strength in product designs and sophisticated manufacturing that blended well with the engineering quality at Renault.For Renault, the alliance would help in international expansions in the long-term while for Nissan; it was to get rid of its short-term troubles that had accumulated. Initially industry observers were skeptical about a non-Japanese manager successfully leading a Japanese firm. While Carlos Ghosn was successful in cutting costs and had sometimes imposed hard regimes during his tenure atMichelin3  , many were apprehensive if he would be successful in Japan. | | He was 46 when he joined Nissan and was far younger than the middle-level managers in the company.Carlos Ghosn knew nothing about Japan and had no knowledge of the culture there. He once said that he had a ‘very vague' idea about the country and accepted, â€Å"I did not try to learn too much about Japan before coming, because I didn’t want to have too many preconceived ideas. I wanted to discover Japan by being in Japan with Japanese people. â€Å"4  On the first day, when Carlos Ghosn arrived at Nissan, he took an elevator to reach his office. As he entered the lift, which was already pa cked with workers who were coming up from garage, everyone knew he was the new CEO. To his surprise, at every floor the lift stopped, none got down.Finally, when he got down, the employees bowed as he left and went back to their floors. After such an unexpected incident, which reflected major cultural difference, Carlos Ghosn realized how important it was to understand them. Since the first day, Carlos Ghosn had made the cultural diversity a catalyst rather than a crutch for the company. 5 Next >> 1]Carlos Ghosn's interview, â€Å"Interview: The road to ruin†, www. themanufacturer. com, December 2002 2]Parachkevova, Anna â€Å"CEO outlines Nissan’s resurgence†, www. thedartmouth. com, May 12th 2004 3]Carlos Ghosn joined Michelin in 1974, where he was chairman and CEO ofNorth American operations and had undertook several cost cutting initiatives. 4]†Carlos Ghosn: standing at the global crossing†, http://web-japan. org, April 5th 2002 5]†Th rowing away the culture crutch†, 2000 Automotive News World Congress, January 18th 2000 Carlos Ghosn: The ‘Nissan Magic' Cont†¦ However, since the beginning, Carlos Ghosn was in a Catch-22 situation as Japanese were not used to dictatorship kind of leadership. He knew that if he tried to dictate terms, that could lead to bruising employee morale, and if he remained lenient, it could hinder the required change.Instead of imposing change ,CarlosGhosn brought about the need for urgency in operations by mobilizing   them an agers. Carlos Ghosn identified that the basic flaw with Nissan’s culture when he took over was that employees were reluctant to accept the failures and held other departments or economic conditions responsible for them. This resulted in a lack of urgency among employees as everyone assumed the other would take action. He found that instead of solving the problems, they were trying to live with them.Nissan throughout 1990s, had been concentra ting on short-termmarket share growth rather than long termgrowth and instead of investing its profits towards product portfolio improvement itwas spending themtowards equity purchases of other companies especially its suppliers. Its product profile was comparatively outdated with old designs when customers craved for stylish designs while competitors were steadily focusing on new product designs. By 1999, it had around $4 billion held in the form of shares while its purchasing costs remained very high, around 20-25%more than that of Renault's.The employees openly resisted cross-functional teams, as they strongly believed in territories and sectionalism, which was a major part of their culture. Carlos Ghosn explained, â€Å"Engineers work very well together, financial people work very well together, salespeople work very well together. But when you start to add an engineer, a marketer, a salesperson, and a manufacturer, here all the strengths of Japan in teamwork disappear. â€Å" 6  To overcome the resistance, he had to explain to the employees why the cross-functional teams were important and how they would impact the overall benefits.Carlos Ghosn believed that the general human tendency was to resist anything different. He considered that by accepting change, people tend to become stronger, as they understand the differences and try to analyze the causes for such differences. Cross-functional teams were formed and employees were involved in the revival process. This helped Carlos Ghosn explain his plans and gain acceptance easily. Through these cross-functional teams, employees were made to look beyond their line of responsibilities, understanding the nitty- gritties of the other departments as well.After the cross-functional teams were in place, people owned up responsibility whenever something went wrong. â€Å"The solution to Nissan’s problems was inside the company. The main [idea] we would have for revival of the company would be a rebuilt m otivation of Nissan employees and partners,† he explained. 7| | Immediately after appointing the teams, they were asked to submit plans to achieve the maximum possible output in each area and within a week decisions were made. The outcome was the Nissan Revival Plan (NRP).After the NRPwas announced, every aspect from the timing, the plan schedules and the commitments as well as targets were clearly stated. Shiro Tomii, vice president, Nissan Japan remarked, â€Å"He establishes high yet attainable goals; makes everything clear to all roles and levels of responsibility, works with speed; checks on progress; and appraises results based on fact. â€Å"8 Next >> 6]†Carlos Ghosn: standing at the global crossing†, op. cit 7]Saadi, Dania â€Å"Nissan's miracle man offers clues to solving national economic woes†, www. lebanonwire. com   8]David Magee, Turnaround: how Carlos Ghosn rescued NissanCarlos Ghosn: The ‘Nissan Magic' Cont†¦ Listening to the employees and facilitating their participation in the decision-making process, was key aspect of Carlos Ghosn's leadership. By avoiding impersonal meetings through mails, he stressed the need for face-to-face communication. He believed that the people close to the company could come out with better solutions than an outsider like him. In contrast, the Japanese were polite, reticent and never spoke about the plans to their boss. Carlos Ghosn had to repeatedly explain to the employees that he needed their viewpoints and would not mind if they speak out.This, according to him was the greatest hurdle. While in France at Renault, he emphasized on teamwork, in Japan he believed it was not required and instead individuality was given more prominence. Price Water house Coopers in a report on change management listed Carlos Ghosn's key human resource management techniques calling them very simple and straightforward By maintaining transparency from the stage of planning to action, he ai med at the best possible out comes while also lifting the morale of the employees who were particularly distressed after the crisis at the company.He invited suggestions from every influential individual from suppliers, Nissan’s ex-employees, dealers etc. He explained, â€Å"As you know credibility has two legs, performance, and transparency. Performance, we had none to show at the time, so we were determined to be highly transparent. â€Å"9  He called the NRP, an ‘organization's collective effort' involving thousands of employees at every managerial level. To show his commitment to the plan, he declared that he would resign along with other top executives if the plan fails in bringing in the benefits. Carlos Ghosn wanted immediate results by fixing short-term targets.While he called the passive style of management-by-consensus a killer, an active and constructional version could work miracles, according to him. He believed that an 85%consensus was enough and 100%w as not always essential. While cultural adaptability had been his key, he was also at the same time affirmative about giving more priority to the bottom-line growth rather than just to the cultural aspects. He remarked, â€Å"I do not want to intentionally offend people, but I am more concerned about making Nissan profitable again than being culturally sensitive. â€Å"10| | The first phase of NRP focused on cutting the costs and improving profits.The first major step Carlos Ghosn undertook was divestments from subsidiaries to reduce the debt. Suppliers accounted for major part of costs of production and the age-old Keiretsu system and the obligations that came with it were adding to heavy costs11  . Deviating from the system, Carlos Ghosn opened the purchasing offer to all the suppliers encouraging new suppliers who were ready to supply at low prices. As part of the revival plan, suppliers were forced to offer discounts to the tune of 20-30%and the number of suppliers was broug ht down to 600 from 1145 while the purchasing costs were reduced by 20%.During a meeting with the dealers of Nissan, Carlos Ghosn announced, â€Å"I don't want any excuses. I want to know what you are going to do to make things better. â€Å"12  Cost cutting at each stage began to be regarded as the need of the hour as the employees were encouraged to reduce expenses through all possible ways. The cross functional teams were given one month time to identify areas to cut costs and increase the profits through bottom-line growth. Next >> 9]Ibid. 10]Larimar, Tim â€Å"Japan, Nissan and Ghosn revolution†, www. sb. columbia. edu 11]The Keiretsu system, in which the companies maintained partnership with each of its suppliers, holding shares in those companies, transferring managers characterized the big family of companies and its suppliers were both shared relationships 12]Larimar, Tim â€Å"Japan, Nissan and Ghosn revolution†, op. cit. Carlos Ghosn: The ‘Ni ssan Magic' Cont†¦ The most un-Japanese practices like closing plants and cutting work force, in a country, which believed in lifetime employment, were the biggest of all challenges.When he planned to close five plants which included both assembly plants and power train plants, the board of directors were not informed until the night before, as Carlos Ghosn knew some people within the company wanted his plans to fail. After he announced, he was reported to have threatened, â€Å"If this leaks out, I'll close seven plants, not five. â€Å"13  For Carlos Ghosn, convincing the labor unions over the disadvantages of rigid job definition was a big task. The seniority-based promotion that was entrenched in the Japanese firm was replaced by a performance based and merit-based incentive system.Instead of sacking people, which was against the culture in Japan, 21,000 jobs were cut through retirements, pre-retirements and golden handshakes out of which 16500 were in Japan alone. The plants were closed, while offering alternative jobs to the employees in other plants of the company. The complex manufacturing structure, which involved 24 platforms at seven assembly plants, was brought down to 12 platforms, which were shared by four plants. Around 10%of the retail outlets were closed and 20%of the dealer affiliates was streamlined to further reduce selling and marketing expenses.After the phase one of the revival plan was over, Nissan reported profits of $1. 5 billion for six months between April to September, which was the best results the company had ever seen. At the same time, Carlos Ghosn began to be called an iconoclast, who had brought in some un-Japanese, western style of culture in the company’s operations. He, in contrast to the traditional Japanese business etiquettes, shook hands with his partners and other executives. As a result, there was discontent among the traditionalists and other industry associations in the country.And his bold decision s like closing plants, had invited repugnance among many including the insiders and Ghosn began to take along a bodyguard wherever he went| | The cross-cultural merger between a French and a Japanese firm, raised several other challenges. The alliance aimed at cost savings through sharing of platforms and engineering capabilities. Initially though the employees and the design engineers were convinced over the superiority of the platforms brought in from the Renault plants, they were reluctant to adopt them.To overcome resistance, regular meetings were conducted among the Nissan and Renault employees. While at the same time, Carlos Ghosn began to recruit more designers from Japan to design new models. He maintained that the best way to solve the cultural differences was to avoid forcing the cultural blend. Rather, he believed in appreciating the differences between the cultures and minimizing the cultural clashes by bringing in a performance-driven management. To ensure that the Japa nese staff understands what the French managers spoke, English was made the common language in the company.A dictionary of 100 key words used by them management was prepared to solve the differences in the way each work was interpreted by French as well as Japanese. The words included ‘commitment', ‘transparency', ‘objectives', and ‘targets' etc. Carlos Ghosn: The ‘Nissan Magic' Cont†¦ In Japan, attending all formal parties of suppliers was very important and one was not supposed to miss them unless there was a strong reason. When Carlos Ghosn missed the New Year Party hosted by the suppliers’ association, it was considered as a sign of disrespect to their culture.Carlos Ghosn had attended all such gatherings since then. Carlo sGhosn understood all these subtle aspects, which were an essential part of the culture, as he began adapting to them. In the second phase of the revival plan, which started in 2001, Carlos Ghosn stressed on selling mo re cars, improving the top line growth as well. Dropping non-performing products from its portfolio, the company introduced trendy new models in SUVs and minivans category. An updated Z sports coupe was reintroduced in the market. The phase two increased sales by one million and debt was brought down to zero.With his unconventional leadership style and charisma, he began tow in praises from the employees of the company as well as from the industry and the public. Sometimes, people in streets would stop him and wish him success saying, ‘Gambatte [go for it]'. TIME magazine named him the most influential global business executive and more and more Japanese companies were embarking on the gaijin [Foreigner]-Ghosn’s style for attaining maximum benefits in a short time. His colleagues at Nissan were particularly impressed by his dedication towards achievement of targets and his 24/7 work ethics reinforcing the importance of hard work.His devotion towards the revival of the c ompany from problems, for which he was not in any way responsible, encouraged his peers to work hard and contribute towards a common goal. Toshiyuki Shiga who was made in charge of the Nissan’s expansions in China had once remarked, â€Å"He told me to make a clear strategy for Nissan in China, and he gave me two months to do it. †Ã‚  14  While he ensured that the progress was undertaken without holding any individual responsible for the past crisis, he was also at the same time particular about results. | Dominique Thormann, senior vice president, Nissan Europe, said, â€Å"To people who don't accept that performance is what is at stake, he can be ruthless. â€Å"15 Calling his turnaround at Nissan a ‘near death experience', Carlos Ghosn said he had experienced extensive cultural diversities during his tenure at Renault, Nissan, Nissan’s North American business and Samsung motors, a Korean based company acquired by Renault. His management style is wov en around two attributes- ‘value and motivation'. He believed in motivating employees and demanding performance by empowering them. Your employees must be interested in what is going on in the company. Nothing is more inefficient than a boring company. You have to create an interesting environment where people are interested in the story you are creating and want to hear the happy ending†, he said. He was called ‘Ice Breaker' by Daimler Chrysler's Chairman Jurgen E. Schrempp because of his unconventional thinking and implementing western style of management in Japan breaking the prevalent myth in the industry. Carlos Ghosn: The ‘Nissan Magic' Cont†¦The biweekly comic series, ‘The true life of Carlos Ghosn' featured Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn, depicting his popularity in the industry as well as the country. Some others called him ‘an ambassador of change', ‘the troubleshooter' and considered him as a role model for all those business exec utives who were seeking solutions to the poor state of their companies in Japan. After the implementation of the Nissan Revival Plan (NRP), within two years, the company recovered from the losses and reported a 10. 2%increase in its revenues and nearly 84%increase in its operating profits .Though the sales had not considerably improved, the cost cuttings contributed towards improving the bottom line. In May 2001, the company reported its largest net profit of $2. 7 billion. Carlos Ghosn was named the ‘Businessman of the year' by Fortune magazine in 2002 and Auto mobile Magazine called him' man of the year' for his contributions to Nissan. Renault increased its stake in Nissan to 44. 4%while Nissan owned 13. 5%of Renault's share capital. However, by 2003,Nissan started experiencing a downward trend in its sales, as the volume of goods that passed out from dealers was dropping in size.Customers regularly complained of quality defects and Nissan’s rank in overall quality ( as per a survey by J. D. PowerAssociates) dropped to 11th in 2004 from6th in 2003. It looked as the rigorous emphasis on the faster execution of the restructuring had resulted in these quality defects while Ghosn assured he would fix them. To counter the situation, in May 2004, he sent a quality control team of 220 engineers to the Nissan plant in Smyrna (Tennessee) and every part of the assembly line went through a detailed scrutiny.Subtle issues like the workers who wore studded jeans and rings causing scratches to the freshly painted cars, etc came to light. Ghosn was amazed at some very obvious ones, which could be rectified at the plant, like defective doors and reading lights etc. Carlos Ghosn had already achieved two of the three goals that were set for NRP, the debt was cleared and profitability was achieved. | | The Nissan 180, an extension of NRP was launched and aimed at additional sales volume of one million annually from 2005, the third objective of NRP. US market was c onsidered to play a key role in achieving the goal of additional one million sales.A new plant was set up in Canton, the first in North America where Nissan was facing challenges from other Japanese automakers, Toyota and Honda. Mean while, Nissan was planning an alliance with Mitsubishi after Daimler Chrysler gave up its plans of partnership with Mitsubishi. The partnership would help Nissan enter the mini car segment while Mitsubishi would be able to reduce cost burden of new product development. The shortage of steel supplies forced Nissan to reduce its production in 2004, affecting production of 15,000 units amounting to $58. 5million of loss in sales.Nissan closed its plants for five days following the shortage of supplies, as steel prices in creased with demand for steel increasing after the economic boom in China. While halting production was considered a sign of mismanagement many felt that Carlos Ghosn's attempt to bring down the number of suppliers as part of NRP, had resu lted in over-reliance on few suppliers . However, Ghosn defended himself saying that the savings achieved during that phase were far more [$9. 7 billion] than the losses incurred due to loss of sales. Renault – The French Automaker Renault was a state owned government enterprise since 1945.It was started as a motorized vehicle assembler in 1898. Renault built trucks, airplane engines and heavy vehicles during the World War II and after the war and with the economic boom, Renault achieved high volume sales with its low cost cars like 4CV, Renault 4 and Renault 5 through the 1970s and 1980s. During early 1980s, Renault expanded into US by acquiring half the shares of American Motor Corporation. However, the deal was unprofitable and the company had to withdraw from the market in 1987. A similar deal failed in Mexico, and with both the deals financed through debts, Renault was left ith huge debts accumulated by the end of 1980s. It reported losses of $3. 5 billion between 1984 a nd 1986. Further, because it was a state owned business, obligations with labour unions led to more costs for the company. When Louis Schweitzer joined Renault in 1986,Renault had accumulated debts to the tune of $9 billion and was in huge losses. Its proposed merger with Sweden based ABVolvo in 1993 failed due to unfavorable French political climate and with Swedish shareholders expressing reservation. The company continued to be in losses till 1996,when Schweitzer brought in Carlos Ghosn as the executive vice president.Under the duo, product quality was improved, outsourcing secondary activities and overheads were reduced along with reduction in workforce. The same time, French government started setting ground for its IPO when Louis Schweitzer discovered that privatization of the company could only save it. In July 1996, the IPO was completed. By 1998,with the midsize model Scenic, Renault was successful in European market and in 1998 alone it made profits of $1. 4 billion from$4 0 billion sales. 16 While Renault became the No. 1 automaker in Europe, to be a global player, it had to expand its operations further.By the end of 1990s, it had a very small presence in Asia and was totally absent in the North American market. After the merger of Daimler and Chrysler in 1998, for Renault, expansions became a requisite. And, Nissan seemed a lucrative opportunity, as an alliance with Nissan could help in easier market expansion for Renault in developing markets. While others including Ford and DaimlerChrysler had earlier attempted a deal with Nissan, they later withdrew keeping in view the huge debt that Nissan held and its culture that was inflexible. | After the alliance, Renault managed to reduce its launching and warranty costs for new product introductions by recruiting managers from Nissan to undertake the launch. At the same time, it sent its employees to Nissan to oversee manufacturing, to achieve cost efficient production. Later Renault acquired Samsung Mot ors in South Korea and Roman automaker, Dacia as part of its international expansion. With the launch of multi purpose vehicles, Laguna II and A van time in 2001 and Espace IV in 2002 , and after its association with Formula One racing between 1992 and 1997, its brand popularity improved.By 2004,Renault held strong foothold in European market and reported a 6. 5%increase in sales by the first half of 2004 and was the fourth largest auto company in the world. It held nearly 11%market share in Western European market in passenger car and light vehicle cars. At the same time, Renault performance in large cars segment was sluggish and was struggling to achieve operating margin of 4%, when the demand for cars in the European market was low. Some of the new launches like the Vel Satis, a tall saloon luxury model, were not very successful in the market. Are launch in the US market was also underway.Renault was facing other challenges along with Nissan and other automakers. Environmental fr iendly cars, which seemed a likely potential opportunity, were costly to manufacture at the price the customers were ready to pay. Renault was planning for expansions in Chinese market and South Korea and other parts of Asia through alliance with Nissan. Next ;gt;;gt; 16]†For Renault, a new chance to take on the world†, www. businessweek. com, November 15th 1999 Carlos Ghosn as CEO of Renault and Nissan By 2010, Nissan and Renault would build their cars using the common building blocks.Ghosn viewed the alliance as â€Å"managing contradiction between synergy and identity†17  and confirmed that while gaining synergies, the individual identity of each brand would be safeguarded. The other major alliances in the industry, the DaimlerChrysler and the GM/Fiat had not proved to be very successful because of improper management of merged assets, trans-atlantic product development and failed attempt in understanding local market; Ghosn confirmed that Nissan's alliance w ith Renault would creatively achieve it. At the same time the alliance would avoid merger and would maintain ‘a spirit of partnership'18  .The alliance would be the fourth largest automobile group in the world. In October 2004, the first car was built using a common platform of Nissan and Renault. Modus, a subcompact minivan of Renault shared its base with Nissan’s Micra saving $500million for Renault every year. After Carlos Ghosn succeeds Schweitzer at Renault's in April 2005, he would also continue as the CEO of Nissan. Carlos Ghosn was affirmative that he would not leave the company unless he finds the right person who would succeed him at Nissan. He stressed on the need for a Japanese as the CEO of Nissan in such a culture sensitive country.While at Nissan, he had transformed himself into a Japanese, adapting to the culture, analysts feared if he would breach the French business etiquettes as he takes up the rein at Renault. 19  Two of the five vice presidents at Renault would retire soon, and Carlos Ghosn was to take up the reigns at both the companies, during such senior level management changes. At the same time, many feared if the sense of urgency brought through NRP would continue at Nissan or will the company slip back to its old habits, when Carlos Ghosn leaves.The pressure was considered to be very high, as an analyst stated, â€Å"He will be less present at Renault than he was at Nissan, and less present at Nissan that he used to be. I believe this challenge will be more difficult. â€Å"20 The alliance had helped both the companies equally, in terms of cost savings from not requiring to construct new plants where the alliance can use common buildings, common platforms etc. This had also helped them enter new markets faster and gain other synergies . The purchasing power had also increased as they ordered and bought components through Renault-Nissan purchasing organization for both the companies at a time. | The alliance had fr om the beginning ensured that the inter-company cultural clashes do not exist, by maintaining individual cultural identities. While a merger had been avoided since the beginning, Carlos Ghosn confirmed that it would be its agenda in future also. Carlos Ghosn remarked that when he takes up the two positions, he would blend the strengths of the people at the companies, the innovation excellence of the French and the dedication towards manufacturing of the Japanese. 21  He affirmed that his tenure at Nissan had allowed him to learn the real essence of successful leaders, and would drive his success in future also.He called himself, ‘not a theorist of citizenship but an expert in multi nationality’. 22 Carlos Ghosn called the three major attributes, ‘Value, Transparency and Performance' as the ones that would determine the competence of any CEO. He believed that they act as standards for leadership in global business, in the light of growing corporate scandals, when the top executives of the companies were increasingly coming under scrutiny. He explained that the actual results that are delivered along with simultaneous value creation to the customers and the other stakeholders through maintaining transparency, reflect an efficient leadership.By communicating every strategy to every person concerned, he maintained that it would facilitate a faster reaction to dynamics in the fiercely competitive global market place. An analyst once called Carlos Ghosn, ‘amanager without borders, polyglot and cosmopolitan'. Talking about his dual roles and the cultural barriers that he will have to face as he moves to Renault while also heading Nissan, Carlos Ghosn said, â€Å"Global is global. In my opinion, this is going to be the story of the twenty-first century.This is what's going to happen in the twenty-first century – you're going to see the emergence of more ‘global' standards, some kind of global references; you're going to see mor e and more of it. But ‘globality' doesn’t mean ‘uniformity. ‘ It doesn't mean that. You’ll still have different cultures, you’ll still have different tastes, and you’ll still have some adaptations to make to different countries, but you'll have some basic things that will be common globally, especially in the economic area. â€Å"23 17]†Renault's alliance with Nissan†, www. economist. om, August 16th 2001 18]Parachkevova, Anna â€Å"CEO outlines Nissan's resurgence†, http://thedartmouth. com, May 12th 2004 19]†Carlos Ghosn- Nissan motor†, www. businessweek. com, January 8th 2000 20]Tierney, Christine â€Å"Leadership, bold moves help Renault save Nissan†, www. detnews. com, October 24th 2003 21]Smith, Duvergne, Nancy â€Å"Nissan Renault alliance faces down few challenges†, http://web. mit. edu, November 18th 2004 22]Abescat, Bruno â€Å"I am an expert of multi nationality†, http://liv res. lexpress. fr 23]†Carlos Ghosn: standing at the global crossing†, op. cit

The Ring Fencing Proposal Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 1049 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Since the financial crisis in 2008, the economy around the world has been growing slowly, especially in developed countries. And stock markets in many counties experienced downturns. Fox example, the peak point is around 14,000 points for Dow Jones Industrial Average index in 2007, while it declined to 6,600 in 2009. Also the unemployment rate suffered badly, a larger number of youngsters cannot get a job and even some employee has to work less to share workload with other employee. In 2011, this global recession trigger European sovereign debt crisis, especially in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. In May 2011, one hundred thousand of people protest against the financial retrenchment in Athens. In UK Mervyn King, Bank of England governor, said this financial crisis might be the worst crisis that UK has ever meet. The financial crisis of 2007-2008 is considered to be the worst financial crisis since 1930s. The main reason, I think, is that the regulation of financial markets did not keep pace with the creation of the financial derivative instrument, which lead to cash from taxpayers is used to rescue the irresponsible operation of big banks. On the other hand, when the investment strategies are successful, these major banks get profit. Therefore, the public is becoming so call scapegoat who clean up the mess. In order to deal with this problem, ring-fencing approach was introduced and backed by Chancellor George Osborne. A body of ring-fencing means an organization in UK which performs several core activities. Recently, the only core activity refers to the activity that accepts deposits. In fact, four provisions are included: (1) accepting deposits; (2) making payments; (3) withdrawing money; (4) over drafting. In this way, ring-fencing can be used to separate the excluded activities (risk activities) in the investment banking from the core activity. In practise, the real objective is to handle with the problem of too big to fall . In combination with the resolution method and those banks which has the higher capital measures, it can be resolving the problem of too big to fall economically and operationally. However, many famous economists, like Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve and the architect of the Volcker Rule argue that if the ring fence approach is put into effect, banks in UK will not safeguard taxpayers in foul weather. They think that total separation is a better choice for bank regulation. In history, total separation approach refers to Glass-Steagall Act, which is the first time to separate the commercial bank from investment bank. At that time, the investment bank stated to access the field of traditional banks, taking deposit. Under such circumstances, the profits of commercial banks were damaged significantly. Therefore, not only retail banks begin to invest their assets but also purchase new shares for reselling to the public. Greedy made baking industry tolerate huge risks in exchange of even larger return. Implementation of Glass-Steagall Act imposed the separation between retail banks and investment bank. From then on, the commercial banks are only allowed to do business with individuals and ordinary firm, and investment banks do riskier business, like mergers and acquisitions In order to promote the development of financial derivative instrument, the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed On November 12, 1999. Without the matched bank regulation, the rapid development of financial derivative instrument became the chief criminal of the financial crisis in 2007 again. In order to avoid the cash of taxpayer was used to clean up the mess again. The ring fence and the total separation approaches were presented by the UK government. While the ring fence approach was seemingly supported by the government. The Chancellor George Osborne announced that the major banks in UK will be totally separated if they cannot obey new rules to ring-fence risky i nvestment business from retail business. Although the relative laws about the ring fence have been legislated, this will leave some problem inevitably: The accurate range of ring fence. This is what kinds of activities and assets can/cannot be included in the ring fencing body: there are still many different kinds of middle activities and assets that are not defined practically. The accurate content of exemption is unknown from ring- fence, for example the de minimis exemption. The specific prohibitive activities of the banks The definition of the derivative does not defined very specifically. Therefore, whether the ring-fence can be implemented or not is still a practical problem. Besides, compared to the total separation approach, the ring fencing method has many weak points. As the ICB acknowledged full separation might provide the strongest firewall to protect retail banking services from contagion effects of external shocks. In means if the domino effect (financi al contagion) happens, the ring fence model cannot provide enough protection to the financial system. Furthermore, whether the ring fence can solve the problem that the major banks are too large and too interrelated to fail or not are unknown, Supposed the ring fencing is implemented, there are still some banks that have assets beyond than UK annually GDP. In addition, there is not a necessary connection between capital levels and riskiness of a bank; we should not pay too much attention on stricter capital requirements. That is to say the taxpayers will still tolerate the huge risks of financial system. In the third place, the cost impact is still unclear. Although the estimation of cost for banking sector recommended by ICB is around  £4bn and  £7bn, the practical costs will be higher. Obviously, these costs would either transfer to the customers or be soaked up by the banks with lowering profits to shareholders. Therefore, it will cause that customers and shareholders change their minds to choose those banks with lower costs and higher return. In order to lower the costs, those banks may move their head quarters to other countries. On that day, the financial centre will become a bubble reputation for London. No matter what kind of approach we use, there is no doubt that the process of transferring a wholesale bank to a retail bank will be a milestone for bank regulation. In order to satisfy the requirement of ring-fence, we have to make a detailed analysis of the some accounting items, like assets and liabilities, which are inside or which are outside the ring fence part. All in all, there are still lots of blanks that need to be completed. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Ring Fencing Proposal Finance Essay" essay for you Create order