Showing posts with label Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Management. Show all posts

Thursday, December 7, 2017

The Political Career of Margaret Thatcher

The political career of the formidable Margaret Thatcher began in the voting of the year 1950 and 1951, when she ran for a parliamentary seat on a Conservative ticket. During these elections, she was not only the only female candidate in the race, but she was also the youngest, at twenty five. Although she lost in both elections to the Labour party candidate, she managed to significantly reduce their majority in this constituency. Despite not being able to participate in the 1955 general elections, Thatcher, in the same year ran for the Orpington seat in a by-election in which she was also defeated, but in this case, the margin of defeat was quite narrow. This brought a realization that she could only win in a constituency where the Conservative party was downright dominant. To realize her ambition, she went looking for one such constituency, and as a consequence, was selected to run as the Conservative candidate for Finchley, where she was elected Member of Parliament in the 1959 general elections.
She made her first speech when she defended her bill, which required members of the local authorities to hold their council meetings in public. She displayed her strong will and character by going against the official position of her party by voting for the restoration of birching, which was a form of corporal punishment using a birch rod. From the outset of her career in politics, she declared herself a friend of the Jewish community. She was not only a founding affiliate of a pro Jewish group in her constituency, but she was also a member of the pro-Jewish association of the conservative party. Despite this friendship, however, she was of the opinion that Israel had to give up some of the land it had occupied in order to bring peace in Palestine. Moreover, she considered some of the actions of the Israeli government, such as the bombing of Osirak, as a severe abuse of international law.
In 1961, Thatcher was given an endorsement to the front bench by the Macmillan government of the time, and in this new capacity, she served as the Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. However, when the Conservatives failed to win the elections in the voting of 1964, she developed into the spokesperson for Housing and Land. Here, she showed her strong support for her party’s stand on allowing those tenants living in council houses to be allowed to buy their residences. In 1966, she was selected into the shadow treasury lineup where she was strongly in opposition to the policy of the Labour party which set compulsory price and income management, she stated that such policies would not help the economy and that they would, in fact, damage the economy. At a party conference in 1966, Thatcher criticized the high taxation policies of the Labour government, stating that they were going against the established order of British society and turning towards socialism, and perhaps they would later turn towards communism. Her main argument for this position was that low taxes encouraged people to work harder to earn an income.
She was among the small number of Conservative MPs to hold up the bill whose purpose was to decriminalize homosexuality in men. Moreover, she was also among those who voted in agreement of a bill to decriminalize abortion. She further gave her support for the maintaining of the death penalty but voted against the easing of the laws concerning divorce. These stances serve to show that while she was progressive in some of her views, she was extremely conservative in others. Edward Heath led the Conservative party to triumph in the 1970 general elections, and this proved to be an opportunity for her, as she was appointed Secretary for Education and Science. In her new position, she came to draw much public attention through her promotion of cutting spending in the education system. One of the most controversial moves during her first few months was the abolition of milk for school children at no cost. Because of this move, she encountered a lot of disapproval not only from the ranks of the Labour party, but also from the media.
The Conservative government, during its term, experienced a lot of difficulties resulting from the oil crisis of 1973 to the demands, by trade unions, for the increase of wages for workers. These difficulties led to the slender Conservative thrashing by the Labour party in the 1974 elections. This loss considerably weakened Heath’s leadership of the party, and Thatcher took this opportunity to challenge him for the leadership. Heath was forced to resign his position in the party after she trounced him, in the first vote, and William Whitelaw, the former’s preferred heir, in the second party vote, to become the new party head in 1975. To maintain the backing of the entire party behind her leadership, she appointed Whitelaw as her deputy. Because of the influence of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Thatcher was utterly opposed to the type of welfare state which then existed in Britain, believing that such a system was weakening the country. This institute was a firm proponent of the need for a reduction in the size of government, low tax, and more freedoms to allow businesses and consumers to run their activities without interference from the government. It is most probable that these ideas came to profoundly influence the policies of Thatcher, once she took the reigns of government.
In a 1976 speech, she made an attack on the Soviet Union’s aim to dominate the world, stating that while it did not care about what its people thought and put guns before everything, those who opposed them put everything before guns. These comments provoked a response from a soviet newspaper, which referred to her as the Iron Lady, a reference which stuck. In 1978, despite the economic improvement and the high ratings on the opinion polls in favor of the Labour party, the prime minister at the time, James Callaghan, chose to postpone the elections to 1979. The Labour party lost its popularity due to a series of events, such as strikes which occurred during that winter. The Conservative party took the opportunity to attack the Labour government, and this eventually led to its losing a motion of no confidence in parliament. This led to elections in 1979, with the Conservative party winning a comfortable majority in parliament, and its leader, Margaret Thatcher becoming the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Thatcher’s stand on domestic policy, as in all other issues was clear from the start of her administration. During her term as Leader of Opposition as well as prime minister, there was an increasing racial tension within Britain. When asked about it, she stated that the minorities in Britain added a wide variety and richness and that when these minorities became influential, then the local people became frightened. She further stated that Britain had done so much to bring democracy to other parts of the world and that because of this, it was only natural for the British to feel threatened by those coming into the country, not knowing what influences they would bring. The Conservative party, under her leadership, managed to take away the majority of the support of the far right National Front, almost leading to the latter’s collapse. Thatcher, in her duties as prime minister, was required to meet every week with the Queen to confer about matters of government. This led to a lot of speculation concerning their relationship, with some media stating that they did not agree on many issues, and that, in fact, they could not stand each other. Such speculation gave rise to rumors that a constitutional crisis was at hand, but this was headed off when the palace issued a statement that the media stories had no basis on fact. During Thatcher’s term, she practiced immense thriftiness in Downing Street, which included her insistence on paying for some of the things she used.
Thatcher’s economic policy was based on the belief that the government needed to be in control of all the money in circulation. To achieve this, her government came up with policies that ensured the lowering of direct taxes, especially on income, and the increase of indirect taxes. Moreover, the interest rates were increased so that the money supply in the economy would be reduced, and as a consequence, there would be a lowering of inflation. Thatcher not only established limits on the cash that was used on public spending, but also on social services. Because of her cuts on the government expenditure on tertiary learning, she became the first Oxford educated, prime minister, after the Second World War, to be denied an honorary doctorate. Despite the expression of doubt concerning her policies among some members of her party, Thatcher declared that although they might want her to turn away from them, she would not do so. This expressed her will not to abandon her guiding principles because of her belief that what she was doing was right. Her economic policies came under a lot of criticism from the public, especially during the recession in the beginning of the 1980s, which saw her popularity drop. To counter this recession, she ignored the advice of the leading economists, and instead increased taxes.
By 1982, there were indications of economic mending because of the lowering of inflation, but this was shadowed by the fact that there was a high unemployment rate. In this period, the unemployment rate was so high, the like of which had not been seen since the 1930s. By 1983, however, due to her economic policies, the economy was much stronger with low mortgage rates as well as less inflation. Because of the falling unemployment rates as well as a strong, stable economy, the opinion polls in 1987 showed the Conservatives in the lead. This prompted Thatcher to call for elections a year early, taking advantage of the situation as it was at the time. This must have been an attempt to avoid the same mistake which the Labour government had made in failing to call for an election in 1978.
The 1987 elections saw Thatcher elected for a third term, a sign that her move to call for elections early was exceedingly wise for her and the Conservatives. In the 1980s, a ninety percent tax was imposed on the extraction of oil from the North Sea, and the Thatcher government used the revenue derived to balance the economy as well as to cater for the expenditure of reform. She brought reform to the local government by putting a poll tax in place of the domestic rates. The latter was a tax based on the ostensible rental value of a home, while the former was to be charged to every adult occupant. The imposition of this new tax proved to be one of the most unpopular moves that her government had ever made, and this led to a large demonstration in London, which ended up becoming riots against the poll taxes. These taxes were s unpopular that when her successor came to office, he had them abolished.
Thatcher was determined to ensure that the power of the trade unions was reduced because of her belief that they undermined parliamentary democracy as well as the performance of the economy through their right to go on strike. Her government introduced legislation aimed at reducing the influence of trade unions, and despite going on strike in response, the resistance of the trade unions crumbled. During the elections of 1983, an unexpectedly low number of trade union members (some thirty nine percent) voted for the Labour party. Some have stated that Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed the power of the trade unions in the United Kingdom for a whole generation. Notable among the confrontations between Thatcher and the trade organizations was during the 1984 – 1985 miners’ downing of tools. This was due to the proposal by the National Coal Board to cut several thousand jobs as well as close over a hundred state owned mines. The National Union of Mine Workers, was at the forefront of two thirds of the miners in the kingdom to protest the actions taken by the Thatcher government. In response, Thatcher rejected their demands, comparing the confrontation to the Falklands war, stating that the unions were more difficult to fight, making them a dangerous threat to liberty. The strike went on for a whole year, during which Thatcher refused to back down, and because of this, the trade union had to concede.
The strike gave the economy enormous losses and these were further added when the government went ahead with plans to close more mines, even those that were profitable. As a consequence, thousands of jobs were lost and this led to the devastation of whole communities whose livelihood depended on them. Thatcher had noted that miners had had a hand in the bringing down of the Heath government, and she was determined that they would not do the same to her own. She gained victory through ensuring that there were adequate fuel stocks, and that she had appointed a leader for the National Coal Board who was tough on trade unions. Finally, she ensured that the police had received adequate training and were well equipped to counter any riots. Due to the strong policies which Thatcher initiated against them, the trade unions in Britain came to lose a lot of their power, and with this came a decline in membership. Throughout Thatcher’s government, the trade union membership dropped steadily to number less than ten million.
One of the most fundamental policies of the Thatcher government was privatization and this was accelerated especially after the elections of 1983. More than £47 billion was collected from the privatization of government owned business as well as the auction of council houses. The preparation of state owned industries for privatization ensured that there was a marked improvement in the performance of these industries. Moreover, since most of the privatized industries were monopolies, their privatization did not significantly affect their activities since there was no significant competition. While the privatization of government owned industries benefitted consumers in many ways, there were also some negative consequences, such as job cuts. It can, therefore, be said that the results of these actions were neither good nor bad. The sector which Thatcher considered to be most exempt from privatization was the rail industry. She believed that doing so would be disastrous to the government. The selling of state owned enterprises was accompanied by the easing of the regulations on the financial sector to hearten the expansion of the economy. In 1979, the monetary management of the United Kingdom was abolished, and this allowed the investment of an increased amount of capital in foreign markets. The Thatcher administration promoted the development of the fiscal and service segments to make up for the decline in the mechanized industry of the United Kingdom.
Among the issues which were of significant concern to the conservative government was that of Northern Ireland. The earliest of these was when the prisoners in the Maze Prison held a hunger strike in an attempt to regain their former status as political prisoners. For the duration of the hunger strikes, there was an increase in violence in Northern Ireland in support of the detainees’ actions. Thatcher, as was characteristic of her, did not accept these demands, and declared so in public. However, her government privately negotiated with the Irish republican principals to bring their influence to bear so that the starvation strikes would come to an end. After the deaths of some of the prisoners, however, some of their rights were restored, but the Thatcher government refused to concede to reinstating their former status. In 1984, Thatcher had gone for a party conference in Brighton, where she barely escaped being assassinated by the IRA, in an attempt which left five people dead. Despite this incident, she led the Conservative party in a conference the next day, showing that she would not be cowed by the attempt on her life. This action increased her fame with the public, who derived confidence from her action.
Thatcher saw the need to involve the Republic of Ireland in the governing progression of Northern Ireland as a way of fostering harmony in the troubled area. To achieve this, alongside the Irish prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, she created Irish Inter-Governmental Council in the year 1981. The meetings of this council resulted in the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, which made available to the Irish republic an advisory task in matters concerning the administration of Northern Ireland.  This move provoked a protest in Northern Ireland and prompted Ian Gow, a Minister of State, to resign his post in protest. Gow was opposed to any form of compromise with the Republic of Ireland, believing that Britain had to take a tough stance on issues related to Northern Ireland.
In 1989, the earliest confrontation Thatcher received to her position as leader of the Conservative party came from Anthony Meyer. While she managed to defeat the little known MP from the backbench, his challenge showed the growing discontent with her leadership within her party. Her supporters within the party played down these allegations, stating that her landslide win showed that the majority of the party members still backed her. Although Thatcher received poor approval ratings in opinion polls, Thatcher declared that she did not care about what they said, often citing her unbeaten record since she first got elected. Instead, she chose to stick to her way of thinking without having to change to please anyone. The growing discontent with her leadership within the Conservative party continued to increase, and by 1990, poll results showed that the party had been trailing behind the Labour party for months. Thatcher’s aggressive personality as well as her tendency to overrule the opinions of her associates further led to the dissatisfaction within the party.
It was Thatcher’s willingness to overrule her contemporaries which contributed to her demise. Her decision not to be in agreement to a schedule for the United Kingdom to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism made her second-in-command, Geoffrey Howe, to resign from the cabinet. This resignation prompted her leadership of the party to be challenged and although she won the first round, she did not do so decisively. As a result, a second ballot was called, and despite the fact that she wanted to fight on, her cabinet advised her to withdraw. She resigned her position and was substituted by John Major as party head as well as in the premiership. The latter managed to bring back the party fortunes and in the 1992 general elections, the Conservatives were victorious. Thatcher remained in the backbenches as a representative for her constituency until 1992, when she chose to resign from the House of Commons.
In conclusion, it can be said that Margaret Thatcher was one of the most formidable politicians and prime ministers in the history of Britain. Not only was she firm in her beliefs, she stuck to them no matter what those around her thought of it. The policies of her government were directed at making Britain an environment which was free of government interference, especially when it came to economic matters. Her confidence in her convictions are what kept her going since she was first elected to the time of her ouster from leadership of her party. While this may have been her strength, it also proved her undoing because her unwillingness to compromise led to her losing the support of members of her party.

Monday, October 30, 2017

Milton Friedman on CSR

One of the most fundamental views proposed by Milton Friedman is that a business manager has to make sure that profits are maximized. This is supposed to be conducted in such a way that promotes the objectives of shareholders. These views, while quite important for the achievement of business goals, have been criticized because of the belief that Friedman basically aims at narrowing the moral attitude of a business manager to concentrate on profit maximization instead of applying the virtues of management practices. In this paper, there will be an analysis of the criticisms leveled at Friedman and the manner through which his stance can be defended.
One of the criticisms leveled at Friedman’s stance is that it promotes the idea that profit should be the motivating factor of business managers. An argument that has been made in response to this stance is that managers should always seek to make sure that they are able to advance the ideals and ideas affecting their enterprises rather than seeking to achieve profits (Wight & Calkins, 2008). Profit maximization does not necessarily account for the motivation of the manager towards the achievement of business objectives. Instead, it promotes a situation where there is a drive towards profit maximization without considering the consequences of their actions. Under such circumstances, the manager does not have the behavioral motivation aimed at not only promoting the interests of the business, but also those of the people that contribute to it; especially its stakeholders (Arrow, 1973). Another criticism that has been made concerning Friedman’s stance is that it fails to consider that there are a number of motives, other than making profits, which inform the desire of individuals to participate in business. The achievement of a successful business is not just based on the making of profits, but also ensuring that there is the advancement of inspirational sentiments as well as the motivation that is brought about within the institution. A result of this situation is that it becomes possible for an organization to achieve success without concentrating only on profit making.
Another criticism of Friedman’s model is based on the fact that there are a large number of alternatives to it. Therefore, rather than being perfect, it is a model that essentially has a considerable number of alternatives that could work better than it. When it comes to entrepreneurship, managerial motivations are not necessarily the only determinants of the success of a business (Wight & Calkins, 2008). This is because success often involves a situation where there is the advancement of such ideas as risk taking and the desire to build the business in such a way that it is able to achieve its goals. The actualization of management objectives is fundamental in bringing about a successful business, but it cannot be the only motivation because without such input as risk taking and the protection of stakeholder interests, a business cannot hope to thrive. Moreover, there is also a need to develop means through which rivalries can be handled and this is in such a way that ensures that there is the creation of tactics that keep the business ahead of others (Arrow, 1973). This is especially the case where there is a need to make sure that the business is successful through keeping ahead of rivals, because staving off rivalries helps businesses come to terms with themselves, especially their strengths and weaknesses. Through such knowledge, they can work towards the improvement of products so that they can remain competitive. This is a situation, it is argued, that is not factored in by Friedman’s model.
Moreover, Friedman is also criticized for not factoring in the inspirational components of business practice. This is especially considering that while Friedman explains that motivated self-interest is an essential factor when among managers when it comes to maximization of profits. However, this factor can also end up being a mask for the greed that the managers have because profit alone as an aim can end up making managers make some very unethical decisions (Wight & Calkins, 2008). Therefore, under such circumstances, managers could end up promoting the corporate social responsibility (CSR) not because they are motivated to do so, but because they would likely to make sure that there is the advancement of the reputation of the business. This is especially considering that a manager could make use of corporate social responsibility as a mask for the organization so that it can end up aiding in an increase in productivity, customer loyalty, and finally, profitability. There is, under such circumstances, a failure to consider the ethical responsibility that the business has towards its stakeholders because managers only consider CSR as a means towards an end rather than as an end in itself (Arrow, 1973). Such a failure can end up being disastrous for a business because it only inspires profit making while not really caring about the welfare of stakeholders who actually make the contributions to its profits.
Despite the arguments above, there are cases where Friedman’s views can be defended. One of the most significant aspects of businesses is that they often undergo pressure from shareholders to make sure that they make profits. This is especially the case when it comes to meeting set profit targets because managers are often under considerable pressure to perform. Therefore, an organization ends up developing a culture of profit maximization using any of the means that are available to it. A result is that the business ends up being able to ensure that it undertakes those initiatives aimed at making it more successful through the advancement of profit making for the sake of securing the welfare of all its members. Moreover, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of means to ensure a positive outcome from its activities because without profits, organizations end up not being considered successful and are at risk of collapse. Friedman is therefore correct because he proposes that the making of profits should be the ultimate goal of any business and managers should be geared towards making this objective become a reality.
In conclusion, Milton Friedman has been criticized for promoting a model that pushes managers towards profit maximization. These criticisms are based on the argument that businesses should do more to ensure that they protect the interests of all stakeholders rather than only shareholders. While this ethical argument is pertinent, Friedman can be considered to be correct in his assumption that the main purpose of business is to promote the making of profit. Shareholders often hold managers responsible for making profits, meaning that it is essential for them to make sure that they make the businesses as profitable as possible through any means necessary, including the use of CSR.
References
Arrow, K. J. (1973). Social responsibility and economic efficiency. Public Policy, 21(3), 303-317.

Wight, J. B., & Calkins, M. (2008). The ethical lacunae in Friedman's concept of the manager. Journal of Markets and Morality, 11(2).

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Google

Google was created in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin as a website for conducting internet searches based on the popularity of websites. As organizations grow, they face the challenge of attracting and retaining top talent, and it is this problem that Google is currently facing as it continues to grow and the interpersonal environment which helped build it slowly dissolves. In this paper, we shall discuss these challenges among others and what Google is doing or should be doing in order to contain them.
According to Girard (165) by the beginning of 2007, Google had more than six times the number of employees it had only three years before. Google should be commended for employing such a large number of people but this comes with a lot of challenges. The large number of employees tends to slow down the decision making process within the organization and it makes it harder for individuals within it to feel like they are making an impact. In the process, this may lead to some of the top talent at Google to lose interest in working within the organization and being attracted by the more conducive atmosphere that can be found among Google’s rivals. Rival internet companies to Google are maturing enough to attract the top technical talent and offer a real opportunity of making plenty of money by from offering stock or selling to larger companies. The close proximity of these companies to Google makes it easier and faster for them to poach top technical staff from Google.
The growing aspirations of its top talent can be a very big problem within any fast growing company. In the case of Google, it should encourage its top talent to pursue their aspirations by funding their personal projects and by giving them the freedom to develop within the company without any interference. Flexibility should be encouraged, more opportunities for career growth should be created and individuals should be allowed greater decision making and planning for their career paths within the organization. This will not only be beneficial to these employees but it will also benefit Google because it will have a new range of products to put into the market and it will also be able to retain its top talent.
A reason why employees leave Google is the relatively low pay to what they could be earning elsewhere.  Within the internet search industry, Google is considered to be one of the most underpaying companies and although it still presents itself as an organization whose employees are not that interested in the money but rather to the benefit of working within the organization, this is no longer true. Saporito (48) suggests that Google’s growth has been so fast and so many employees have been hired that it is difficult to continue with the close relationship and understanding which characterized it at its founding. As it grows in size and continues to spread its tentacles all over the world, the large amount of money it makes will negate its need for giving low salaries to its employees. If Google does not reform its salary structure in favor of its employees, then it will only be a matter of time before there is an exodus of its top talent to other companies.
The stock option system at Google ensures that some employees are compensated for their low salaries. However, this system only applies to the older employees of the company. Google may suffer from new employees envying the older ones, some of whom have a stake in the company worth millions. This will lead to inefficiency within the organization because some employees may opt to leave to take up other opportunities in newer upcoming companies, and those who choose to stay will have very little morale for innovation because they will see no reward in it. Google should ensure that a more balanced system of payment is introduced to make its entire employees feel like being part of a large family.
O’Rooke (251) states that Google has over the past few years faced several legal issues from around the globe ranging from non censorship of content uploaded on its site to matters of copyright infringement. I believe that Google should start a new policy of negotiation with copyright owners to ensure that it does not break any copyright laws which may damage its reputation. Furthermore, it would be prudent for it to enforce a strict censorship of the content posted on its website in order to ensure that the content posted is not offensive to anyone, and also that it does not infringe on anyone’s right to privacy. If these two steps are seriously undertaken by this organization, then it will see a huge reduction in the legal problems that are currently plaguing it.
In conclusion, Google is one of the largest and most influential multinational organizations in the world and over the past decade, its influence has reached almost every corner of the globe. It is the preferred search engine for many people in the world especially for academics who find its resources very useful. Its other products such as Gmail, Google Books, and many others have become a part of the daily lives of millions and they would in fact be lost without them. Such use of a single organization’s products give this organization great power, and with power comes responsibility. It is the responsibility of Google to ensure that it gives the best quality of services to its customers and to ensure that it helps to keep their rights secure from being violated by using its website.

Cited Works
Girard, Bernard. The Google Way: How One Company Is Revolutionizing Management as We Know It. San Francisco, California: No Starch Press, 2009.
O’Rooke, James S. The Business Communication Casebook: Notre Dame Collection. Andover United Kingdom: Cengage Learning, 2007.
Saporito, B. “Refreshing Google.” Time 177.5 (2011): 48 – 49.