The Financial Crisis Of 2008 Finance Essay

The Financial Crisis Of 2008 Finance Essay There were many economic and political factors that lead to the financial crisis of 2008. Specific regulations, companies overstepping their boundaries with leverage, and the housing market bubble are only a few that have been said to have caused it. All of these factors were very important, and some of them are still happening today. The following four companies were on the front pages of almost every newspaper during this time, Bear Stearns Co., Lehman Brothers Holding Inc., Washington Mutual, and JPMorgan Co. To understand how these companies became major players in the financial crisis, the history of the companies must be shown. Bear Stearns Co. began when three men named, Joseph A. Bear, Robert B. Stearns and Harold C. Mayerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [Invested] $500,000 in capital to start one of the biggest independent investment banks in history. (11) Bear Stearns Co. came to be an extremely strong company. During the stock market crash, the firm [laid] off none of its employees. (11) Bear Stearns was always a strong company and it was not until 2007 that the company had its first quarterly loss. (11) To investors of a public company, over eighty years of profits means someone is running the company right. But once that first loss happened, the stock price sunk for the first time in company history. Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. was originally a small shop (4) that Henry Lehman opened when he moved to Alabama. After [Henrys] death in 1855à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Lehman Brothers evolved from a general merchandising business to a commodities broker that bought and sold cotton. (4) Lehman Brothers helped fund many major companies that are still around today. Some of these companies include Paramont Pictures, 20th Century Fox, RCA, Haliburton, according to (4). Lehman Brothers kept growing even through the Great Depression, making it one of the largest and strongest financial services firms in the US. Washington Mutual originated in 1889 [as] Washington National Building Loan and Investment Associationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ and [lent] its first $700 to build a house in Ballard. (8) Almost twenty years following, the banks name was changed to Washington Mutual Savings Bank. In April 1990, (8) Kelly Killinger was named the companys CEO. Within the next six years, WaMu acquired 16 smaller banks in Washington, Oregon, Utah and California. (8) In the year 1999, [Washington Mutual] buys subprime lender Long Beach Financial, which writes mortgages for people with less-than-stellar credit. This acquisition was a smart move for Washington Mutual to make more money, but it ends up coming back to haunt them in less than ten years. JPMorgan Chase Co. is one of the oldest, largest and best-known financial institutions in the world. (9) JPMorgan Co. started as The Manhattan Company in 1799. (9) JPMorgan Co. merged with many different big name banks and financial institutions of the time. Some of these banks included, Chase Manhattan Bank, Bank One, and The Bank of Manhattan. (9) JPMorgan Co. has also helped numerous big companies start and go public. JPMorgan helped create ATT, GE and U.S. Steel and also helped Apple Computers go public. There are a few different theories of the causes of the financial crisis. One theory is that Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the FHA caused a housing bubble because they were loaning to lower income people that could not afford the mortgage payments after the ARM payments increased over a short period of time. ARM stands for adjustable rate mortgage, which means, when a house is purchased, there is a low interest rate that people like and can easily make the payments. However, the following year, the payment includes a higher interest rate, which is harder to pay, but still manageable. Then a year or so after that, the interest rate increases to an even higher percentage and this payment is too much for the homeowner to make the payment. The high interest on top of the principal made the mortgage payments so high that the number of foreclosures increased at a very rapid rate. Foreclosures are legal [processes] by which a bankà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦takes a homeowners propertyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [And ] is the result of non-payment of the mortgage. (3) Soon after, people owed more money on their house than it was originally worth. This caused a panic in the housing system because homeowners that have had their house for years still owed more than their house was worth. This became a huge problem for investors as well. Some people like to invest in houses and flip them to make a quick profit. Flipping a house is when a house is purchased at a cheap price and is then renovated and sold for a quick profit. These investors were able to buy the house for cheap, but since they were considered dealers instead of brokers, they had an inventory of houses that they could not sell. Having to make mortgage payments on three or four different houses cannot be easy when homeowners are having trouble making one mortgage payment. Many of these investors then had to foreclose on their houses, sending them pretty close, if not, into bankruptcy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also major contributors to the financial crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government owned companies that were created to securitize mortgages, making the market for secondary mortgages larger. Securitizing mortgages is when a large amount of mortgages are combined into one security so investors only need to invest in one bond instead of hundreds or thousands of separate bonds, leaving more risk on the investor. AAA was, at the time, the safest bond that could be purchased on the bond market. Bonds are debt a company issues for investors to purchase, giving the company more money to operate with. Many investors choose bonds to invest in because they are extremely abundant and some are very low risk investments. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government-owned, so the two most credible credit rating companies rated them as AAA. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had been investing in mortgages that were eventually going to overturn; the bonds were not as safe of an investment as investors thought. This had a major impact on the rating system, making it not as trustworthy, influential or reliable as before. The reputation of credit rating companies has since been hard to trust and will remain questionable for a long time. There were now a countless number of foreclosures on the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Homeowners were not paying their mortgage payments because they did not have a reason to if they were going to lose their house. Once mortgages started to lose value to investors and homeowners, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds were not as valuable. This caused a downturn in investments and questionable thoughts about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The second theory for the cause of the financial crisis is that greedy bankers knowingly manipulated the financial system and politicians in Washington [took] advantage of homeowners and mortgage investors. (2) This means that back in 2004 when the exemption was passed, the bankers knew that by having fewer liabilities, they could make more money. So, when banks started being able to invest more money compared to their deposits, they were able to stuff more money back into their pockets, making them even richer than before. This was not good because some people say, money is power and investment bankers did not need more power or money to risk. This extended amount of money was unhealthy because the investment banks could risk more of their money and still have enough capital to cover the bank, if needed. The third and most thought out reason for the financial crisis has ten separate factors, leading to the real answer. (2) According to (2), the ten factors are a broad credit bubble, a sustained housing bubble, excess liquidity, failures in credit-rating and securitization transformed bad mortgages into toxic financial assets, managers amassed enormous concentrations of highly correlated housing risk, risk of contagion, common stock, rapid succession of ten firm failures, and severe contraction in the real economy. The factors listed above are not blaming one person or organization for something they did. These are rational reasons that could have caused the crisis and could have made it easier to calm. However, it is dangerous to conclude that the crisis would have been avoided only if we had regulated everything a lot more, had fewer housing subsidies, and had more responsible bankers. The crisis happened on a much bigger scale than what anyone could have predicted or prevented. The financial crisis of 2008 all started when Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, passed an exemption on the regulations for the big five investment banks. The meeting on April 28, 2004 was an urgent plea by the big investment banks. (1) These investment banks were looking for a way to raise their leverage ratio. It is said that at Bear Stearnsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [The leverage ratio] rose sharply, to 33 to 1 (1) shortly after the exemption was passed. The leverage ratio is the ratio between a companys liabilities and common equity. This was a major advantage to Bear Stearns, and the other big investment banks, because they could have a significantly lower amount of their deposits on hand than they were able to before. According to Harvey Goldschmid, a higher leverage ratio means if anything goes bad, it will be an awfully big mess.(1) This statement held true as we see today. On March 16, 2008, Bear Stearns made a deal with JPMorgan Chase Co. (12) This saved Bear Stearns from filing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Bear Stearns collapse was only the beginning and nobody could stop the economy from being blind-sided. Bear Stearns spiraled from being healthy to practically insolvent in about 72 hours. This was bad news for the entire economy. Bear Stearns experienced one of the largest bank runs in the history of the U.S. A bank run is when many depositors withdraw their money from a bank in a short period of time because the public does not have any confidence in the banking system as a whole. The public panics because they want to make believe their money will be safer outside of the bank. Bank runs do not occur nearly as often as they did before the FDIC. The Federal Deposit Insurance Company ensures depositors that their money will be safe from bank runs by insuring up to $250,000. A bank run can not only shut down a poorly operated bank but could also shut down a healthy bank. JPMorgan, backed by the New York Fed extended a sure line of credit that [gave] Bear Stearns at least 28 days to shore up its finances orà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ find a buyer. (12) Bear Stearns was in immediate trouble and people were starting to believe they wouldnt make it out of that one. JPMorgan agreed to pay a mere $2 a share to buy all of Bear [Stearns]. (13) This was a huge discount for JPMorgan because just one year earlier the stock was around $159.36. (14) This was an extreme drop in the price of a once highly valued stock. According to (14), the actual percentage of the price JPMorgan purchased at compared to the 52 week high was a 98.7 percent drop. This was by far the most dramatic drop in stock price in the 21st century, hoping to not be passed up in the near future. Lehman Brothers was a major factor in the financial crisis of 2008, not because the company was the reason of the crisis, but because Lehman Brothers was the largest bankruptcy case in the history of the United States. (6) The bankruptcy was approximately 691 billion dollars in assets. On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ under chapter 11of the United States Bankruptcy Code.(5) According to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy form, Lehman Brothers had over 150 billion dollars of bond debt and over 2.5 billion dollars in bank debts. On May 31, 2008, Lehman Brothers had total assets of 639 billion dollars and debts of 613 billion dollars. This is far from what the leverage or debt ratio should be in a major investment bank. Immediately following the Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual collapsed, causing one of the largest banks to also file for chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was preceded by a large amount of withdraws from the bank in a short amount of time. This is called a bank run. According to (7), Washington Mutual had a $16.4 billion dollar run on deposits in as little as a few days. So, after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, the public started to get a little uneasy because they thought Lehman Brothers was a sound company. This resulted in many depositors of Washington Mutual to withdraw all or most of their funds. Moodys and Standard Poors are credit rating companies that are believed to have had a say in the financial crisis of 2008. Investors are very reliant on credit ratings, especially when it comes to bond investments. When purchasing a bond, there are ratings, which are related to the safety of the bond. An AAA bond rating is considered the safest bond that can be purchased and any bond with a rating of BB or lower is called a junk bond. A junk bond is considered to be a risky investment because it has a higher default risk than AAA bonds. Default risk is the risk that the borrower will not pay either interest or the principle back. For instance, the U.S. government treasury bonds have a lower default risk rate than Greek government treasury bonds. As earlier mentioned, Bear Stearns Co., Lehman Brothers Holding Inc., Washington Mutual, and JPMorgan Co. were major players in the financial crisis. It is hard to choose which theory is correct, but the third theory is the most reasonable because there is never only one factor that goes into changing the economy so drastically.

What Is The Future Of The European Union?

What Is The Future Of The European Union? The future European Union what should it be? An integrated federal state, a free trade area, something else? Since the first enlargement of the European Community in 1973 northward, which saw the inclusion of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, the search for an ever closer union has been taking place. When EC recommended on 9th October 2002 that another ten countries should join in 2004, it is believed that the integration of Eastern Europe will push the European Union towards a new level, because it will provide a larger market, which will be the only way for the EU to compete in the new global economy. However, people cannot stop wondering, what the EU should be like in the future, as the new Europe will be highly diverse in all dimensions not only in the field of economics, but also geopolitics, and social conditions, political priorities. In this essay, it will look at the future EU, being a state with liberty, democracy and solidarity. Liberty has two meanings. To start with, in terms of The Single European Act, the chapter on the single market committed the EC to remove all internal barriers by the end of 1992, enabling the free flow of goods, services, capital and people in the member countries. There is little doubt that the internal market will become the prime focus of economic interest and activity over the next few years since it has given the EC a new lease of life. For example, potential microeconomic gains in welfare of some ECU 216 billion have been estimated for the EC, equal to some 5.3 per cent of GDP. A virtuous circle of benefits is expected, especially in the long term, from industrial reorganization, the reaping of economies of scale and through greater innovation. However, the enlarged Community is likely to experience greater internal problems since it now comprised a much less optimal grouping in its memberships. For example, doubts remain about whether sufficient structural funding will be forthcoming for the weakest Southern European economies to enable them to participate fully in EMU. It would appear that only a looser pattern of integration is compatible and suitable for the new Community in the future, particularly if it is to see continuing enlargement. Secondly, liberty requires openness and subsidiarity to be established as fundamental principles. citizens are informed of the remedies available if their rights, including fundamental rights, are not respected. These remedies include courts, ombudsmen and committees on petitions at all levels in the Union. A future Union should be a Union among the peoples of Europe, in which means decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. European citizens in all Member States want a well-managed European administration that is open, accountable and service-minded. In which means, it need to ensure the establishment of an open, accountable and service-minded administration through a European administrative law. Like a car being serviced and redesigned, but until we have arrived, we dont know what the roads and traffic conditions will be like. Hence, a second important condition for progress towards closer union is that since nobody knows for sure what the enlarged EU will be like, the work of the Convention should not be underestimated. Much of it is inevitably technical and legalistic. But a huge task of simplification is under way which will increase coherence, transparency and comprehensibility of the political and institutional structures of the EU. Complex and incoherent decision-making rules and multiple routes for law-making are all being radically streamlined. But simplification can be politically sensitive. For example, if the vast majority of decisions in future are to be made by majority voting, getting rid of each countrys veto, then the EU may stand a chance of not seizing up, but governments and their publics will have to decide if they are ready for this kind of pooling of so vereignty and joint decision-making. Certainly, increased simplicity and transparency will help the enlarged EU be more democratic and more in touch with the public than the current one. But much more is needed to build a democratic Europe. The European Council of heads of state and the European Commission (which with enlargement will have 25 commissioner) between them share, in effect, the tasks of a European government they share the executive tasks for European policy. Increased democracy must mean these bodies are truly accountable. Currently, the Commission is weakly accountable to the European Parliament. The European Council is accountable to none as a whole though its individual heads of state are accountable separately to their own national parliaments. More political control and oversight is vital. Democracy is also about active participation and debate of the wider public, with real opportunities for access and input. Yet these aspects are also largely being ignored or lacking- the convention is focused on the institutional and legal elements of a new constitution and so risks leaving to one side creative thinking on how to build participative democracy in European politics. It is not enough that a new constitution is simple and accessible that can only be the first step. Thirdly, the new Europe also risks failing to play a strong and progressive role in the world despite the rhetorical commitments of Europes political leaders. The EU of 25 countries and half a billion people may be an economic giant but a political dwarf just at a time when global challenges and uncertainties call more than ever before for a clear European voice. The future of Europe convention is drafting a statement of values and goals for Europes role in the world with welcome emphasis on multilateralism, tackling poverty and discrimination and promoting peace and prosperity. But these good intentions run far ahead of the EUs ability to deliver a single common voice and strategy on the international stage. Countries like Britain and France remain highly reluctant to act together, even when their views converge, wanting their own individual profiles on the global stage. And they are even more reluctant to undertake the in-depth political discussions that would be needed to come to common positions when their views diverge. Europes confusion and multiplicity of views over the Iraq crisis show how far we remain from having a common and coordinated European position whether in the UN or in dialogue with the US. With enlargement, diversity of interests and views in Europe will grow. At the Copenhagen summit this week, the EU will invite 10 new members to join in 2004. This should be a beautiful, historic moment reuniting the European continent and healing the post-war divisions. But it is only the first step in meeting the European and global political challenges that the new Europe must address. If it fails, then this moment will be seen as a turning point that marked the start of the EUs decline and not its new beginning. Therefore, the capacity of the members of the Community to overcome their differences and move towards a common defence and security policy will provide a critical test in the coming years of their commitment to closer union. The prospects for this depend very much on the willingness of a core group among them and in particular France, Germany and Britain to concert policies and action. More than anything else it is the path they take on this set of issues which will determine whether or not a real European Union emerges, for without substantial progress towards a defence union it will remain seriously incomplete. The Convention on the Future of Europe is now drafting a new constitutional treaty that will address many of these problems. But its deliberations are focused on current problems, with too little attention to the new challenges that enlargement will bring such as dealing with poor and potentially unstable countries along its new eastern border. The biggest danger to the timetable for enlargement is the unpreparedness of public opinion across Europe. Half of the EUs population favours enlargement on average, but support varies a lot between countries. That matters because the accession treaty has to be ratified by all the member-states parliaments and the European Parliament, as well as by the 10 candidates parliaments following national referenda. At present, the risk of outright rejection appears small. But acrimonious battles about the EU budget have done nothing to endear enlargement to the public. The EU is about to complete its biggest and most important project of the decade: the re-integration of the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the European fold. Institutional flaws and money wrangles should not be allowed to divert attention from the significance of this achievement. Moreover, The EUs decision-making frameworks need a thorough overhaul. The most obvious problem posed by enlargement is that of sheer numbers. With 25 voices competing to be heard, a real exchange of views will be next to impossible unless the EU undertakes further reform of the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. But the differences will be more than arithmetical. There will also be qualitative changes as the new members add their own priorities to the EUs agenda. The political balance will change as the new members weigh in on one side of the argument or the other on every issue. For example, Poland will join the UK in opposing tax harmonisation and supporting NATO, but it could be a friend of Spain on increasing the size of the EU budget. The suggestion for realising European Union depend on all members of the EC put their efforts toward this aim, hence the dream for an ever closer union will be achieved.

The Influence of Christianity on Ancient and Modern Greece Essay

The Influence of Christianity on Ancient and Modern Greece Problems with format ?From the earliest establishment of Christian churches in Macedonia, Achaia, Epirus, and Crete, to the expansion of the Orthodox Church, Greece has been a formidable landmark for development of Christianity throughout the world.? From its arrival to Greece with the first preaching of Paul, the Christian faith has undergone a unique assimilation into the cultural and philosophical traditions of the Greek people to create a church, visibly distinguishable from all other sects and denominations of Christianity.? Christianity has certainly influenced the nation of Greece.? However, it is safe to say that Greek culture has also had a notable effect on the way its people view Christianity.? The purpose of this paper is to examine the mutually significant and interacting influences of the Christian faith on Greece and of the Greek culture on Christianity. ?From the onset of Paul?s mission to evangelize the non-Jewish world, it was clear that the ministry to the gentiles would take on an entirely different form than that to the Jews.? Where converting the Jews was an issue of convincing a small people, otherwise knowledgeable about the nature of God, that this Jesus was indeed the Messiah they had long waited for, preaching to the Gentiles would be a fundamentally different task.? Greek culture, largely influential to the Roman world, was already rich with philosophy, science, art, literature, and political values.? Reaching out to this people that was, in so many ways, far advanced beyond the Hebrew nation, would mean appealing to its philosophy and tradition as a foundation for proving Christ?s supremacy.? Greek Christianity was destined to... ...dia of Religion, 6, 95-97 [2] Schaff, Philip (1910).? History of the Christian Church, 1.? WM. B. Weerdmans Publishing Company: Michigan.? [3] Beardsley, Monroe C. (1966).? Aesthetics from Classical Greece to the Present: A Short History.? ? University of Alabama Press: University, Alabama.? [4] Carassava, Anthee (2001).? ?Many Greeks praying against John Paul II visit?.? Time Magazine, 157. [5] ?Pope Appologizes?.? Christianity Today, 45.? 2001. [6] Moschovis, Peter P. (2001).? ?Socialists give Evangelicals some relief?.? Christianity Today, 45. [7] Moschovis, Peter P. (1998).? ?Court upholds right to evangelize. Christianity Today, 42. [8] ?Greece?s churches divided over ID cards?.? Christian Century, 117.? 2000.? [9] Carassava, Anthee (2000).? ?Greeks debate privacy rights vs. religious identity?.? Christian Science Monitor, 92 (148).

Gun Control Control Laws Decrease Crime Essay -- Second Amendment The R

Gun Control Since the days of the pioneers of the United States, firearms have been part of the American tradition as protection and a means of hunting or sport. As we near the end of the 20th century the use of guns has changed significantly. Because of fast and steady increase in crime and the fight for the right to own a hand gun, the introduction of legislation for gun control, to try to reduce the crime in the United States, has been a hotly debated issue in recent years. Although many people feel that gun control violates the right of the people, given in the second amendment "the right to bear arms", controlling distribution and sales and the registration of guns and gun owners is necessary because of the homicide rate involving guns and the violence by criminals using guns. Many people feel that gun control violates the right of the people given in the second amendment the right "to bear arms". Opponents of gun control, including the National Rifle Association, better known as the NRA, argue that the "right To bear arms" is guaranteed in the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and licensing restrictions penalize law-abiding citizens while in no way preventing criminal use of handguns. It is also argued that by making it difficult for guns to be bought and registered for the American public there is a threat to the personal safety of American families everywhere. However controlling the sale and distributi...

Characterization in Oedipus the King Essay -- Oedipus the King Oedipus

Characterization in Oedipus Rex  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚        Ã‚   The dialogue, action and motivation revolve about the characters in the story (Abrams 32-33). It is the purpose of this essay to demonstrate the types of characters present in Sophocles’ tragic drama, Oedipus Rex, whether static or dynamic, whether flat or round, and whether protrayed through showing or telling.    Werner Jaeger in â€Å"Sophocles’ Mastery of Character Development† pays the dramatist the very highest compliment with regard to character development:    The ineffaceable impression which Sophocles makes on us today and his imperishable position in the literature of the world are both due to his character-drawing. If we ask which of the men and women ofGreek tragedy have an independent life in the imagination apart from the stage and from the actual plot in which they appear, we must answer, ‘those created by Sophocles, above all others’ (36).    Surely   it can be said of Sophocles’ main characters that they grow beyond the two dimensional aspect into really rounded physical presences. This is done through mostly the showing technique, though the chorus at times is involved in telling the audience various pieces of information. At the outset of Oedipus Rex the reader sees a king who comes to the door full of curiosity: â€Å"Explain your mood and purport. Is it dread /Of ill that moves you or a boon ye crave?† When the priest has responded that the people are despairing from the effects of the plague, the king shows another dimension to his character with his deep sympathy for his subjects: â€Å"Ye sicken all, well wot I, yet my pain, /How great soever yours, outtops it all.† Shortly thereafter a second round character makes his appearance on stage in the pers... ...and Creon become so later in the tragedy. Rarely does the dramatist use the chorus to convey information; most of this comes from exchanges of dialogue, which would be the showing technique.    WORKS CITED    Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms, 7th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999.    Ehrenberg, Victor. â€Å"Sophoclean Rulers: Oedipus.† In Twentieth Century Interpretations of Oedipus Rex, edited by Michael J. O’Brien. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.    Jaeger, Werner. â€Å"Sophocles’ Mastery of Character Development.† In Readings on Sophocles, edited by Don Nardo. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997.    Sophocles. Oedipus Rex. Transl. by F. Storr. no pag. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed new?tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&part=0&id=SopOedi

Human Resource Management Notes

09/06/11 Human Resource Management Notes #1 A. Management vs. Leadership: ManagementLeadership Planning and Budgeting * What do we need? * How much time/money? | Establishing Direction: * What do you see? * What’s your vision? | Organizing/Staffing * Hiring the right people * Or delegating tasks | Aligning People: * Target followers * Share ideas/vision| Controlling and Problem-Solving * Keeping things working * Or addressing Issues| Motivating and Inspiring * Convince others * Get them on board| Maintain Predictability and Order * Monitor progress * Achieve results| Produce Change * End Result|B. We watched the video and took notes on the idiosyncratic conductor’s leadership and management style relating to his orchestras. The Four Interpreations of Organizational Processe HRM Notes #2 A. What is the Four Frames? i. The Four Frames is a method developed by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E. Deal by which organizational situations are viewed. This analytical tool reveals the veiled aspects of an organization’s dynamics B. What are the Four Frames? 1. Structural Frame 2. Human Resource Frame 3. Political Frame 4. Symbolic Frame C. Characteristics of the Four Frames: Structural * Metaphor = a machine * All about division of labor * Delegating roles * Involves a clear hierarchy * Exact processes * Setting Goals * Human Resources * Metaphor = a family * Open communication * Grow/Improve Skills * Identify bias/limitations * Resolve conflicts * Informal relationships * Political * Metaphor = Jungle * Competition * Power * Scarce resources * Bargaining * Advocating/forming coalition * Symbolic * Metaphor = Temple * Values * Rituals * Image * Brand * Culture * Heroes * Meaning * Intuition D. Processes: * Strategic Planning: Structural = strategeties to set objectives and coordinate resources * Human Resources = Gathering to promote participation * Political = Arenas to air conflicts and realign power * Symbolic = Ritual to signal responsibility, produce symbols, negotiate meanings * Decision-Making: * Structural = Rational sequence to produce right decision * Human Resources = Open process to produce commitment * Political = Opportunity to gain or exercise power * Symbolic = Ritual to confirm values and provide opportunities for bonding * Reorganizing: Structural = Realign roles and responsibilities to fit tasks and environment * Human Resources = Maintain balance between human needs and formal roles * Political = Redistribute power and form new coalitions * Symbolic = Maintain image of accountability and responsiveness; negotiate new social orer * Evaluating: * Structural = Ways to distribute rewards or penalties and control performance * Human Resources = A process for helping individuals grow and improve * Political = Opportunity to exercise power * Symbolic = Occasion to play roles in shared ritual * Approaching conflict: Structural = Maintain organizational goals by having authorities resolve conflict * Human Resources = Devel op relationships by having individuals confront conflict * Political = Develop power by bargaining, forcing, or manipulating others to win * Symbolic = Develop shared values and use conflict to negotiate meaning * Goal Setting: * Structural = Keep organization headed in right direction * Human Resources = Keep people involved and communication open * Political = Provide opportunity for individuals and groups to make interests known * Symbolic = Develop symbols and shared values * Communication: Structural = Transmit facts and information * Human Resources = Exchange information, needs, and feelings * Political = Influence or manipulate others * Symbolic = Tell stories * Meetings: * Structural = Formal occasions for making decisions * Human Resources = Informal occasions for involvement, sharing feelings * Political = Competitive occasions to win points * Symbolic = Sacred occasions to celebrate and transform culture * Motivation: * Structural = Economic incentives * Human Resources = Growth and self-actualization * Political = Coercion, manipulation, and seduction * Symbolic = symbols and celebration

The Dangers of Obedience to Authority: Writing and Reading Across the Cirriculum

As a child growing up, everyone was told â€Å"respect your elders† or â€Å"listen and obey†. As children grow into teenagers, they start pushing the boundaries to see who they really need to obey. Throughout adulthood, though people have fewer and fewer authority figures as the years go by, everyone must obey someone. Though we all have someone to obey, when does the respectful obedience cross the line into dangerous territory? Obedience becomes dangerous when it becomes physically or mentally harmful to one’s self or society.Physical abuse to one’s self or another person is dangerous, period. What is even more frightening is when someone hurts themselves or others due to an authority figure’s direct influence on them. In the infamous psychologist, Stanley Milgram’s, experiment, people were told to administer shock to a peer for not answering a question correctly. This experiment shows the dangers of obeying authority. Though the â€Å"pee rs† were acting, the subjects fully believed they were truly administering shock to another human being.This shows that the line between respectful obedience to an authority figure and a dangerous subservience to a fear striking leader is crossed when one person begins or attempts to injure one’s self or another because of a fearful obligation placed upon them. Some may argue that police officers cross the line when they use â€Å"excessive force† on a perpetrator because they are hurting another person due to the description of their job by the local government. While this is a valid point, if an officer is forced to cause physical harm to someone, he or she has been provoked by the offender and are simply doing their job.Mental or emotional abuse is generally not the first thing most people think of when they hear the word obedience. Though it is not often spoken of, mental abuse occurs often when an authority figure abuses their power to break down the psychol ogical barriers that one may have in order to get the person to obey. This tactic was used in the â€Å"Stanford Prison Experiment† when the â€Å"guards† began calling the â€Å"prisoners† by their numbers instead of names and granted admission to the â€Å"privileged cell† in order to maintain control over the prisoners. Because of the psychological games played by ome authority figures, the line between obedience and danger is crossed and can become harmful to a person’s incredibly fragile mental health, causing them to have thoughts of suicide or murder. Some may argue that mind games are the safest and easiest way to keep structure and order when dealing with a person of lesser authority. However, psychological warfare, such as the mind games that were used in the â€Å"Stanford Prison Experiment†, can leave some of the worst scars on a person due to post traumatic stress disorder as well as depression which can lead to suicide.Obedienc e to society is not often thought of when dealing with this particular topic. The power of a majority is usually far underestimated. Just as shown in the article â€Å"The Power of Situations† with the line test, most people will override their own eyes to believe what they are told the majority believes or thinks. Society can be a very harmful entity when trying to influence the masses. This statement especially applies when dealing with teenagers. For example, when most teenagers are in a situation where they feel everyone else is doing something they know is wrong, they will usually â€Å"go with the flow† and follow what the crowd does.In a study conducted by the â€Å"D. A. R. E. † group showed that, while people who try to pressure teens to smoke say â€Å"everyone does it†, in fact only 11% percent of teens actually smoke. Though teen smoking at all is not good, 11% is much better than everyone. Some may say that obedience to society is promoting c onformity which is good for our justice system as well as the status quo. However, the idea that everyone must be the same, think the same, and have the same emotions is not only sad, but also nips creative thinking in the bud.Without creative thinkers, how would our world see in the dark? Conformity is alright to an extent, but when it impedes progress, it becomes a danger to society and future generations. While a due respect and obedience should be given to authority figures, obedience that becomes harmful, psychologically or physically, to oneself or society in general, crosses the line into the danger zone where it could harm an actual human being or the creative thoughts inside that person.