Bøger af Klaus Schutz

Verlauf und Ausgang der Bundestagswahlen vom September 1953 haben weit uber den engeren Kreis der beteiligten politischen Gruppen hinaus eine beachtliche Resonanz in der deutschen und auslandischen Publizistik und in der politischen Wissenschaft gefunden. Handelte es sich doch um die ersten allgemeinen Wahlen nach 1945, in denen die Festigkeit der seit der Grundung der Bundesrepublik und der ersten Bundestagswahl im Jahre 1949 herausge- bildeten demokratischen Ordnung auf die Probe gestellt wurde. Schon zu Be- ginn des sehr heftig gefuhrten Wahlkampfes hatte es sich herausgestellt, da die Entscheidung, um die es ging, zwischen einer in sich relativ gefestigten Re- gierungskoalition burgerlicher Parteien und einer mit ausgefeiltem Wahl- programm sehr aktiv zur Regierungsubernahme drangenden sozialdemokra- tischen Opposition ausgefochten wurde. Zur Debatte stand nicht weniger als die Frage nach der Richtigkeit des wirtschafts-, gesellschafts-und auenpoli- tischen Weges, den die Bundesregierung unter der handfesten Fuhrung des Kanzlers Dr. Adenauer eingeschlagen hatte, - in der geschichtlichen Situation des Landes zugleich die Entscheidung der Wahler uber Konstruktion, Funda- mente und Aufbau des gesamten gesellschaftlich-politischen Hauses der Bun- desrepublik und uber den Typus politischer Fuhrung, welchem Ausbau oder Umbau dieses Hauses anvertraut werden sollte. Jeder mit der Problematik des demokratisch-parlamentarischen Betriebes im westlichen Deutschland vertraute Staatsburger war sich dessen bewut, da die Wahlen von 1953 die Funktionsfahigkeit des neuentstandenen Parteien- gefuges und die Brauchbarkeit des revidierten gemischten Wahlsystems ebenso wie die Arbeitsfahigkeit des kunftigen Parlaments und der aus ihr hervor- gehenden Regierung zu erweisen hatten.

Scientific Essay from the year 2011 in the subject Leadership and Human Resources - Miscellaneous, grade: A, Union Graduate College, course: Managing People and Teams in Organizations, language: English, abstract: Every year, the business magazine Fortune publishes its list of the 100 Best Companies To Work For®. For this purpose Fortune partners with the global research consulting firm Great Place to Work Institute® to conduct the ¿most extensive employee survey in corporate Americä [1] with 407 participating companies this year. Only companies that are more than seven years old and have at least 1,000 employees are eligible. A company¿s score in this ranking is based on two factors. One is a 57-question survey sent to a minimum of 400 randomly selected employees, asking for things like attitudes towards the management and job satisfaction. This survey accounts for two thirds of the score. The other third is based on a Culture Audit, capturing detailed demographics, pay and benefit programs, management philosophy, methods of internal communications, opportunities as well as compensation and diversity issues [1].When looking at the results of this ranking, one immediately notices that the same company names have appeared over and over again among the top ten or top twenty over the previous years. This paper takes a deeper look at some of these companies, their corporate culture and the way they treat their employees. Furthermore, it tries to determine whether some measures or ideas exist that are common to all these companies and help increasing job satisfaction. From that, propositions are given of how these measures can be applied by other companies, independent of the industry they are doing business in.

Seminar paper from the year 2011 in the subject Business economics - Business Management, Corporate Governance, grade: A, Union Graduate College, course: Managing Ethically in a Global Environment, language: English, abstract: What is the primary responsibility of a manager? This question is an old one. However, in the light of several incidents in recent years - some examples are the financial crisis, the BP oil spill and the Enron scandal - it seems to be a more a present-day problem than ever before. The traditional answer to it is also mirrored in business law and states that managers are agents of the stockholders and work solely for their benefit. This view is commonly referred to as the stockholder view. The contrary position to this is the stakeholder view. It asserts that in addition to stockholders, managers have also a fiduciary duty to employees, customers and other stakeholders, including the stockholders. In this paper, arguments both for and against each view will be presented. It will also be claimed that acting in strict accordance to one of the theories is an inappropriate way of managing a company, for ethical and practical reasons. Rather, the opposing views do not necessarily exclude each other. A synthesis of the two contrasts is not impossible, as it can be seen in the recently developed concept of the Triple Bottom Line.