We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF CREDIT MANAGEMENT ON FINANCIAL Paper

Words: 1791, Paragraphs: 36, Pages: 6

Paper type: Essay , Subject: Business Management

2.4.1 kCampbell kmodel kof kjob kperformance kand kHuman kCapital kTheory.

Campbell kmodel kportrays kthe kperformance kas ka kset kof kthree kdimensions k(1) kexplanatory

knowledge, k(2) kprocedural kknowledge kand kaptitudes, kand k(3) kmotivation. kDefinitive knowledge includes kset kof kknowledge kabout kfacts, kstandards, kobjectives, kand kthe kself. kIt kis kthought kto kbe kan element kof ka kpeople’s kcapacities, kidentity, kvocation, keducation, kpreparedness, kbackground, kand ability kto kcollaborate. kProcedural kknowledge kand kaptitudes kincorporate kpsychological kand psychomotor kabilities, kphysical kabilities, kself-control, krelational kand khoned kskills. kMotivation involves kdecision kto kperform, klevel kof kexertion, kand kperseverance kof kexertion. kCampbell ket kal. (1996) kidentified kthe kpossession kof kknowledge kand kset kof kskills kthat kare kimportant kto kcomplete particular ktasks kas kthe kcritical kindicators kof kindividual kperformance. k

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF CREDIT MANAGEMENT ON FINANCIAL
Just from $13,9/Page

Get Essay

According kto khuman kcapital ktheory k(Mincer, k1962; kBecker, k1962), keducation kand ktraining

bring kbenefits kin khigher kproductivity kand khigher kwages. kThe ktheory kpredicts kthat kworkers kbear kthe costs kof k“general” keducational kand kvocational ktraining kas kthey kare kthe ksole kbeneficiary kof kthese trainings. kWorkers kand kthe kCountry kshare kthe kcosts kand kbenefits kof kspecific ktraining. kWithin kthis kcontext k„general? kmeans kthat kthe kskills kand kcompetences kacquired kin keducation kand ktraining kcan be kused kin kseveral kfirms kand kperhaps keven kseveral ksectors. kCustomized ktraining kprovides competences kthat kapply kto kspecific korganisations. kGeneral khuman kcapital kand ktraining kmay kbe partly kor kwholly kcompany-specific. kHowever, kaccounting keducation kmay kalso kbe kpartly kcompany kspecific. kAccording kto khuman kcapital ktheory, kaccounting keducation kmay kbring kprofits kto kfirms, kalthough ksome kof kthe kbenefits kwill kaccrue kto kthe kworkers. kLynton kand kPareck k(1990) kemphasize kthat kemployers kshould kalways kencourage kstaff kto kre-skill kas ka kmeans kof kbenefiting kthe korganization. kThese kscholars kequate kany kreduction kregarding klearning kand kdevelopment kto k“commercial ksuicide”; kand kthey kcontend kthat korganizations kthat kactively kencourage klearningbecome kmore kcompetitive k(and kprofitable) kto kcope kwith ktoday’s kincreasingly kdemanding kand kselective kcustomers.

2.4.2 kEducation kand kjob kperformance

Educational klevel kalludes kto kthe kscholarly kcertifications kor kdegrees kan kindividual khas

gotten. kDespite kthe kfact kthat keducation klevel kis ka knonstop kfactor, kit kis kevery know kand kagain

estimated kcompletely kin klook kinto kconsiders. kHere, kwe kutilize kthe kexpression k”educated kworkers” to kallude kto kthose kpeople kwho khold kin kany kevent ktertiary keducation kin klight kof kthe kfact kthat kthese degrees kare kimportant kfor ksection kinto knumerous khigher-paying koccupations k(Trusty kand kNiles, 2004). kNumerous kresearchers kand kexperts khave kbeen koccupied kwith kunderstanding kthe kconnection amongst keducation kand kperformance kat kwork. kEducation kwas kfound kto kadvance kcenter ktask performance kby kgiving kpeople kexplanatory kand kprocedural kinformation kwith kwhich kthey kcan finish ktheir ktasks keffectively k(Ng kand kFeldman, k2009). kIn ktertiary keducation kframeworks kfocal point kof keducation kisn’t kjust kto kupgrade kintellectual kcapacity kand kjob kinformation kyet kcut kcrosswise over kdirections kand kextracurricular kactivities, kpreparing kon kobeying krules, ktraining kand kupkeep kof good kwork kbehaviour, kand kcapacity kfor kdecision kmaking kafter kgraduation k(Ng kand kFeldman, 2009). kBesides, keducation klikewise kadvances kself-assurance, kself-inspiration, kvigilance, and kthe kneed kand kcapacity kto kset kindividual kobjectives kfor kthe kfuture k(UNDP, k1995). Workers kwith kmore kyears kof keducation kare kadditionally kless kinclined kto kcause kperil kto co-workers kor kclients kby koverlooking ksecurity kguidelines k(Oh kand kShin, k2003).

2.4.3 kYears kof kexperience, kage, kgender kand kJob kperformance

The kwork kinvolvement kemployees kare kbelieved kto khave kresulted kfrom kindividual-particular

conditions kand korganisation kgiven kstatuses k(Sturman, k2003). kAge kis kthe kmost ksignificant kstatistic variable. kFor kexample, kinquire kabout kon kmaturing kand kadvancement kproposes kthat kmore kseasoned people kadjust kto kmaturing kby kgiving khigher kneed kto ksocially karranged ktasks kthat kare ksincerely fulfilling kto kthem k(Carstensen, kIssacowitz, kand kCharles, k1999) kand kthat kthey kwill kput ktheir kassets more kin kthose kobjectives kthat kmatch ktheir kinspirations kand kinterests k(Beier kand kAckerman, k2001). Ng kand kFeldman k(2008) kfound kthat kage kwas kgenerally kinconsequential kto kcenter ktask kperformance however kshowed kmore kgrounded kassociations kwith kcitizenship kperformance kand counterproductive kperformance. kPast kresearch kanalyzing kcommitment kof ksex kto kjob kperformance have kdemonstrated kthat kfemale krepresentatives khave kless kfulfilling kwork kencounters kthan kgreater part kworkers kdo k(Lyness kand kThompson, k2000).Women khindrances kto kgetting kadvanced k(Powell, Butterfield, kand kParent, k2002). kVocation kresult kby kmeans kof khuman kcapital kimprovement kfor women krepresentatives kmay kget kless ktutoring kor kless kdifficult kassignments kand, ktherefore, khave fewer kchances kto kexceed kexpectations. kEssentially kwomen kare koften kcasualties kof knegative stereotyping kin performance kevaluations kthus ktheir kjob kperformance kare koften kundervalued k (Ng kand kFeldman k(2008)

2.5 kHow kgovernance kaffects kfinancial kperformance kof kindigenous kbanks.

2.5.1 kCorporate kGovernance kand kBank kPerformance

Tandelilin ket kal., k(2007) kasserts kthat kthe kcentral kfocus kin kmost kliterature karound kdiscussion

analysis kin kresearch kall kover kthe kworld kon kmatters kto kdo kwith kcorporate kgovernance khas

been kthe krole kof kownership kstructure kas ka kcorporate kgovernance kmechanism. kWhether kthe

kind kof kownership kstructure kmatters kand kwhat kare kits kimplications kfor kcorporate

governance kare kareas kthat kraise ksome kconcern k(Tandelilin ket kal., k2007). kCorporate kgovernance kcan kbe kdefined kas kthe krelationship kamong kshareholders, kboard kof kdirectors kand

the ktop kmanagement kin kdetermining kthe kdirection kand kperformance kof kthe kcorporation,

(Wheelen kand kHunger k2006). kIn kKenya, kfinancial kreforms khave kencouraged kforeign kbanks kto kenter kand kexpand kbanking koperations kin kthe kcountry. kKamau k(2009) kaffirm kthat kforeign kbanks kare kmore kefficient kthan klocal kbanks. kShe kattributes kthis kto kthe kfact kthat kforeign kbanks kconcentrate kmainly kin kmajor ktowns kand ktarget kcorporate kcustomers, kwhereas klarge klocal kbanks kspread ktheir kactivities more kwidely kacross kthe kcountry. kForeign kbanks ktherefore krefrain kfrom kretail kbanking kto specialize kin kcorporate kproducts, kwhile klarge kdomestic kbanks kare kless kdiscriminatory kin their kbusiness kstrategy, k(Njoka, k2010). kThese kdifferent koperational kmodalities kaffect efficiency kand kprofitability kshe knotes. kStudies kwith kregard kto kcorporate kgovernance ktheme khave kmainly kbeen kcarried kout kin kdeveloped keconomies kmostly kin kthe kUnited kKingdom kand kthe kUnited kStates kof kAmerica kwith kfew kafore kmentioned kbeing kdone kin kAfrica kand kspecifically kKenya, k(Njoka, k2010). kHowever, kthe kconcept kof kgovernance kin kKenya kis know kincreasingly kbeing kembraced kknowing kthat kit kleads kto ksustainable kgrowth kand kmore kso, ksince kKenya khas khad ka khistory kof kpoor kgovernance ksystem kin kthe kbanking kindustry kattributed kto kweak kcorporate kgovernance practices, klack kof kinternal kcontrols, kweaknesses kin kregulatory kand ksupervisory ksystems, insider klending kand kconflict kof kinterest kwhich kled kto kthe kcollapse kof kmany kfinancial institutions kwith kothers kgoing kunder kreceivership k(Awino, k2011).

2.5.2 kCorporate kGovernance kFramework

Corporate kGovernance kcan kbe kdescribed kas ka ksystem kthat ktries kto kprovide kguidelines kand

principles kto kthe kboard kof kdirectors kin korder kto kexecute ktheir kresponsibilities kappropriately

and kto ksatisfy kshareholders keliminating kmoral khazard kproblems k(Muriithi, k2011). kIn kthis

point, kit kis kworth kmentioning kthat ka kglobal kand kunified kstandard kfor kcorporate kgovernance

cannot kbe kapplied kbecause kit kcould knot kbe kresponsive kto klocal keconomies. kIn kthe krest

Europe kCorporate kGovernance kis kcharacterized kby kinstitutional kdiversity. kHowever, kthe

German ksystem kprevails kin kNorthern kEurope, kwhile kthe kLatin kmodel kexists kin kSouthern

Europe. kFor kexample kin kItaly, kcorporate kgovernance kis kpoor, kwith kbanks khaving ka kstake kin

corporate kfinancing kbut kplaying ka kminor krole kin kgovernance, kwhereas kin kFrance kcorporate

governance kis kdominated kby kcross-shareholdings. kThe kfact kis kthat kin krecent kyears kboth

models ktend kto kadapt kelements kfrom kthe kAnglo-American ksystem. k

Different kEuropean kcountries khandle kthe kissue kof kcorporate kgovernance kin kdifferent kways. kSome kof kthem kemphasize kon ka kwider krange kof kstakeholder kinterests kand kothers kemphasize kon kthe ownership krights kof kshareholders, k(Clarke kThomas, k2007). kDeveloping kcountries kare know kincreasingly kembracing kthe kconcept kknowing kit kleads kto ksustainable kgrowth. kIndeed, kcorporate kgovernance kin kKenya kis know kgaining ksome klevel kof krecognition kwith kvery klittle kwork kin kthe karea keven kin kthe kwell-regulated kinstitutions kand ksectors. kSeveral kstudies khave kbeen kdone kto kestablish krelationship kbetween kgovernance kstructure kand kfirm’s kperformance. kOne kargument kis kthat ka kstrong kcorporate kgovernance kstructure, kcould klead kto ka khigh kperformance k(Sanda ket kal, k2005). kIt kwill khelp kto kpromote ka kfirm’s kperformance kand kprotect kstake kholder’s kinterests. kThe kcorporate kgovernance kissues kare kmore kelaborated kbelow: k kThe kBoard kof kdirectors kof kan korganization kis ka kkey kmechanism kto kmonitor kmanager’s kbehavior kand kto kadvise kthem. kThe klargely kshared kwisdom kregarding kthe koptimal kboard ksize kis kthat kthe klarger kthe knumber kof kdirectors ksitting kon kthe kboard kthe kless kimpact kit khas kon kperformance kof kan korganisation. kThis kleans kon kthe kidea kthat kcommunication, kcoordination kof ktasks, kand kdecision k–making keffectiveness kamong ka klarge kgroup kof kpeople kis kharder kand kcostly kthan kit kis kin ksmaller kgroups, k(Belkhir, k2006). kLimiting kboard ksize kto ka kparticular klevel kis kwidely kbelieved kto kimprove kthe kperformance kof kthe kfirm kat kall klevels. kBenefits karising kfrom kincreased kmonitoring kby klarger kboards kare koutweighed kby kpoorer kcommunication kand kcumbersome kdecision k–making. kEmpirical kstudies kon kboard ksize kseem kto kprovide kthe ksame kconclusion: kA kbig kboard kis klikely kto kbe kless keffective kin ksubstantive kdiscussions kof kmajor kissues kamong kthemselves kin kmonitoring kmanagement. kLarge kboards kare kless keffective kand kare keasier kfor kCEO kto kcontrol k(Lipton kand kLorsch, k1992). kIn kthis kcase, kBoard ksize kplays ka kmajor krole kon kthe kperformance kof every kprospering korganization.

Board kcomposition kGlobalization kand kliberalization kof kfinancial kmarkets, kcorporate kgovernance kscandals kand kincreasing kdemands kof kstakeholders kfor kaccountability kand ktransparency kof korganizations, kbrought kthe kroles kand ktasks kof kboard kof kdirectors k(BODs) kto kthe kcenter kof kcorporate kgovernance kdebate k(Ingley kand kVan kder kWalt, k2005). kBODs khave kvarious kand kimportant kroles k(Finkelstein kand kMoney, k2003). kAccording kto kZahra kand kPearce k(1989), kthe kmain kroles kof kBODs kare kcontrol, kservice kand kstrategy. kRealization kof kthese kroles kmainly kdepends kon kthe kcharacteristics kof kboards, kwhich kaffect kthe kperformance kof korganizations, k(Johnson ket kal, k1996). k

Ownership kStructure kand ktype kof kbank kownership kstructure kis kthe kidentity kof kcompany kownership kand kan kimportant kelement kof kcorporate kgovernance kwhich kis kpotentially kimportant. kOwnership kstructure kconsists kof ktwo ktype, kdispersed kownership kto koutside kinvestors kand kconcentrated kownership, k(Surya ket..al, k2005). kOwnership kconcentration kin ksome kfamilies kor kbusiness kgroup kcause ka kbig kcontrol kto kmajority kshareholder, kwhich keventually ka kdifferent ktreatment kbetween kshareholders kemerge kand kthe kone kwho kwill kbe kharm kis kthe kminority kshareholders. kOwnership kconcentration kis kdetermined kby kthe knumber kof kshare kthat kis kheld kby kthree kbiggest kshareholders kand kcounted kwith kHerfindahl kindex kwhich kis kthe ksquare kamount kof kshare kproportion k(in kpercent), k(Firth ket..al, k2006). kInvestor kprotection kis khigh kwhen kthe kmanagement kownership kis khigh kbecause koutside kinvestors kexpect kthe kmanager kwith ktheir kshare kownership ksignificantly kwill kact kin kthe kbest kinterest kof kall kthe kshareholders kto kminimize kthe knegative kimpact kfrom kunanticipated kcrisis kof ktheir kshare, k(Leung ket..al, k2007). kDurnec kand kKim k(2003) kclaim kthat kthe kbigger kthe kownership kthat kowned kby kthe kcontroller kshareholders kand kit kwill kimprove kthe kquality kand kperformance kof ka kfirm. kJuliana k(2006), kproves kthat ka khigh kownership kconcentration kcan kgive ka ktrustable kcommitment kfrom kthe kcontroller kowner kwith ka kpurpose kto kbuild kreputation kand knot kto kmisuse kthe kinterest kof kminority kshareholders. kIn kthis kregard, kownership kconcentration kfactor kis kone kof kthe kdeterminants kin kthe kperformance kof kbanks kas kbusiness kinstitutions.

About the author

This paper example is written by Benjamin, a student from St. Ambrose University with a major in Management. All the content of this paper consists of his personal thoughts on INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF CREDIT MANAGEMENT ON FINANCIAL and his way of presenting arguments and should be used only as a possible source of ideas and arguments.

Read more samples by Benjamin:

How to cite this page

Choose cite format:

INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF CREDIT MANAGEMENT ON FINANCIAL. (2019, Dec 15). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/investigating-the-impact-of-credit-management-on-financial-713-best-essay/

Is Your Deadline Too Short?
Let Professionals Help You

Get Help

Our customer support team is available Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST. If you contact us after hours, we'll get back to you in 24 hours or less.

By clicking "Send Message", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
No results found for “ image
Try Our service

Hi, I am Colleen from Paperap.

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Click to learn more https://goo.gl/CYf83b