Human Resource Management ( Hrm ) - 1405 Words

Human Resource Management (HRM) seeks to manage people and resources to maximize economic and social outputs. Bratton and Gold (2012) outline six HRM models which include: the Forbrum, Tichy and Devanna model, the Harvard model, the Guest model, the Warwick model, The Storey model, and Ulrich’s Strategic Partner model of HRM. Forbrum Tichy and Devanna model of HRM is based on the principle of selecting, appraising, developing and rewarding employees who fulfill management strategic business interests. HR selection, training and promoting skilled employees is strategic HRM. The Harvard model have principles which are based on identifiable situational factor, stakeholder interest, HRM policy choices, realistic HRM outcome, long-term†¦show more content†¦HRM review of projects potential negative environmental influences is strategic. The Storey Model of HRM postulates the â€Å"ideal† HRM. Comparison between HR and HRM factors, process and personnel roles are used to explain the model. Line managers having responsibility to work with HR to achieve the business and HR deliverables are strategic. Ulrich’s Strategic Partner model of HRM focuses on the partnership between employees, process and administration to bring about strategic changes. HR involvement in all aspects of the operation is strategic because they can better mediate conflicts between the employee and management. Which of the models of strategic HRM do you feel best represents a strategic approach to HRM? Explain why. Social scientists use logical hypothetical constructs to explain Strategic HRM. These constructs link HR policies to business strategies (Bratton Gold, 2012, p. 56). The matching model, the controlled-based model, the resource-based model and An Integrative model of human resources strategy are strategic HRM models identified in the Human Resource management theory and practice by Bratton and Gold (2012). The matching model fits internal HRM strategies elements to a firm’s product market and logic business strategy. The matching model is very reactionary and do not place much importance to employees development. The control-based model of Strategic Human Resources Management (SHRM) main precepts is that

Lack Of National And International Policy Agreements...

Lack of national and international policy agreements towards global warming worsens the environment in which polar bears live. Climate change and global warming have become significant issues environmentally. Although humans suffer greatly, there is a greater risk on our world’s wildlife. It is evident that there is a lack of interest towards wildlife when it comes to global warming. The human population is an obvious worry. Seeing as wildlife does not get as much attention, it is possible that some of these animals may go extinct. Polar bears (Ursus Maritimus) are carnivores in wildlife that live in the arctic. As global warming expands, the Arctic is having a difficult time remaining cold. Polar bears have severely declined over the†¦show more content†¦Polar bears also use the sea ice as a resting place or a place to give birth. As global warming is increasing, the sea ice is melting from being in a hot and rainy climate. Therefore, polar bears are having trouble l ocating food to eat. One of the main reasons why polar bears do not have the food necessary to satisfy could be because of the over population of polar bears during the hot climate. (Stirling Parkinson, 2006) Granted that there is not much food for the bears, when there is food, most of them must fight over it because of its limited amounts. When polar bears cannot find any food near the sea ice, they are forced to look further in order to survive. If global warming worsens, it is possible that polar bears will go extinct. â€Å"Scientists predict that the polar bear population, currently 20,000 to 25,000, could disappear by the end of the century.† (Diane Cole, 2009) Although there are some lack of national and international policy agreements, global warming may affect not only wildlife but us humans as well. â€Å"The expert responses suggest polar bear population and range will undergo significant declines by 2050 under SRES A1B.† (O’Neill, Osborn, Hulme, Lo renzoni Watkinson, 2008) A study was done to show empirical evidence about polar bear body mass and weight to see how long polar bears can survive without food. The study concluded that the earlier in the year that the climate gets hotter, the longer the polar bears suffer. (McCarthy, 2015)

Is violence justified in politics free essay sample

Politics can be defined as acquiring the position of government which includes controlling the human community, making laws and developing the country. Politics has been criticized as dirty game by many professionals but a country would not be able to run without politics. If a person has chosen to become a politician, yes, people will criticize him/her, people will praise him/her but it is his/her responsibility to maintain the laws, and operate the country in any situation. There has been protest regarding politics in the past and thus nonviolence can be justified in politics to some extent. If there is violence of human rights by the present government then protest with violence could be reasonable. If the political system of the country destroys their rights instead of protecting then there would be violence in the country. This has been proved by the Arab spring. In order to get democratic political system which could protect their human right there were mass protests against the present autocratic political system. We will write a custom essay sample on Is violence justified in politics? or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Only because of these mass protests Egypt (one of the affected country where the human rights were violated by the present government) got end to dictatorship and gave birth to democratic system. With the introduction of democracy the light of hope was lit in the Egyptians. Therefore violence can be expected in the political system where the present government violates the rights of their own people. Similarly, if there is massive corruption in the country and citizens are not getting their benefits and on top of that the present political government is corrupt the protest in those countries is expected. People will go and complain the government about their corrupt personnel but if the government is already corrupt then who will the people complain to? So, if the present political leaders who run the country are corrupt then protest with violence is sure in that country. We can take example of Tunisia where the street vendor immolated himself because of the corrupt political leaders. Because of the self-immolation of the street vendor there were massive violence and protest against the corrupt political leaders and dictators in the Arab nations. It can be concluded that if the political system is corrupt or it can also be interpreted as if the law makers are not maintaining the law, is misusing the nation’s wealth and is not protecting the human community, and then protests with violence in that country could be explained. Even though there has been violence and protests in Arab nations because of lack of accountability from their political leaders it could have been solved by peace protests. In India, the anti-corruption bill was passed in the parliament because of the peace protest done by Anna Hazaare. Anna Hazaare did protest against the political leaders of India but his protests were based on non-violence. This example proves that the political system can be objected with nonviolence activities. To sum all, in the past there has been violent political revolutions like the French revolution and in the present the popular political revolution the Arab spring. It is difficult to conduct nonviolent revolutions and nonviolent protests are difficult to be recognized by the government. If there would have been no media then the government could just ignore these peace protests. However, violent and nonviolent protests depend upon the present political situation and external factors. If the issue is really violating the rights and the political leaders are not liberal (dictatorial regime) then violent situation would take place in the country but if the political leaders are liberal (democratic) the nonviolence would be the best. Is violence justified in politics? Politics can be defined as acquiring the position of government which includes controlling the human community, making laws and developing the country. Politics has been criticized as dirty game by many professionals but a country would not be able to run without politics. If a person has chosen to become a politician, yes, people will criticize him/her, people will praise him/her but it is his/her responsibility to maintain the laws, and operate the country in any situation. There has been protest regarding politics in the past and thus nonviolence can be justified in politics to some extent. If there is violence of human rights by the present government then protest with violence could be reasonable. If the political system of the country destroys their rights instead of protecting then there would be violence in the country. This has been proved by the Arab spring. In order to get democratic political system which could protect their human right there were mass protests against the present autocratic political system. Only because of these mass protests Egypt (one of the affected country where the human rights were violated by the present government) got end to dictatorship and gave birth to democratic system. With the introduction of democracy the light of hope was lit in the Egyptians. Therefore violence can be expected in the political system where the present government violates the rights of their own people. Similarly, if there is massive corruption in the country and citizens are not getting their benefits and on top of that the present political government is corrupt the protest in those countries is expected. People will go and complain the government about their corrupt personnel but if the government is already corrupt then who will the people complain to? So, if the present political leaders who run the country are corrupt then protest with violence is sure in that country. We can take example of Tunisia where the street vendor immolated himself because of the corrupt political leaders. Because of the self-immolation of the street vendor there were massive violence and protest against the corrupt political leaders and dictators in the Arab nations. It can be concluded that if the political system is corrupt or it can also be interpreted as if the law makers are not maintaining the law, is misusing the nation’s wealth and is not protecting the human community, and then protests with violence in that country could be explained. Even though there has been violence and protests in Arab nations because of lack of accountability from their political leaders it could have been solved by peace protests. In India, the anti-corruption bill was passed in the parliament because of the peace protest done by Anna Hazaare. Anna Hazaare did protest against the political leaders of India but his protests were based on non-violence. This example proves that the political system can be objected with nonviolence activities. To sum all, in the past there has been violent political revolutions like the French revolution and in the present the popular political revolution the Arab spring. It is difficult to conduct nonviolent revolutions and nonviolent protests are difficult to be recognized by the government. If there would have been no media then the government could just ignore these peace protests. However, violent and nonviolent protests depend upon the present political situation and external factors. If the issue is really violating the rights and the political leaders are not liberal (dictatorial regime) then violent situation would take place in the country but if the political leaders are liberal (democratic) the nonviolence would be the best.