HR Scorecard

Assignment 1: HR Scorecard The View from the Top Due: Sunday, Midnight of Week 2 (10% of total grade) Overview You can’t expect to earn a seat at the table if you don’t understand what matters to the other leaders who are already at the table. Elevating HR to a strategic partnership with the C-Suite requires a deep knowledge of the business. This includes the competitive landscape, how the business makes money, and the threats and opportunities the business faces. It also requires that the very essence of the company – its mission and values – forms the foundation for every hiring, firing, compensation and talent development initiative that HR and the business leaders undertake. In this assignment, you are given the opportunity to develop a brief “snapshot” document to be used as a visual support for an initial meeting a between a newly hired, or recently promoted, CHRO and the CEO and CFO. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss how well current talent-development efforts and the HR function as a whole support the Mission, Values and Strategy of the organization. In other words, are the things that HR is spending its time on the same things the C-Suite actually cares about? Instructions For this assignment, you will use your own organization and place yourself in the role of the senior-most HR leader. Because this is a meeting with C-Suite executives, you know that presenting a long written document is not the right way to support the discussion or to demonstrate your executive presence. You decide to create an executive brief that does two things: (1) demonstrates your knowledge of the business and (2) presents a snapshot of how the HR role is currently functioning. Submission Requirements 1. Use the template and scorecard provided as a guide. You may modify these to create a more visually interesting layout if it supports your synopsis, as long as your submission addresses all required components. • Page 1 is a snapshot of the business and includes brief summaries of your assessment of the top priorities in elevating the HR function in ways that will improve the profitability of the company. • Page 2 is a scorecard using the “7 Principles of The Talent Masters” as a way to summarize your observations of the corporate culture and practices in your organization that impact HR and talent development

 

 

Identify various assistive technology input and output methods
class – computer concept

 

Sample Solution

unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. Jus in bello The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.