Human resource management (HRM)

 

 

There is a fine line between true inclusion/diversification and tokenization, and it matters what employers do with the money they make through advertising their diversification efforts. While several government/federal agencies have the USMSPB to overlook diversity in the workplace and have established best practices for reference, what do you believe can be done to ensure that a company (outside of government/federal agencies) is truly putting their money where their mouth is? Should these diversity “checks” be conducted within an organization, and would that be truly effective (especially if the company’s higher-ups are not minority-status folks themselves)? Who should be the arbiter of these decisions? How do we ensure representation without tokenization? What could this look like? What would fair compensation for marginalized people’s labor look like?

 

Sample Solution

To run a business, every organization, large or little, employs a range of capital. Capital includes cash, valuables, or goods used to generate income for a business. A retail store, for example, employs registers and goods, but a consulting firm may have its own software or buildings. Regardless of industry, all businesses require people to make their capital work for them. Throughout the text, we will concentrate on generating cash by utilizing people’s skills and competencies. Human resource management (HRM) is the process of hiring, training, compensating, and setting policies for them, as well as developing retention tactics. As a discipline,

t. For instance, based on maximising wellbeing if doctors took decisions to use one persons organs to save five other people that would cause people to not trust care givers. There would be no trust that people are obeying rules if the comman man would just make decisions that allowed any kind of violations of law or cheating for sake of maximising good.

Bernard Williams argued consequentialism required impartiality which focuses on consequences of action and this requirement deprives an individual of their own integrity because the concept of utilitarianism doesn’t differentiate in a person themselves bringing about an outcome vs someone else producing an outcome.

Practically rule consequentialism proves to maximise utility in situations such as traffic rules. It would be safer if everyone followed rules like ‘no drunk driving or speed limit.’ Hence its safer to follow rule utility over act utility in such cases. Act utility would give room for individuals to determine the best action.

A rule based system leads to greater overall utility because people are capable of having bad judgement. Having specific rules to follow maximizes utility by not relying on the drivers’ judgments that could possibly endanger others or themselves too. For instance, based on an individual drivers’ judgements not following the road stop signs over some emergency could endanger many. The stop sign would distinctly set the rule and tell drivers to stop and does not allow them to calculate whether it would be better to stop or not.

Rule consequentialism avoids criticisms of act consequentialism. According to critics, act consequentialism approves of actions that can be wrong, undermine justice, undermine basic trust among people, and its demanding because it requires people to make sacrifices.

Rule consequentialists avoids underming trust because they do not evaluate individual actions

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.