managers role in human resource development.

Need an research paper on managers role in human resource development. Needs to be 7 pages. Please no plagiarism. Rothwell and Kazanas (2003) inform that the managers of HR department have to take the responsibility of establishing goals for the department and its purposes. The manager is also responsible for structuring the department according to its needs. Staffing, issuance of orders, deciding on differences, inter-departmental and outside the department communication, planning for department budgets and politics, all can be regarded as the roles of the manager of the HR department and design a path towards the development of the department (Rothwell and Kazanas, 2003).

The advantages that can be found because of the manager’s performance in the HR department are many in number. The manager is responsible for communication within the department and outside the department. it means that the information from inside and outside should be gathered in order to make the right decisions. This factor is wholly advantageous as the employees are allowed to communicate with the manager and deliver their thoughts regarding a decision. The final decision stays with the manager. it means that the manager can collect information from various sources but should be decisive in order to come to a conclusion regarding a problem (Woods and Thomas, 1994). A manager has many responsibilities to bear and the tasks should be divided among his employees but leadership should be with him so that the performed tasks of the employees can be evaluated.

As a manager is required to do lengthy and painstaking tasks, therefore, there should be consciousness behind any taken decisions and the manager should decide according to the needs of a situation. Sometimes, it is disadvantageous to give so many responsibilities to a manager as all the tasks cannot be justified fully because of the overburdening of the manager. There should be a team of co-workers that should assist the manager in the performance of his tasks.

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Discussion on the necessity of crime in society.

Write a 6 pages paper on the necessity of crime in society. Developing societies have crimes suited to their surroundings like property crimes, while developed societies experience more contemporary and advanced types of crime like embezzlement and identity theft. Crime as a phenomenon is a social fact (Webber, 2010: p17), meaning that if it is present in average societies, it is normal, although this does not mean that average crime in society is not pathological or destructive. Therefore, crime is necessary for society as long as it is not too destructive or pathological as to prevent the normal functioning of society.

It is not possible to infer immediately that there is normality in crime and that it is not destructive or pathological due to its inevitability and regularity in society. It is only possible to assert that it is a social fact, which means that one can only show its normality if it is constructive and serves a function in society (Webber, 2010: p42). In short, crime necessarily results from conditions in society that are desirable and is not simply contingent on avoidable but undesirable conditions in society. As one of the deviance’s subcategories, crime can be defined as an activity that departs from and violates social norms. While there is an overlap between deviance and categories of societal norms, all crimes can be classified as deviance. Rather than being an internal element of specific behaviors, deviance is an aspect or characteristic conferred on a specific behavior by society with regard to social norms. From the relativist view, it is possible to contend that morality and law differ according to society, while modification of conditions may result in changes within the same society (Webber, 2010: p42). Therefore, rather than acts being condemned because they are crimes, acts are considered crimes because society condemns them.

While using the notions of deviance and crime interchangeably within reasonable limits, it is possible to&nbsp.argue that crime is normal and necessary and not necessarily pathological. Crime as deviance can be argued to have a functional and normative effect (Arrigo & Williams, 2012: p98).

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

expound on Discussion.

This is evident in the passage as it is confirmed by this statement “thus, intersubjectivity emerges as part of a larger problem (141).” It is a reality that subject reacts with other subjects without mediation of material elements such as body or sense media. This concept is implicit in the notion of ‘intersubjectivity’. Recognition that the person uses the materials of culture and is impacted by other people does nothing to impose on the reality that such a notion is essentially individualist (Williams, 1992). Hegel does not believe that every person has to involve in a life and death fight for recognition. This is evident as gave a suggested a different concept in substitute of a ‘formation of consciousness’, he proposed an individual level and a communal social-cultural world-chronological level.’ This can be analyzed as an attempt to prevent people from seeking recognition to much.

The concept of consciousness is brought in the passage, however, not as self-consciousness but people living in self-sufficient communities. Undeniably, consciousness remains a prerequisite for recognitive self-consciousness. Hegel regards material culture as products of contemplation, and never spent bothered to understand the interrelationship between materials. While he discarded the labor procedure as a pattern of the dialectic he did not discard apprehension with the creation and use of material civilization, but changed it into a logical stature. Thus, when the promoters of ‘intersubjectivity’ expunge the usage of artifacts from unrestrained action, they ignore Spirit itself. Williams asserts that Hegel changed subjectivity to intersubjectivity. However, ‘intersubjectivity’ is incomprehensible and incoherent with core fundamentals of Hegel’s perception of subjectivity (Williams, 1992).

It is accurate to conclude that recognition is an extremely un-Hegelian concept since it assumes the nonexistence of effective mediating media and artifacts. It

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Mozart Effect both articles

both articles are attachedWhen will I receive the paper?

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"