Prin Management HR Career

HRM There are two ways to view the issue of government intervention in hiring. The firm-level view would definitely hold that the firm should be able to hire without any intervention. Interventions place limits on hiring, for example by mandating drug testing for companies that do business with the federal government, through the Civil Rights Act and other similar acts regarding different protected groups. These interventions place some constraints on the hiring for the firm, and may result in sub-optimal results.

The problem, of course, is that this is a somewhat erroneous interpretation of the legal environment. Aside from drug testing, the other laws only state that the firm cannot discriminate -- these laws do not mandate quotas. So a lot of the complaints from business are red herrings, as the government does not step in and tell the business who to hire and who not to hire. So ultimately the government intervention is not especially intrusive.

Is there any logic to allowing firms to discriminate if they choose, from the firm's perspective? Not really. The government is telling people to stop being racist and sexist, things that might compel a business to reduce its candidate pool. So from the firm's perspective, these laws are essentially protecting the firm from its own stupidity, should the company have been inclined to adopt exclusive policies. Further, it needs to be taken into consideration that government is not working only for business.

Government works for the citizens and it works for itself. Thus, government does not only set policy with the best interests of business in mind. In the case of things like the Civil Rights Act, government is acting to reduce inefficiency in the economy. When there are groups who are being excluded from the workforce, that will invariable reduce economic efficiency. Government rightly wants to adopt policies that increase the economic efficiency of the nation -- business normally supports policies that strengthen the economy.

So in the case of protections against discrimination, the outcome is positive for the economy because it improves economic efficiency. Even the firm should accept that. There is another form of intervention in the labor market, one that has become a significant issue in recent years. Government limits the overall labor pool in the country, and in particular this hurts the ability of tech companies to hire the workers they want.

If there are no American workers, they will seek foreign workers, but must bring them over on a temporary work visa. The supply of these visas is limited, and rapidly increasing demand has resulted in a shortage of these visas. Companies cannot hire the workers that they want, and this hurts economic efficiency. Indeed, such policies work to the advantage of competitor nations that are more encouraging of skilled worker immigration.

Ultimately, it is not sufficient to simply pass judgment on "government intervention." When we look at the different types of interventions that there are, some work to create better economic efficiency, while others do not. Business should be in favor of any intervention that creates better economic efficiency, because the benefits of growth are enjoyed by all. Moreover, with things like protection against discrimination, the government is merely protecting firms from the stupidly biased managers in their midst.

This is a positive move, even if the pointless visa rules and invasive drug testing are negatives for business. 2. I do not agree that money is the most important form of motivation. The evidence simply does not support this proposition. Money is a motivator, and it can be powerful in some individuals, but it is one of many powerful motivators and not the best one. There are a few different types of motivation -- intrinsic and extrinsic. Money is only one of many extrinsic motivators.

These are motivators from the outside, usually either a reward or a punishment. Money is one of the rewards, but there are many others. Many people like recognition or promotions, as those help to boost the self-esteem. Others are most motivated by fear of punishment, depending on what the punishment is. Money is usually a motivator for the greedy or the poor. The poor are only motivated by money to the extent that they need it.

For example, somebody who is short of their rent payment is motivated to take some overtime shifts in order to acquire that money, but might stop taking overtime as soon as they have their rent money. Other individuals are more directly motivated by money, regardless of how much they have. This is actually a relatively small percentage of individuals. Other people, and in some cultures almost every person, is motivated by other things.

There is a correlation between culture and money orientation, with more feminine cultures -- those that emphasize quality of life instead of competition -- are less like to have a strong money motivation. The most powerful motivation for most people in intrinsic. Intrinsic motivation usually plays to higher order needs, as per Maslow, where extrinsic motivation often reflects lower order needs. Intrinsic motivation is the more powerful form and reflects a need of achievement, socialization, belonging and purpose in life.

It is a much more powerful motivator to tap into these higher order needs. For decades, most spies were recruited with appeals to higher order needs, because money alone was not enough to justify the risk for many people. This has changed in recent year, though such appeals are still common. It is an indicator perhaps that in recent days people are more motivated by money than they might once have been. So it is not true that money is the most important source of motivation.

It is a source of motivation, just not the only one. For many employees, money is not a powerful motivator at all. It is important for managers to understand that money alone cannot be used as a motivator. More important, management needs to understand what can be motivated with money. There are things -- be they customer service or other things -- that are harder to achieve with strictly a money motivation. So it also depends on what the company wants to motivate if money is more important. 3.

There are a lot of preparations that need to be done for an interview. One of the things is that you must research for the position. This means two things. You need to take the time to be familiar with the company. You especially need to understand the corporate culture, and use this information in the interview.

It is important that when you are interviewing for a job you need to understand what you are getting yourself into, so understanding both the company and the position are both critical elements of interview preparation. In addition to gathering background information, there are a lot of other things you need to do to get prepare for an interview. One of these things is that you need to know how to get to the interview.

Use Google to get a ballpark for how long it will take, and then leave yourself more time than that. Have a plan for what you are going to wear, and other variables. Having a plan for how interview day is going to go will ensure that you are punctuation and.