Training and development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Training and development - Essay Example The supervisors who are not a part of the HRD department have a definitive role to play within the midst of things. This is because these supervisors and managers must comprehend how they can bring in the much required value for the sake of the organization and what kind of initiatives they need to deploy to extract the best possible returns for it in the long run. The supervisors and managers therefore have a responsibility to look after the needs and aspirations of the employees who work under their aegis and are trying their utmost to give in the best, on a proactively consistent basis. The training realms within any organization remain significant in entirety because the training modules teach so much more than merely training the employees. They tell them the basics related with conducting their respective chores, tasks and undertakings. They also dictate the exact basis through which work processes get manifested in entirety. What is even more significant is an understanding th at the supervisors and managers play their necessary roles at inculcating the kind of training that is needed by the organization in essence. The HRD department is therefore dependent on the supervisors and managers but what is ambiguous is the fact that these supervisors and managers are not a part of this HRD philosophy at all. ... The training procedures are important to ascertain because these take into consideration the aspects of inculcating the true spirits of the organization on to the employees who remain significant during such undertakings. The supervisors and managers need to come out of their related realms to make sure that the employees are on track and are able to complete their jobs in a proper way. This is so needed because this will ensure complete smoothness amongst the employees as far as the work ethos are concerned, and the manner under which success can be achieved at the end of the day. Also the list of responsibilities within such understandings comprise of providing lectures and undertaking workshops which have a long term commitment with the employees, who will go out there and produce results for the organization that will be long standing and have a direct effect on the organization’s measures and ethos. The HRD philosophy is therefore an important barometer for knowing how th ings shape up within organizations and how the supervisors and employees will pay their due role within the thick of things. The supervisors and employees therefore devise ways and means through which their training procedures would be transferred to the employees in an unambiguous and most direct way. This would enable the employees to feel empowered and their work domains would be safely undertaken. The HRD department gets aligned with these supervisors and employees who are essentially not a part of the same, but are made to give in their best because the organizational values hold significance for them and this has a lot of bearing on the employees’ professional realms as well. The employees learn to remain motivated within their ranks

How can we understand power in politics Research Paper

How can we understand power in politics - Research Paper Example This brings a sharp contention between those who try to understand the sociology behind these behaviours and the political scientists who do not believe and recognize that power can be held. Power in politics is viewed as either held or diffuse and unpredictable. Power is something that is beyond just an aspect of being violent. It has a lot to do with the influence over the people compared to being violent and aggressive despite the two components prevailing in politics. According to Hannah Arendt in her essay ‘On Violence’, there is a clear distinction between the concept of power and violence. Most of the modern theorists have developed arguments that have linked violence with excessive demonstration of power, but Arendt dispels this notion by pointing out that two aspects are not comparable. In fact, she points out that they are directly opposed. The first point that comes out clearly from the arguments raised is that power emanates from the will of the majority and cannot be coerced or influenced by violence in achieving its results. What happens is that the voluntary decision by the people prevails. In case violence is used to capture power, the same shall prevail in losing the power. Bureaucratic regimes are potential sources of violence because they attempt to distance themselves from the people that placed them in the powerful dockets. The missing links with the people stirs up a revolution and the ultimate result is violence (Arendt 42- 46). Another point of view is that power is pervasive and dispersed. It has been argued by some quarters of theorists that the people or groups hold power. Contrary to this view, Michael Foucault, a postmodern theorist observes that power cannot be localized, it can come from anywhere and it is everywhere. He continues to argue that power in politics is constituted through certain aspects of knowledge that is obtained in some scientific truth. It is apparent that every society comes with its version of tru th that is shaped by the political and economic ideologies, the media and the education system that is in place. This means that despite the perception that some have taken power as oppressive, coercive and with negativity, there is positivity and productivity thereof. Foucault’s view agrees with that of Arendt by demonstrating that generalizing power in politics in the bad light of negativity, oppression, violence and coerciveness is not right (Foucault 777-790). Power is capable of presenting social discipline among the individuals and adherence to set regulations. It is not true that a subject will adhere to what is required of them just because power is exercised over them. At times, use of power demonstrates rebellion among the subjects. People have learnt how to behave rightly not because they are forced or coerced to do so. Power transcends politics and is more of a social issue; Foucault states that this is the reason why when revolutions occur they do not significant ly influence the social order. Politics have several closely related factors; these are power, influence, control and authority. These aspects are often confused but power presents a lot of ambiguity in its understanding. According to Andreas Hillgruber power has a lot to do with influence over people, he notes ‘