Want this question answered?
aligning compensation strategy with hr strategy and business strategy would simply mean that the designing of a company's compensation strategy should be in such a way that it should support its HR as well as business strategy.
Human Resource Management (HRM) should never be a driver in determining business strategy, but a case could be made that HR policies or constraints could hinder strategy, but only long enough to change the HR policy.Suppose HR has a policy to only hire applicants who are college graduates (they are an engineering firm). Management decides to embark on a new strategy of constructing some of the units they have designed. The HR policy would work for the construction manager, but not for the welders, pipefitters, electricians, painters, insulators, etc. that they wold need to complete such projects.Source(s):
Whether the company is winning in the marketplace! whether its ahead of its competitors and growing There are actually several strategies to building a winning business strategy: Focusing on a niche market Being a low-cost provider Differentiation Developing expertise or resource strengths in the industry Determining if the business strategy is successful would depend on what strategy was implemented. The ability to increase market share and financial growth would be lag measure indicators that *something* was working, but that wouldn't necessarily indicate that the strategy is working. One law which explains this is the law of unintended consequences. Consequences can be good or bad. A company could very well intend to differentiate itself, but inconsequentially capture a short-term "one-hit wonder", if you will.
human resource manager
because with out human resources there would be no physical resources
The most effective strategy would be to interview these two subjects on separate occasions. Find out all you possibly can about them and then compile your information to compare them.
Usually this is because of budget concerns - it doesn't cost as much to use the internal resources (although this is not always very effective except from a cost standpoint) Another opinion: Internal can be effective. Outsourcing your information could be leaked on accident.
greatest threat to allies
greatest threat to allies
An Outsourcing HR department could provide the same function that an internal HR department would do including keeping personnel records, salary details, hiring new staff and ensuring grievances are dealt with. It can be very cost-effective to outsource this function.
They viewed Germany as the greatest threat in the war. You're welcome, Study Island-ers
For companies who are still in there infancy, every penny spent, counts. They need to cut down on their costs. Outsourcing here would prove to be enormously beneficial. If you outsource to countries like India, where quality is available at a competent price, huge reduction in costs is a guarantee. Outsourcing, rather than carrying out operations in-house, certainly looks to be lucrative. Offshore outsourcing is proving to be extremly cost effective for organizations who are going for it.
Outsourcing makes it possible for small businesses and freelance workers survive in this tough times.
With telemarketing outsourcing you would have your telemarketers based overseas. This is a common practice for some US companies.
iddk
how you would balance cost reduction and quality maintenance while outsourcing