24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

lanmozhinian

铜虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 120.5
帖子: 15
在线: 4.4小时
虫号: 893701
注册: 2009-11-04

[求助] 各位大侠帮帮忙吧

1. Introduction
In recent years, practitioners have been bombarded with exhortations to develop an organizational culture that is focused on external market needs, wants, and demands. This has become known as a market-oriented culture (see e.g.,Webster, 1994; Harris and Piercy, 1997). Paradoxically, at the same time, organizational theorists have extolled the virtue of an internal focus through developing appropriate human resource policies which are consistent with organizational strategy, that which has become known as strategic human resource management (SHRM) (e.g., Schuler and Jackson, 1987; Wright and McMahan, 1992; Lado and Wilson, 1994).
Interestingly, both market orientation and SHRM have been (separately) linked to increased organizational performance (e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Huselid, 1995; Pittet al., 1996; Guest, 1997). While the links between marketorientation and performance and between SHRM and performance have been examined in isolation of each other, both practices are founded on the management of organizational culture. In the case of market orientation,high levels of market orientation are argued to be dependent on the establishment of an organizational culture dominated by a focus on the market (Harris, 1998).Similarly, developing SHRM requires the nurturing of core organizational values and ensuring that these are consistent with the strategic direction of the business (Gennard and Kelly, 1994; Huselid, 1995). Surprisingly, despite similar underpinnings, no existing study has examined the association between the two or the impact that such an association may have on performance.

4. Conclusions and implications

   In summary, a review of existing literature finds that Strategic HRM and market orientation are both developed concepts which have been linked to organizational performance (see e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; MacDuffie, 1995). However, a review of literature pertaining to organizational culture (e.g., Ogbonna, 1992) and literature on the barriers to market orientation (e.g., Harris, 1998) finds that strategic HRM centers on managing organizational culture while market orientation can be facilitated or impeded by cultural barriers. Consequently, this paper theorizes that the association between market orientation and organizational performance is direct while the link between strategic HRM and organizational performance is indirect, being mediated by the extent of market orientation. Briefly,a study designed to investigate these issues demonstrates that strategic HRM and market orientation are both linked to organizational performance although strategic HRM is associated indirectly.
   The findings of the study lead to a number of interesting implications for both marketing and HRM theorists and practitioners. The first (and rather obvious) implication can be derived from the finding that both strategic HRM and market orientation are related to organizational performance. Consistent with a variety of extant theories and studies,evidence was found to suggest that both strategic HRM and market orientation are linked to the overall performance of an organization. Hence, organizations wishing to improve company performance should focus their attention on the needs, wants, and demands of the market, while paying attention to harnessing its human resource in order to ensure that these are met.
   More profound implications can be derived from the finding that Strategic HRM is not directly associated with performance but rather is purely indirectly linked to company performance. This finding may provide some justification for the claims of past theorists that the link between strategic HRM and performance is not as clear as is suggested by some authors (as noted by Wright and McMahan,1992; Koch and McGrath, 1996; Guest, 1997). This finding provides some support for the `universalist' perspective on HRM theorizing (Delery and Doty, 1996) in that Strategic HRM is found to be linked to performance (albeit indirectly). However, the findings also support aspects of the `contingency' perspective (Delery and Doty, 1996) through the implication that the success of strategic HRM is dependent on policies being consistent with the needs,wants, and demands of the market. Thus, for Strategic HRM to lead to increased performance, the policies and practices arising from it must not only be internally consistent they must also be focused on generating a market-led organizational culture.
   The findings demonstrate that the development of market orientation is partially dependent on the appropriate strategic management of the human resource facilitating the development of an appropriate organizational culture. Indeed, an examination of the coefficient of multiple determination (R2) in Table 5 finds that the measure of strategic HRM explains 25% of the variance of market orientation around its mean. Put differently, the level of strategic HRM may predict 25% of the level of market orientation exhibited by an organization. This finding may appear to some to pose an organizational paradox in that the development of an external focus appears to be dependent on an internal orientation. Thus, the avoidance of marketing myopia is contingent on a myopic focus on the organization. This argument would hold if strategic HRM is purely focused on internal dynamics as may have been the case with early research into HRM (see Delery and Doty, 1996). However, recent theorizing in strategic HRM emphasizes both an internal and external focus (see e.g., Huselid et al., 1997).
   A key issue that emerges is the need for an `appropriately' oriented strategic human resource. A contentious issue in management theory related to the development of sustainable competitive advantage is that the sources of such an advantage should be imperfectly imitable (Fiol, 1991;Reed and DeFillippi, 1990). Hence, Barney (1986; 1991) argues that providing an organizational culture is unique, it may provide a source of sustainable advantage over competitors.A potential implication of the findings of this paper is that a singular focus on discipline-specific sources of competitive advantage (such as market orientation or a flexible human resource policy) may not provide a unique and imperfectly imitable advantage, which may be sustained.However, it is possible to argue that a marketoriented culture developed as the result of a market-focused (strategic) HRM may provide the means to develop a unique and unimitable source of competitive advantage derived from both an internal and an external orientation.
      The findings, conclusions, and implications of this study are bounded by a series of limitations. These limitations suggest that caution is needed in interpreting parts of this study but they also indicate a number of potentially fruitfully avenues for future research. Firstly, the data presented in this paper was obtained using a cross-sectional methodology that precludes definitive causal claims (although it has been argued that statistical association in combination with extant theory provides adequate evidence to suggest tentatively some level of prediction). Furthermore, while the sample of the study comprises large organizations, the sample is culturally biased in that sample companies were based in the UK, suggesting that future research could examine these issues in alternative contexts. The study is focused on certain aspects of organizational performance, which a number of authors (see Guest, 1997) suggest overlooks other performance indicators (such as employee satisfaction and well-being). Consequently, a recommendation for future research is to broaden measures of performance to evaluate alternative predictors. Finally, this paper argues that valuable insights into the antecedents to market orientation and the strategic HRM-performance link have been gained via the study of such issues from alternative perspectives. Thus, it is suggested that researchers continue to draw upon diverse literatures and perspectives to provide illuminating insights into traditionally narrow disciplines.

[ Last edited by lanmozhinian on 2010-3-21 at 21:34 ]

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

1楼 2010-03-20 22:15:37

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

xxsst888

铜虫 (小有名气)

翻译EPI: 7
应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2042.2
帖子: 295
在线: 19.2小时
虫号: 999183
注册: 2010-04-17
性别: GG
专业: 情报学

【答案】应助回帖

简介
近几年，执行者因发展一种极力满足外部市场的需求的企业文化的理论而成为攻击的对象。这就是众所周知的市场中心理论（见e.g.,Webster, 1994; Harris and Piercy, 1997)。于此同时还存在一种相反的理论，即强调通过发展符合该企业竞争优势意图的人力资源政策来进行内部挖潜，这就是大家所说的战略人力资源管理理论(SHRM) (e.g., Schuler and Jackson, 1987; Wright and McMahan, 1992; Lado and Wilson, 1994).
有趣的是人们把市场中心和SHRM这两种理论（分开）联系起来去增加企业的行为(e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Huselid, 1995; Pittet，al., 1996; Guest, 1997)。当这种市场中心与企业行为的联系以及SHRM和企业行为的联系的理论分别被检验时，人们发现两种理论都是有关企业文化的管理要素方面的问题。例如，市场中心的理论倡导依赖市场需求来建立一种企业文化(Harris,1998)。同样地，SHRM要求培养一种符合企业战略发展的企业文化理论(Gennard and Kelly, 1994; Huselid, 1995).。令人奇怪的是，虽然两种理论都受到人们的支持，但两种理论之间的联系和这种联系对企业行为的影响却无人研究。
4．结论和意义
7．总之，对现存的理论研究发现SHRM和市场中心这两种理论有一点可以连接在一起，即都强调企业行为(见 e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; MacDuffie, 1995).可是，从对有关企业文化理论 (e.g., Ogbonna, 1992)和市场中心的缺点的理论(e.g., Harris, 1998) 的评述中，我们发现SHRM强调的是对企业文化的管理而市场中心理论能被文化壁垒所阻碍。结果，本文要说明市场中心理论和企业行为有直接的联系，而SHRM理论和企业行为有间接的联系，但受市场中心理论的影响。简单地说，针对这些问题的研究显示，，SHRM和市场中心两种理论结合起来影响企业行为，但SHRM的影响是间接性的。
8．这项研究的发现对SHRM理论，市场中心理论和执行者都产生了许多有趣的影响。首先（很明显）的影响来自于发现了SHRM和市场中心这两种理论对企业行为的影响是有联系的。这与现存的很多理论相符合，而且，有研究证据表明SHRM和市场中心这两种理论能联合起来影响企业的行为。因此，希望改善企业行为的公司应当即注意市场需求的同时又要为了满足适应市场的需求而深挖企业的内部潜力。
9．更深远的影响来自于发现了SHRM对企业行为的影响是间接的而不是直接的。这个发现也为过去的那些声称SHRM对企业行为的影响不是清晰的理论（像一些人如 Wright and McMahan,1992; Koch and McGrath, 1996; Guest, 1997).所声称）提供了说明证据。这个发现即SHRM影响企业行为（尽管是间接）对SHRM理论“普遍性”前景(Delery and Doty, 1996)提供了一些支持。而且，这些发现也通过市场需求对SHRM制定策略的影响(Delery and Doty, 1996)来说明一些“独特性”的方面，例如，SHRM的成功同样依靠制定符合市场需求的政策。因此，在应用SHRM作为企业行为主导时，来自于SHRM的政策制订和企业行为不仅要在内部一致，而且同样也要创造一种市场中心的企业行为文化。
11．本文的研究说明市场中心的发展要部分地依靠那些有利于企业发展的正确的人力资源管理。对表5中多种决定因素（R2）的影响系数检查发现SHRM理论方法的影响能占各种市场中心理论影响的25%。而这与SHRM能影响企业市场中心的行为的25%是不同的。这个发现由于说明企业外部的发展要以内部为中心而似乎使企业的行为产生某些矛盾。因此，可通过内部的影响而避免企业的不利行为。如果SHRM，正如早期HRM研究(见 Delery and Doty, 1996).的那样，完全强调内部动力的话，这个说法还可以得到拥护。但SHRM的最新理论强调的是内部和外部的二者结合(见 e.g., Huselid et al., 1997).
引出一个关键的问题是需要一个适当的SHR. 在关于保持可持续竞争力优势的发展的管理理论中，引起争议的话题是如此优势的根源是不能完全模仿的(Fiol, 1991;Reed and DeFillippi, 1990).因此，Barney (1986; 1991) 说道，提供一个独特的企业文化也就提供了超越竞争对手的可持续优势发展的根源。本文所说的这些发现的暗含意义是单独强调竞争优势的个体方面（例如市场中心或灵活的人力资源政策）都不能提供独特的和不能模仿的竞争优势，或许企业还会遭受损失。人们建议若市场中心文化的发展做为强调市场需求的SHRM的结果，则能提供一个来自于内部和外部二者相结合的独特的和不能模仿的发展企业行为的方法。
12．这项研究的发现，结论和意义受一系列条件的限制。这些限制建议在解释这项研究时要小心谨慎，并且也指出一些有发展前途的研究领域。首先，本文采用的数据是使用交叉法获得，因而避免了结论的偶然性（虽然人们认为统计与现存理论的正确结合能提供充分的证据来说明实验性的预期水平）。还有，虽然调研的对象来自于大企业，因为是以英国为背景，所以存在理念上的差异，这也建议以后对这些问题的研究应选择不同的背景。由于研究只是集中在企业行为的某些方面，因此有一些作者(见 Guest,1997)指出企业行为的一些因素（如雇员的满意度和福利等）被忽略。人们建议将来的研究应扩大行为的范围去评估更多的选项。最后，本文説有价值的洞察力已先于市场中心和SHRM二者的结合而通过对可选择的相似观点的研究得到了。因此，本文建议研究者要继续发表多种形式的研究报告和观点以对那些传统上有局限的领域提供有启发性的观察力。