مدیریت منابع انسانی و مفهوم بهبود مستمر دمینگ
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|6813||2000||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7450 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Quality Management, Volume 5, Issue 1, Spring 2000, Pages 85–101
This article presents a loss minimization or continuous improvement model for human resource management (HRM). Minimization of losses arising from the interaction of two critical human resource (HR) quality targets, commitment and equity, requires ‘profound knowledge’ of social processes and the development of HR systems. The history of HR can be interpreted as a social continuous improvement process that makes use of four systems approaches: trust, bureaucracy, unionization, and regulation. Variance-minimizing tools that were appropriate for earlier phases of HR history (characterized by higher levels of HR loss) may be too blunt for the level of commitment industry now demands. Enterprise or company unionism may be a preferable quality management tool, although the National Labor Relations Act inhibits its adoption.
In this paper I show that the history of human resource management (HRM) can be interpreted as a continuous improvement or loss minimization process aimed at improving equity and commitment in the workplace. During the past 15 years, human resource (HR) scholars Kochan et al., 1986, Schuler & Jackson, 1987 and Ulrich, 1996 have emphasized that HR initiatives often play an important role in creating competitive advantage by targeting human and organizational capital at strategic goals. In contrast, I contend that throughout its history HRM has amounted to a quality improvement process aimed at minimizing social losses by integrating equity with other strategic objectives.1 There is no question that technological innovation and globalization have reemphasized the importance of matching HRM to strategic goals Eaton & Voos, 1992, Huselid, 1995, Kleiner et al., 1987 and Kochan et al., 1986. Firms need HRM to improve employees' selection, training, and motivation. Employees need HRM to help develop managerial and other marketable skills. Indeed, some firms now say that they intend to go even further in eliciting employees' participation in generating change and propelling continuous improvement. In effect, such firms would like to bridge two traditionally distinct roles. The first is that of the risk-taking entrepreneur, who absorbs uncertainty and so is entitled to profit, risk premiums, and rents. The second is that of the risk-averse employee, paid at a fixed rate, distinct from management and characterized by “scarcity-consciousness” Knight, 1933 and Perlman, 1928. Such firms have begun to bridge the two roles through a range of high-performance strategies that Heckscher (1988) has called managerialism. But to energize managerial HR strategies, firms must first instill a sense that they are worthy of employees' commitment. That is, in order to elicit commitment, firms need to convince employees that they are fair. Without providing the requisite sense of equity among employees, policies that aim at co-entrepreneurship may tend to give birth to the reverse instead: cynicism and alienation. My claim is that over the past two centuries firms have improved considerably in their ability to generate employees' sense of equity and commitment but that continued improvement depends on ever-subtler insight into HR issues and processes. In the nineteenth century, as today, globalization disrupted HRM policy. In those days strike violence often resulted from change, reflecting an early, high-variance stage in the development of HRM quality. There has been considerable improvement since then. During the past century, four alternative processes have been used to improve HRM and instill commitment and a sense of equity among employees. They are trust, bureaucratic policies, unionization, and legislation. How they have done so suggests how HRM quality has improved and may improve in the new century.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Deming emphasizes continuous improvement through customer focus, improvement in systems, and the reduction of variability. This quality framework can be applied to HRM. Four processes have been used to improve quality in the US: trust, bureaucracy, regulation, and unionization. Trust and bureaucracy depend on transformational and transactional leadership, while regulation and unionization are systems responses to the failure of HR leadership. Indeed, the history of labor can be viewed as a process of social experiment and continuous improvement that has made use of trust, regulation, bureaucratic policies, and unionization in improving employees' voice, equity through systemization, and variability of HR outcomes. In contrast to institutionalist economists, Deming does not present a coherent approach to the development of HR systems that are likely to improve the understanding of employees' points of view. Although managers view New Deal-style unions as introducing rigidity, unions have a potentially important contribution to make in helping managers acquire profound knowledge about the interaction of equity and commitment. In a modified form (i.e., company unions) they are less rigid than HR regulation or bureaucracy, can potentially contribute to employee voice, and can potentially improve the losses from interaction of commitment and equity.