3.8 Article

Assessment of communication skills in manager selection: some evidence from Australia

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 109-120

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/02621710910932070

关键词

Communication skills; Human resource management; Management skills; Management developpment; Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to ascertain to what extent organisations specifically use communication skills as a key criterion in their selection and subsequent development of managerial staff. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents empirical findings from semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with senior HR managers in large to medium sized organisations in Southern Australia. Findings - This study suggests that HR practitioners regard communication skills as subsumed under a generic idea of leadership. There were no specific programs reported that explicitly targeted communication skills. Practical implications - The findings contribute to knowledge concerning the nature of communication skills for managerial staff such as, interpersonal, verbal, written and listening skills. Further, time needs to be allocated to the audit of training in the development of communication skills so that HR professionals are clear on the action that needs to be taken. Originality/value - The paper will be of value to researchers, HR practitioners and consultants in the management development field. The paper's main finding is that despite repeated claims that communication skills are important for successful managerial performance, HR managers only assess these informally during managerial selection and rarely target these skills in training staff for managerial positions. It is recommended that HR staff need to review these practices towards a more targeted communication skills appraisal that would measure the extent to which these skills are already apparent at selection and develop further following additional training.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据