4.7 Article

HR perceptions and the provision of workforce training in an AMT environment: An empirical study

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2005.05.001

关键词

AMT; workforce development; human resource (HR) management; managerial perceptions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research literature indicates the importance of workforce development in the successful implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs). However, the relationship between advanced technologies and workforce training is assumed to be a direct one with limited consideration provided to factors that may influence it. This study examines the impacts of environment and human resource (HR) manager perceptions on the provision of workforce development activities. A human-centered technology philosophy is proposed as a conceptual framework for examining the role of HR manager perceptions to mediate the relationship between AMTs and workforce development. Results from hierarchical regressions indicate that the perceptions of HR managers regarding technology-driven workforce need to explain a large portion of the variance for both individual and process development activities. Findings support that the managerial role of assessing workforce developmental needs from basic AMTs places HR managerial perceptions at the focal point of social-technical systems. The role of environmental uncertainty is also examined as a moderator of managerial perceptions of technology-driven needs in an AMT environment. The results suggest that environmental uncertainty did not moderate the relationship between HR perceptions as a predictor of workforce development activities. This could imply that HR managers may not consider critical external environment issues when making decisions of workforce development activities. The implications of these findings for HR perceptions in an AMT environment are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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