杭州交通信息网我的世界捕捉人陷阱:英语高手帮我翻译一下（英译汉）
来源：百度文库 编辑：杭州交通信息网 时间：2024/05/05 17:38:28
Organizational Performance in Strategic HRM
Wright and McMahan in 1992 defined strategic HRM as “the pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable the firm to achieve its goals,” (p. 298). Implicit in this definition is that the ultimate goal of strategic HRM is to contribute to organizational performance through increasing the likelihood of goal attainment. For simplicity the goal is often assumed to be financial performance or wealth creation. Considerable research has attempted to test strategic HRM propositions, usually with the ultimate criterion being how strategic HRM contributes to some measure of firm financial performance (Dyer & Reeves 1995; Wright & Sherman forthcoming).
In their review of research on the efficacy of “bundling” HR practices within the field of strategic HRM, Dyer and Reeves (1995), proposed four possible types of measurement for organizational performance: (1)HR outcomes(turnover, absenteeism, job satisfaction), (2) organizational outcomes (productivity, quality, service), (3) financial accounting outcomes (ROA, profitability), and (4)capital market outcomes, (stock price, growth, returns). They proposed that HR strategies were most likely to directly impact human resource outcomes, followed by organizational, financial, and capital market outcomes. This stemmed both from the facts that HR strategies are primarily designed to impact HR outcomes, and that the increasing complexity of factors which influence higher level outcomes would diminish the relative contribution of HR factors to those outcomes. They suggested these facts, coupled with the reality that human resource outcomes are deficient from the standpoint of most executives might explain why most of the strategic HR research has focused on organizational outcomes rather than the other three.
Note that implicit in this model, as well as others (e.g. Huselid 1995；Truss & Gratton 1994) is the basic idea that outcomes can be differentiated at hierarchical levels, with outcomes at one level contributing (along with other factors) to outcomes at the next level. While each model differs in the number of levels and the exact outcomes, a generic form of the model is that HR practices have their most direct impact on HR outcomes, which in turn, contribute to higher level organizational performance constructs.
Wright and McMahan in 1992 defined strategic HRM as “the pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable the firm to achieve its goals,” (p. 298). Implicit in this definition is that the ultimate goal of strategic HRM is to contribute to organizational performance through increasing the likelihood of goal attainment. For simplicity the goal is often assumed to be financial performance or wealth creation. Considerable research has attempted to test strategic HRM propositions, usually with the ultimate criterion being how strategic HRM contributes to some measure of firm financial performance (Dyer & Reeves 1995; Wright & Sherman forthcoming).
In their review of research on the efficacy of “bundling” HR practices within the field of strategic HRM, Dyer and Reeves (1995), proposed four possible types of measurement for organizational performance: (1)HR outcomes(turnover, absenteeism, job satisfaction), (2) organizational outcomes (productivity, quality, service), (3) financial accounting outcomes (ROA, profitability), and (4)capital market outcomes, (stock price, growth, returns). They proposed that HR strategies were most likely to directly impact human resource outcomes, followed by organizational, financial, and capital market outcomes. This stemmed both from the facts that HR strategies are primarily designed to impact HR outcomes, and that the increasing complexity of factors which influence higher level outcomes would diminish the relative contribution of HR factors to those outcomes. They suggested these facts, coupled with the reality that human resource outcomes are deficient from the standpoint of most executives might explain why most of the strategic HR research has focused on organizational outcomes rather than the other three.
Note that implicit in this model, as well as others (e.g. Huselid 1995；Truss & Gratton 1994) is the basic idea that outcomes can be differentiated at hierarchical levels, with outcomes at one level contributing (along with other factors) to outcomes at the next level. While each model differs in the number of levels and the exact outcomes, a generic form of the model is that HR practices have their most direct impact on HR outcomes, which in turn, contribute to higher level organizational performance constructs.
组织表现在战略HRM
怀特和McMahan在1992定义了战略HRM作为“计划的意欲的人力资源部署和活动的样式使企业达到它的目标”， (p. 298)。 含蓄在这个定义是战略HRM的最终目标是对组织表现贡献通过增加目标达到情况可能。 简而言之目标经常假设是财政表现或财富创建。 可观的研究试图测试战略HRM提议，通常以最后标准是怎么战略HRM对牢固的财政表现某一措施贡献(染色者&穿过1995年; 怀特&谢尔曼即将到来)。
在研究他们的回顾对效力的“包”小时在战略HRM的领域， Dyer之内实践并且穿过(1995)，提议测量的四个可能的类型为组织表现： (1)小时结果(转交、旷工，工作满意程度)， (2)组织结果(生产力、质量，服务)， (3)财务会计结果(ROA，有利)和(4个)资本市场结果， (股票价格，成长，返回)。 他们提议小时战略是很可能直接地冲击人力资源结果，跟随由组织，财政和资本市场结果。 这阻止了两个从小时战略主要被设计冲击小时结果，并且因素的增长的复杂影响高水平结果将减少小时因素相对贡献到那些结果的事实。 他们建议了这些事实，加上现实人力资源结果从多数董事立场是短少也许解释为什么大多数战略小时研究集中于组织结果而不是其他三。
注意，含蓄在这个模型，并且其他(即Huselid 1995年; 捆& Gratton 1994)是基本思想结果可以被区分在等级制度的水平，以结果在贡献(与其他因素一起)对结果的一个水平在下个水平。 当每个模型在水平和确切的结果时的数量不同，模型的一个普通形式是小时实践有他们多数对小时结果的直接冲击，反过来，对高水平组织表现修建贡献。