- 學位論文
台灣人力資源工作者之核心職能與專業發展課程關係之研究
The Relationship of Taiwan HR Participants between Core competency and Professional Developing Curriculums.
摘要
摘要 本研究旨在探討目前國內人力資源工作者核心職能與課程之現況與差異相關分析。研究目的如下： 一、 探討人力資源工作者其核心職能表現現況與重視程度。 二、 探討人力資源工作者核心職能表現現況與重視程度之落差情形。 三、 探討不同個人背景變項之人力資源工作者其核心職能表現現況及重視程度之差異情形。 四、 探討專家學者對人力資源工作者核心職能重視程度及與實務工作者重視程度之差異。 五、 分析國內相關人力資源系所開設人力資源類課程之情況與類型，以及與核心職能之關聯影響。 研究方法為問卷調查法，共回收人資工作者363份以及專家學者46份有效問卷，所得資料透過成對樣本t檢定、單因子變異數分析、雙因子變異數分析、重視程度-表現程度分析、多元迴歸，進行研究的分析，其結論共分為： 一、 人力資源工作者與學者對於核心職能表現度與重視度均屬中上程度。 二、 人資工作者「重視度－表現度」（IPA）分析，繼續保持的為「可靠行動者」，而加強改善的為「能力建立者」和「創新整合者」。 三、 職位主要負責的HR領域為人力資源研究與資訊系統在「可靠行動者」、「能力建立者」、「策略定位者」、「創新與整合者」、「改革倡議者」等職能表現上顯著差於其他職位主要負責的HR領域。 四、 高階主管之人資工作者在「可靠行動者」以及「創新與整合者」表現程度顯著優於一般專員。 五、 現職HR年資「4-6年」之工作者，表現程度顯著高於現職年資為「2-4年」，之前相關HR年資為「2-4年」與工作總年資為「4-6年」表現程度均顯著優於「2年以下」。 六、 產業別為「服務業」以及「金融業」之工作者，對應「策略定位者」以及「改革倡議者」表現程度顯著優於「製造業」。 七、 人資工作者修習相關訓練的類型數量與核心職能表現程度，職場上修習的訓練越多，表現程度越好。 八、 畢業於相關學系之人資工作者修習2到5種類型之專業發展課程，在核心職能的表現程度顯著優於僅修習1種類型之人資工作者。 九、 不同職位主要負責的HR領域之工作者對應核心職能「創新與整合者」，訓練與發展、甄選與任用重視程度顯著高於員工輔助/諮商輔導以及人力資源研究與資訊系統類。 十、 人資工作者的HR現職年資與工作總年資為「4-6年」，在「可靠行動者」以及「創新與整合者」中，重視程度均顯著高於「2年以下」。 十一、產業別為「製造者」之人資工作者，在「可靠行動者」以及「能力建立者」 重視程度均顯著高於金融業。 十二、人資工作者修習「9」種訓練類型對應核心職能之重視程度均顯著高於其 他數量之類型。 十三、專家學者與人資工作者對核心職能重視程度在「能力建立者」上具顯著差 異。 十四、人力資源相關學系的專業發展課程，以內容分析法，依據課程名稱相似歸 類出九大類，分別為訓練發展類、組織設計類、勞資關係法令類、人力資源 規劃整合類、職涯諮商類資訊管理與學習系統類、績效薪酬類、基礎知識類 以及其他類。 十五、人資工作者認為訓練發展類之課程重要性越高在「可靠行動者」的重視程 度愈佳。 十六、人資工作者認為組織設計類之課程重要性越高在「能力建立者」、「創新與 整合者」、「改革倡議者」的重視程度愈佳。 十七、人資工作者認為勞資關係法令類之課程重要性越高在「可靠行動者」、「能 力建立者」、「創新與整合者」、「改革倡議者」的重視程度愈佳。 十八、人資工作者認為資訊管理與學習系統類之課程重要性越高在「能力建立者」 、「科技倡導者」、「策略定位者」、「創新與整合者」以及「改革倡議者」的 重視程度愈佳。 十九、人資工作者認為績效薪酬類之課程重要性越高在「能力建立者」的重視程 度愈佳。 二十、人資工作者認為基礎知識類之課程重要性越高在「改革倡議者」的重視程 度愈佳。 二十一、人資工作者認為修習「勞資關係法令類」以及「資訊管理與學習系統類」 之課程重要性越高在核心職能的重視程度越佳。
並列摘要
Abstract This study aims to discuss an analysis of correlation for the current difference between core competency and curricula of Taiwan human resource participants. The following are research purposes： 1. To discuss the HR practices’ core competency in current performance and evaluation. 2. To discuss the gap between performance and importance of HR core competency. 3. To discuss the HR core competency’s difference between performance and importance with different backgrounds’ HR participants. 4. To discuss the difference of importance HR core competency between experts and HR participants. 5. To analyze the situation and types of curricula related to HR, and the relationship between core competency. The method of study was questionnaire survey. A total of 363 HR questionnaires and 46 HR professionals’ effective copies returned. The data was analyzed by Two-sample t-test for paired data, One way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, IPA analysis, and Multi regression analysis. The following are results： 1. The core competency of performance and importance are above the average for both of HR participants and experts. 2. According to IPA analysis of HR participants, the findings indicates that“Credible Activist”should keep up the good work. As for“Capability Builder”and“HR Innovator and Integrator”are concentrate here. 3. In“Credible Activist”,“Capability Builder”,“Strategic Positioner”, and“Change Champion”, HR participants in HR research and information system are less significant than other roles. 4. In“Credible Activist”, and“HR Innovator and Integrator”, the performance on ratings of HR managements are much significant than individuals. 5. In-service“4-6”year- HR participants whose performances are much significant than“2-4”years. The performance ratings of“2-4”year- experience in HR is much significant than“under 2”years. Besides,“4-6”year- seniority is much significant than“under 2”years. 6. In“Strategic Positioner”, and“Change Champion”, the“Service Industry”and“Finance Industry”are both much significant than“Manufacturing Industry”. 7. The staff’s training is positively related to core competency of performance. The more HR trainings were taken, the higher degree of job performance staff achieved. 8. To core competency of HR performance, HR participants whose majors are related to HR study 2-5 categories of professional development curriculums are much significant than study 1 category. 9. Different HR roles in“HR Innovator and Integrator”, the importance ratings of training and development and selection and recruitment are much significant than employees consulting and HR research and information system. 10. Both“4-6”year- HR participants and“4-6”year- HR seniority show positively in“Credible Activist”and“HR Innovator and Integrator”. They are much significant than“under 2”years. 11. In“Credible Activist”,and“Capability Builder”, HR participants in "Manufacturing Industry" are much significant than "Finance Industry." 12. The importance on ratings of core competency shows that HR participants who take 9 categories trainings are significant than other numbers of categories. 13. In“Capability Builder”, there is a remarkable difference of core competency importance in experts and HR participants. 14. Professional development curriculums related to the Department related to HR, based on a similar course name of the content analysis classify the nine categories, namely Training and Development category, Organizational Design category, the Labour Relations and Act category, integrated human resource planning category, career counseling category, Information Management and Learning System category, Performance and Compensation category, Basic Knowledge category and other category. 15. HR participants consider that the much important Training and Development curriculums are, the higher degree of importance of“Credible Activist”is. 16. HR participants consider that the much important Organizational Design curriculums are, the higher degree of importance of“Capability Builder”,“HR Innovator and Integrator”,and“Change Champion”are. 17. HR participants consider that the much important Labor Relations and Act curriculums are, the higher degree of importance of“Credible Activist”,“Capability Builder”,“HR Innovator and Integrator”,“Change Champion”are. 18. HR participants consider that much important Information Management and Learning System curriculums are, the higher degree of importance of“Capability Builder”,“Technology Proponent”,“Strategic Positioner”,“HR Innovator and Integrator”and“Change Champion”are. 19. HR participants consider that much important Performance and Compensation curriculums are, the higher degree of importance of“Credible Activist”is. 20. HR participants consider that much important Basic Knowledge curriculums are, the higher degree of importance of“Change Champion”is. 21. HR participants consider that much important“Labor Relations”and “Information Management & Learning System” curriculums are, the higher degree of importance of core competency is.