人力資源外包外文翻譯--培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展的外包影響客戶滿意度的因素（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1880英文單詞，1.1萬英文字符。中文3600字</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Gainey T W, Klaas B S. The Outsourcing of Training and Development: Factors Impacting Client Satisfaction[J]. Journal of Management, 2003, 29(2):207-229.<

2、;/p><p>　　The Outsourcing of Training and Development: Factors Impacting Client Satisfaction</p><p>　　Thomas W. Gainey；Brian S. Klaas</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p>&l

3、t;p>　　Firms increasingly use outside vendors to provide their training and development needs. However, the strategic importance of many training programs often introduces unique challenges for organizations outsourcin

4、g this function. To better understand the effects of outsourcing in this key area, we use transaction cost economics, social exchange theory, and the resource-based view to identify factors thought to impact client satis

5、faction with external training vendors. Using data obtained from 157 </p><p>　　Discussion</p><p>　　HR outsourcing has traditionally been most heavily focused within transactional activities (e.g

6、., payroll) that do not represent core competencies within most firms (Greer et al., 1999). However, increasingly, outsourcing is being used in the training and development area. And because at least some parts of traini

7、ng and development are more closely linked to efforts to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Bassi & Van Buren, 1999), questions exist about the likely effects associated with re</p><p>　　Consiste

8、nt with TCE, we found a significant and positive relationship between contractual specificity and satisfaction with outsourcing. While some perspectives argue that efforts to protect oneself from opportunism through cont

9、ractual detail and specificity may ultimately harm the development of a productive outsourcing relationship (Ghoshal & Moran, 1996; Harrigan, 1986), we found no evidence to support this. The positive relationship obs

10、erved here suggests that—within training and development</p><p>　　Also consistent with TCE, we found that characteristics of the training services being outsourced affected contractual specificity. For examp

11、le, when uncertainty was high, firms were less likely to form specific contracts with vendors—presumably because doing so would be more difficult. We also found a positive relationship between contractual specificity and

12、 outsourcing KSAs. This suggests that customers with more experience and knowledge in outsourcing relationships were more likely to avoid i</p><p>　　Our results also supported the predicted, positive relatio

13、nship between socially-oriented trust and client satisfaction with outsourcing. This relationship is consistent with the idea that trust in a relationship deters opportunistic behavior, encourages client receptivity rega

14、rding vendor advice, and reduces monitoring costs for clients. Additionally, consistent with social exchange theory, trust was found to be related to relationship tenure and communication behavior. Relationship tenure is

15、 i</p><p>　　It is important to note that two predicted relationships were not supported in this study. First, we believed that where idiosyncratic training was entrusted to outside suppliers, client satisfac

16、tion levels would be lower. Both TCE and the resource-based view of the firm suggest that when idiosyncratic training is outsourced, customers are made vulnerable to opportunism and to an increased risk of imitation (Ulr

17、ich, 1996; Williamson, 1983). However, no support was found for the hypothesized nega</p><p>　　One explanation for this finding is that there may be significant limitations on a firm’s ability to imitate ano

18、ther firm’s efforts in the training and development area. Key busi- ness processes that contribute to core competencies are often viewed as a complex web of knowledge, skills, technologies, and experience (Barney, 1995;

19、Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Thus, while one seemingly insignificant aspect of an organization’s approach to training may have played an important role in an organization’s</p><p>　　Another explanation is th

20、at client firms did not feel as vulnerable to opportunistic behavior from training vendors because they engaged in adaptive behaviors to reduced concerns. As noted previously, idiosyncratic training was positively relate

21、d to trust in the client–vendor relationship. It may be that firms that outsource such training may strive to build strong, trusting relationships in order to encourage vendor cooperation and to minimize opportunistic be

22、havior. And since trust was found t</p><p>　　This is not to suggest, of course, that the utilization of outsourcing even when asset-specific investments are required will necessarily result in benefits that

23、offset the associated costs. Rather, our findings simply suggest that within the training and development area, adaptive responses by firms may help limit the risks associated with outsourcing even where an asset-specifi

24、c investment is needed. And this potential may explain why substantial growth in training and development outsourcing </p><p>　　Another possible explanation for the lack of support between idiosyncratic trai

25、ning and client satisfaction is that the investment of resources by the client to enable the supplier to provide idiosyncratic training may have resulted in biased evaluation by client representatives. Further, it is pos

26、sible that the resources necessary to provide idiosyncratic training were provided primarily by the vendor. This may have negated the negative relationship between idiosyncratic training and client sat</p><p&g

27、t;　　The second predicted relationship that was not supported in this study was the anticipated relationship between vendor dependency and trust. It was anticipated that suppliers who were reliant on a particular customer

28、 would voluntarily make adaptations to meet the customer’s needs. And because adaptive behavior is a key foundation upon which trust is built, it was thought that trust would increase as a result. However, it is possible

29、 that when a vendor is highly dependent, adaptive behavior is no</p><p>　　It is important to consider our findings in light of several limitations associated with this study. First, because this was a cross-

30、sectional study, our ability to draw causal inferences is limited. In fact, some research suggests that the relationships proposed in this study may be more complex than suggested in our theoretical framework. For instan

31、ce, research has suggested that as trust improves, parties are more willing to communicate, thus creating an iterative, interlocking process betwee</p><p>　　Second, this study was designed to examine outsour

32、cing of training and development and, as such, care must be taken when drawing inferences about outsourcing in areas outside of HR or even to other areas within HR. According to institutionalists such as Williamson (1996

33、) transaction characteristics and other institutional factors may vary across different contexts and these differences may affect the relationships observed.</p><p>　　Third, limitations relating to measureme

34、nt issues also warrant attention. In this study, training directors and HR directors in the same firm were questioned. While, this approach reduces common method variance concerns in regard to variables directly related

35、to client satisfaction, the exclusive use of HR staff to assess training vendors provides a somewhat restricted view of the client–vendor relationship. Beyond this, respondents were asked to provide overall ratings on th

36、e vendors they work </p><p>　　Finally, this study was limited to firms that had both a training manager and a HR di- rector. As such, firms that are too small to employ such specialists were excluded from th

37、e sample. Thus, questions can be raised about whether our findings would generalize to such organizations.</p><p>　　Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of how organizations

38、 might increase their satisfaction levels when outsourcing the design and delivery of training programs. Specifically, this study suggests that client satisfaction with the outsourcing of training and development will de

39、pend on characteristics of the training services themselves, factors associated with the client–vendor relationship, and adaptive responses by firms which engage in outsourcing. While presc</p><p>　　培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展的外包

40、：影響客戶滿意度的因素</p><p>　　Thomas W. Gainey；Brian S. Klaas</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　越來越多的公司使用外部服務(wù)商來供應(yīng)公司的培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展需求。但是，許多培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃的戰(zhàn)略重點(diǎn)通常給組織機(jī)構(gòu)的外包行為帶來特殊的挑戰(zhàn)。為了更好地理解這一關(guān)鍵領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的外包行為的效果，我們使

41、用交易成本經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、社會(huì)交換理論和資源基礎(chǔ)論來確定外部培訓(xùn)方可能影響客戶滿意度的因素。根據(jù)對157家機(jī)構(gòu)的數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行處理，我們通過結(jié)構(gòu)方程建模獲取的結(jié)果表明：社會(huì)取向的信任和將合同細(xì)化可以調(diào)節(jié)客戶滿意度與供應(yīng)商之間的關(guān)系。</p><p><b>　　簡介</b></p><p>　　隨著越來越多的傳統(tǒng)上在內(nèi)部進(jìn)行的活動(dòng)正朝著外包的方向發(fā)展，許多人力資源活動(dòng)現(xiàn)在也是被外包

42、的(Lepak& Snell，1998)。事實(shí)上，近期的調(diào)查表明93% 的公司至少在一些人力資源工作或計(jì)劃上有外包行為，并且人力資源部門將是未來外包行業(yè)發(fā)展最快的職能區(qū)(Cook，1999)。因?yàn)樵S多外包的任務(wù)大部分在本質(zhì)上都是行政類或者事務(wù)性的，因此非常適合外包，所以有這樣的發(fā)展趨勢是可以理解的(Greer, Youngblood & Gray，1999)。但是，一些明顯與公司內(nèi)部的戰(zhàn)略問題相關(guān)人力資源活動(dòng)，例如：培訓(xùn)

43、與發(fā)展(Huselid，Jackson & Schuler, 1997; Wright & Snell，1998),這些活動(dòng)甚至也在朝著外包的趨勢發(fā)展(Cook，1999;Greer等人，1999)。而這些更具有戰(zhàn)略性的人力資源活動(dòng)(Becker & Gerhart,1996)就會(huì)帶來這樣的問題：公司依賴于外包行為何時(shí)能夠收益？如何受益？（Ulrich, 1996)。</p><p>&l

44、t;b>　　討論</b></p><p>　　在傳統(tǒng)上，人力資源的外包行為大部分集中于一些不能體現(xiàn)公司核心競爭力的事務(wù)性活動(dòng)上（例如：工資單）（Greer等人，1999)。但是，外包行為也越來越多地被用在培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展領(lǐng)域。因?yàn)?，培?xùn)與發(fā)展領(lǐng)域中至少會(huì)有一些部分與企業(yè)可持續(xù)的競爭優(yōu)勢有著緊密的聯(lián)系(Bassi&VanBuren，1999)，那么在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域依賴于外包行為可能出現(xiàn)什么后果？以及在

45、哪一種情況下，培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展的外包行為最有可能為機(jī)構(gòu)帶來利益？在本文中，我們鑒定了一些我們認(rèn)為的外包行為可能會(huì)影響客戶滿意度的因素。結(jié)果表明我們的模型與數(shù)據(jù)擬合效果是合理的。更具體地說，在模型中假定的10種關(guān)系中，其中有8種獲得了大力地支持，還有2種不明顯。</p><p>　　與TCE—致的是，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)合同細(xì)化與外包滿意度之間有著明顯和積極的關(guān)系。一些觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為：通過細(xì)化合同和具體明細(xì)來躲避投機(jī)主義最終會(huì)破壞外包關(guān)系

46、(Ghoshal&Moran，1996;Harrigan，1986)。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這一說法毫無根據(jù)。根據(jù)我們的觀察表明：在培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展方面，合同細(xì)化帶來的益處能夠很好地抵消消極的影響。</p><p>　　同樣與TCE—致的是，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)培訓(xùn)服務(wù)外包的特點(diǎn)影響著合同細(xì)化。例如，如果有很多不確定性，公司就不太可能與供應(yīng)方建立一個(gè)明確的合約-大概是因?yàn)檫@樣做可能會(huì)更加困難。我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)合同細(xì)化與外包KSAs之間有積極的

47、聯(lián)系。這就意味著對外包關(guān)系有經(jīng)驗(yàn)和認(rèn)識的客戶更有可能會(huì)避免不完整的合約，他們會(huì)盡量避免會(huì)給提供培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃的供應(yīng)方太多主動(dòng)權(quán)的條款。</p><p>　　我們的結(jié)果對我們所預(yù)測的，社會(huì)導(dǎo)向的信任與外包客戶滿意度之間的積極關(guān)系也是支持的。這種關(guān)系也符合以下的理念，即：關(guān)系之間的互相信任可以阻止投機(jī)取巧的行為，鼓勵(lì)客戶接受服務(wù)商的建議，并減少客戶的監(jiān)管成本。此外，與社會(huì)交換理論相符合的是，信任與關(guān)系持續(xù)的時(shí)間和溝通行為有

48、關(guān)。關(guān)系相處時(shí)間對建立信任是非常重要的，因?yàn)樾湃问请S著客戶與服務(wù)商之間越來越習(xí)慣于彼此的行為與需求而逐漸發(fā)展起來的(Lewicki&Bunker，1996)。同樣地，客戶與培訓(xùn)服務(wù)方之間頻繁的、準(zhǔn)確的和開誠布公的溝通也會(huì)帶來更多的信任，因?yàn)殡p方互動(dòng)與交換的信息越多，他們就越可能了解彼此的需要，并發(fā)展一致的行為規(guī)范(McAllister,1995)。</p><p>　　有一點(diǎn)非常重要的是：有兩種關(guān)系不能得

49、到本論文的支持。首先，我們相信，如果將有特殊要求的培訓(xùn)被委托給外部供應(yīng)商，客戶滿意度會(huì)降低。TCE和公司的資源基礎(chǔ)觀都認(rèn)為，當(dāng)有特殊要求的培訓(xùn)被外包時(shí)，供應(yīng)商容易投機(jī)取巧，且模仿式培訓(xùn)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)會(huì)增加(Ulrich,1996;Wmiamson，1983)。但是，卻沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)有證據(jù)支持，認(rèn)為有特殊培訓(xùn)的要求和客戶滿意度這種假想關(guān)系之間有消極的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　這一結(jié)論的一個(gè)釋是：公司在模仿其它公司在培訓(xùn)和發(fā)展領(lǐng)

50、域上所作的工作時(shí)可能有明顯的限制。造就公司核心競爭力的主要商業(yè)過程一般被認(rèn)為是相當(dāng)復(fù)雜的，包含：知識、技能、技術(shù)和經(jīng)驗(yàn)等(Ulrich，1996;Williamson，1983)。因此，有可能一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)在培訓(xùn)方式上貌似無關(guān)緊要的一個(gè)方面卻在該機(jī)構(gòu)的成功中有重要的作用，這一事實(shí)有可能不能被其它公司所理解。</p><p>　　另外一個(gè)解釋是：客戶公司并沒有感受到他們遭到了培訓(xùn)機(jī)構(gòu)的投機(jī)行為的侵害。正如上文中所說的，特

51、殊性培訓(xùn)與雙方的信任有積極的聯(lián)系。想要外包的公司努力建立起牢固的信任關(guān)系，為了鼓勵(lì)服務(wù)商合作并減少投機(jī)行為。因?yàn)樾湃伪话l(fā)現(xiàn)與客戶滿意度有積極的聯(lián)系，適應(yīng)性反應(yīng)可能影響依賴于培訓(xùn)外包的結(jié)果。特殊性培訓(xùn)與合同細(xì)化之間的積極關(guān)系也符合以下想法：想要外包特殊性培訓(xùn)的公司通常會(huì)通過合同細(xì)化的方式來保護(hù)自身利益。這就意味著：要求資產(chǎn)專屬可能意味著會(huì)使公司更容易遭受投機(jī)主義行為，公司通常會(huì)意識到這一點(diǎn)，并會(huì)主動(dòng)采取措施來限制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。</p>

52、<p>　　當(dāng)然，這并不意味著即使在需要資產(chǎn)專屬投資時(shí)，利用外包會(huì)必然帶來能夠抵消相關(guān)成本的利益。我們的結(jié)論只能表示：在培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展領(lǐng)域，甚至在要求資產(chǎn)專屬投資時(shí)，公司的適應(yīng)性反應(yīng)可能會(huì)幫助限制與外包有關(guān)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這也就能夠解釋，培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展領(lǐng)域外包行為持續(xù)發(fā)展的原因，盡管有的事物本身并不是十分適合進(jìn)行外包工作。</p><p>　　特殊性培訓(xùn)與客戶滿意度之間的關(guān)系不獲得支持的另外一個(gè)可能的解釋是：客戶對

53、特殊性培訓(xùn)所投入的資源可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致客戶代表偏頗的評論。另外，特殊性培訓(xùn)所必須的資源有可能主要是由供應(yīng)商提供的。這一點(diǎn)可能否定了特殊性培訓(xùn)與客戶滿意度之間所預(yù)期的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　本文不支持的第二種關(guān)系是服務(wù)商的依賴與信任之間所預(yù)期的關(guān)系。依賴于某一特定客戶的服務(wù)商會(huì)主動(dòng)作出調(diào)整來適應(yīng)客戶需求。并且，因?yàn)檫m應(yīng)性行為是信任建立的一個(gè)主要基礎(chǔ)，因此可以認(rèn)為信任也會(huì)隨之增加。但是，很有可能當(dāng)一個(gè)服務(wù)商具有高度依賴

54、性時(shí)，適應(yīng)性行為將不再被認(rèn)為是對方真正關(guān)心的一個(gè)象征，反而很有可能被看作是為了服務(wù)商自身的利益。如果是真的，那么客戶就不太可能對服務(wù)商的適應(yīng)性行為給與積極回應(yīng)。但是，這種互動(dòng)也是需要的。值得注意的是，我們所說的信任方式強(qiáng)調(diào)的是以社交為導(dǎo)向的信任，這種信任依賴于雙方以互動(dòng)的方式，參與到響應(yīng)對方需求的適應(yīng)性行為中去。認(rèn)知信任指的是，一方是否相信另一方會(huì)認(rèn)為他們的行為是可以信賴的。我們并不關(guān)注于認(rèn)知信任，事實(shí)上，供應(yīng)商的依賴性與這種與眾不同的

55、信任有一定的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　從本文中的幾項(xiàng)限制的角度來考慮我們的研究結(jié)果是重要的。首先，因?yàn)楸疚氖且豁?xiàng)典型性研究，我們進(jìn)行因果推論的能力有限。事實(shí)上，一些研究認(rèn)為本論文中所提及的關(guān)系比我們的理論框架中所論述的更加復(fù)雜。例如，有研究表明，隨著信任的不斷提高，雙方會(huì)更加樂意溝通交流，這就產(chǎn)生了這些變量之間的重復(fù)、連鎖的反應(yīng)過程(Anderson&Narus，1990)。另外，有人可能會(huì)爭辯稱：公司

56、可能不太樂意將特殊性培訓(xùn)進(jìn)行外包直到他們對供應(yīng)商有足夠多的信任。還有一些后續(xù)的研究并不支持信任有調(diào)節(jié)作用這一觀點(diǎn)，很有可能一些聯(lián)系會(huì)比本文中所論述的單項(xiàng)性關(guān)系復(fù)雜得多。如果有更多的樣本，可以對非遞歸模型進(jìn)行測試，并且可以對一些組織隨著時(shí)間發(fā)展發(fā)生的變化進(jìn)行縱向研究，那么對我們本文中所評估的因果關(guān)系的理解會(huì)更有信心。</p><p>　　第二，本文的目的是調(diào)查培訓(xùn)與發(fā)展的外包行為，同樣地，舉一反三，非人力資源領(lǐng)域或

57、者人力資源的其它領(lǐng)域的外包行為也應(yīng)該引起關(guān)注。根據(jù)一些制度主義者，例如Williamson(1996)的觀點(diǎn)，在不同的背景環(huán)境下，事物特點(diǎn)和其它制度因素可能會(huì)有所不同，而這些差別可能會(huì)影響我們所觀測到的關(guān)系結(jié)果。</p><p>　　第三，在本文中，同一家公司的培訓(xùn)主管和人力資源主管都被提問。然而，這種方法減少了與客戶滿意度直接聯(lián)系的共同方法變異問題，僅僅通過人力資源部門的員工來評價(jià)培訓(xùn)供應(yīng)商，這種方法在了解客戶

58、-供應(yīng)商關(guān)系時(shí)或多或少會(huì)有些限制。除此之外，調(diào)查對象還要求對他們合作的供應(yīng)商進(jìn)行總體評分（而不是對具體的某一個(gè)提供方打分）。因此，因?yàn)椴皇撬械姆?wù)商都是同一類型的，很有可能公司對它們的培訓(xùn)服務(wù)商的某些措施（例如：客戶滿意度）的看法有明顯的區(qū)別，認(rèn)識到這一點(diǎn)很重要。也有可能這些范圍限制會(huì)導(dǎo)致更保守的系數(shù)估計(jì)。因?yàn)槲覀儚脑嫉恼{(diào)查表中去掉了幾個(gè)與其它明顯無關(guān)的項(xiàng)目，因此測量方式的問題也同樣出現(xiàn)。因此，有可能可靠性鑒定多少有些夸大其詞了。這

59、是一個(gè)相對較新的研究行業(yè)，很明顯，需要今后有更多的研究來優(yōu)化評估方法。</p><p>　　最后，本論文只限于那些既有培訓(xùn)經(jīng)理，也有人力資源主管的公司。因此，那些沒有這樣的專業(yè)人員的小公司不在取樣范圍內(nèi)。因此，我們的研究結(jié)果是否能夠適用于這樣的組織機(jī)構(gòu)也是一個(gè)疑問。</p><p>　　盡管有這些限制，本文能夠幫助我們理解，在將設(shè)計(jì)和提交培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃進(jìn)行外包時(shí)，這些組織機(jī)構(gòu)如何才能提高滿意度。