Influencing Factors on Strategic Human Resource Development Position … · Influencing Factors on...

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141

Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

1

Influencing Factors on Strategic Human Resource Development Position at

Jordanian Universities

Waed Ensour (correspondence author) Assistant professor

Department of Business

The Hashemite University– Jordan

Radwan Kharabsheh

Assistant professor



Amer Al-Shishani Assistant professor



Abstract:

This study aims to investigate and compare the current status of Human Resource Development (HRD) in

private and public Jordanian universities. Further, the study examines the factors affecting the strategic position

of HRD. Data were gathered through 234 surveys distributed in six universities. Results showed similarities in

the way HRD activities were practised among the public and private universities. HRD initiatives are executed

through the traditional approach of Training and Development (T&D) with basically a reactive role. No

evidence was found of existence of any strategic HRD dimensions. Moreover, results showed that all the

proposed variables (functional, organizational and personal factors) made a significant unique contribution to

the prediction of the dependent variable (HRD strategic position). Results also indicated that the functional and

organizational factors made the finest prediction of the strategic HRD position over the personal factors. Finally,

recommendations are made to boost the strategic position of HRD in Jordanian universities.

Key Words: Training and Development, Human Resource Development, Strategic Human Resource

Development, Jordan.

1. Introduction:

Numerous attempts were made to differentiate HRD from T&D (see, e.g, Stead and Lee, 1996; Walton, 1999;

Harrison, 2002; Sambrook, 2004; Abdullah, 2009). The debate presumes HRD to be a strategic version of the

traditional training approach. HRD`s contribution is assumed to shift from operating at a tactical level to having

an impact at a strategic level. This shift creates a further debate which in turn leads to a creation of a new term,

named strategic HRD (SHRD) (Garavan, 1999; Sambrook, 1999; McCracken and Wallace, 2000; Gubbins et

al., 2006; Garavan, 2007; Tseng and McLean, 2008). SHRD stresses the need for the inclusion of a strategic

perspective of HRD which involves the consideration of HRD strategy’s overall impact on the organization

(Alagaraja, 2013).

Several studies were conducted to explain the term SHRD (see, e.g. Garavan, 1999; Sambrook 1999;

McCracken and Wallace, 2000; Gubbins et al., 2006; Garavan, 2007; Tseng and McLean, 2008; Alagaraja,

2013). This was supplemented by research to identify the characteristics of SHRD (see, e.g. Garavan, 1999;

McCracken and Wallace, 2000; Garavan, 2007). Attention was also paid to factors affecting T&D, HRD and

workplace learning (see, e.g. Long et al., 1999; Sambrook and Stewart, 2000; Ellinger 2005; Sambrook, 2005).

In this regard, two observations were made: first, factors that influence HRD were studied according to their

influence on T&D/HRD or work place learning, but were not studied in term of influencing HRD’s strategic

position. Secondly, although there were some classifications of the factors as inhibitors/ enhancing factors, they

were not investigated to identify which factors mostly influence SHRD. Another unresolved question arises

regarding the distinction of the HRD professionalism level between private and public organizations.


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

2

With regard to Jordan, there are further vague issues. Most importantly, there is a lack of intensive research

into HRD in Arab countries in general and Jordan is no exception (Durra, 1991; Altarwaneh, 2005; Abdulrahim,

2011). Moreover, Afiouni et al., (2013) states that there is still no apparent picture of the current and/or best HR

practices in the Arab Middle East region. The limited research into the nature and status of HRD in Jordan has

given this study an opportunity to contribute to the body of knowledge in several ways. First, the study

improves the understanding of HRD practices in Jordan especially in terms of mapping typical T&D practises

against modern HRD interventions. Second, the study outcomes shall shed light on how HRD status may vary

according to institutions’ ownership. Third, there is a limited research investigating the underlying factors that

affect the strategic position of HRD. Thereafter, the study findings will help to develop new strategies and

improve the processes of HRD `practices` in the Jordanian universities.

2. Literature Review:

Abdullah (2009) argues that the process of defining HRD is difficult due to the evolving nature of HRD; since

the term started out as simply “training”, then evolved into T&D, and finally into HRD. Sambrook (1998) states

that the nature of T&D has changed and evolved into what might be described as HRD. Moreover, Sambrook

(1998) identifies three ways of thinking about HRD: T&D or `TELL` which is talked about and enacted within

the traditional paradigm of classical management; competent HRD or `SELL` which represents a wider

approach focused on a competent and efficient approach to learning interventions at tactical level within the

organization, and strategic `GEL` which links HRD with organizational goals and future needs to achieve

vertical integration. The three stages of HRD development is discussed below:

I. Traditional training and development:

Belhaj (2000) defines T&D as a planned, systematic and continuous process, aiming at modifying or improving

the behaviour, knowledge, skills and attitude of the workforce, to meet current and future needs. Most T&D

models tend to cover three main stages: Training Needs Analysis (TNA), design and implementation stage and

evaluation stages (Wilson, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Griggs et al., 2010). Wilson (2005) indicates that this

process is called the "training cycle".

II. Training Needs Analysis: identifying shortfalls in employees’ performance and deciding which weaknesses

can be overcome through training (Pettinger, 2002). Identifying T&D needs could be accomplished through

performance appraisal, assessment centres, self- assessment, peer assessment, direct observation, interviews, job

descriptions and questionnaires.

III. Designing and Implementation Stage: design means translation of the determined T&D needs into

programmes. T&D methods could be on-the-job and off-the-job, trainer-centred, a series of lessons, lectures or

activities, or learner-centred methods, like role-playing and demonstrations. Implementation concerns with

ensuring effective and efficient delivery of T&D opportunities in the workplace. Holton et al., (2000) argue that

the transfer of learning is perhaps the most critical outcome of HRD effort.

IV. Evaluation: refers to assessing whether or not T&D efforts are producing relevant and valued output

through an efficient and well managed process (Hackett,1997). For this purpose many models were developed,

such as the Kirkpatrick model which consists of four levels (reaction level, learning level, behaviour level, and

the result level). Phillips (2011) points to different models like, CIPP model which includes context evaluation,

input evaluation, process evaluation, and product evaluation. And the CIRO framework covering content

evaluation, input evaluation, reaction evaluation, outcome evaluation.

A different stream emerged encompass a similar nature to T&D, but with an inclusion of strategy and involving

other stakeholders at various stages of the process (Harrison, 2009). In this regard, it has been claimed that T&D

strategy should be consistent with and derived from the organizational overall strategy (Bowen, 1994; Olian et

al., 1998; Bee and Bee, 2003; Wang, 2006). Thus, to enable T&D to become more strategic, there is a starting

point for defining work objectives or strategies. This systematic approach differs from the traditional approach

as the identification of training needs is being replaced by the identification of an organisation's strategy and

objectives.

V. Human Resource Development:

Sambrook (2004) suggests that HRD is a term created by academics to differentiate strategic and business-

oriented learning and development activities from old-style T&D. Although this is a longstanding debate, the


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

3

issue has not been completely resolved; owing to disagreement on what HRD is. Abdullah (2009) stresses that

providing a single definition of HRD may be neither feasible nor practical. This could be referred as the

problematic ontological nature of HRD (Sambrook, 2004). However, Hurt et al., (2014) state that HRD is an

area of theory, research and practice that is devoted to studying people. Although Sambrook (2004) states that

the very term “HRD” is becoming a contested label, she conceptualized it as all the activities that seek to

facilitate all forms of learning and development at all levels within organizations. Regardless the ontological

quandary of HRD, there are areas of concurrence as to what constitute HRD. Hamlin and Stewart (2011)

conducted a review study of HRD definitions, stating that the majority of HRD definitions conceptualize HRD

as “a process in workplace setting that facilitate individual and group learning relating primarily to employee

jobs, work and in some definitions to career” (Hamlin and Stewart, 2011: p. 207).

From another angle, there is a kind of consensus regarding HRD functions just as there was almost an agreement

that T&D is a main `component` and one `function` of HRD (Sambrook, 1998; Swanson and Holton, 2001;

Abdulla, 2009; Price, 2011). Furthermore, Sambrook (2004) distinguishes T&D from HRD through its purpose.

According to Altarwaneh (2005) T&D is supposed to provide employees with the up-to-date skills, knowledge

and information needed to perform their jobs effectively and efficiently. Many researchers reject the reactive

role of T&D, suggesting that today’s business requires training that not only supports the business strategies of

organizations but assumes a pivotal role in shaping business strategy (Walton, 1999; Harrison, 2002). HRD is

different in that it has roles that extend far beyond T&D (Stead and Lee, 1996). HRD is an extension of T&D,

which includes a strategic dimension, whereas T&D is a role in implementing HRD. Moreover, Vince (2003)

claims that we need to think about HRD less as related to people development and more as an approach that

supports the impact people can have on an organization.

VI. Strategic Human Resource Development:

There has been considerable debate as to whether the distinction between HRD and SHRD is useful. For

example, Stewart et al., (2010) state that HRD has been differentiated from T&D as it is more strategic while

T&D is more operational; thus the term HRD already reflects a strategic focus. Conversely, many writers

articulate the term SHRD and clarify its dimensions (see, e.g. Garavan, 1999; Sambrook 1999; McCracken and

Wallace, 2000; Gubbins et al., 2006; Garavan, 2007; Tseng and McLean, 2008). In this context, Alagaraja (2013)

states that a number of theoretical perspectives have characterized SHRD as integrating organizational

objectives and mission, top management support and commitment, environmental scanning, creating HRD

policies, line management involvement in SHRD, leveraging supportive HRM practices, creating a learning

culture. McCracken and Wallace (2000:281) define SHRD as “the creation of a learning culture, within which a

range of training, development and learning strategies both respond to corporate strategy and also help to

shape and influence it”. In short, SHRD stresses the need for inclusion of strategic perspective for HRD which

involves the consideration of the impact of the overall HRD strategy on the organization (Alagaraja, 2013).

McCracken and Wallace (2000) have proposed criteria for SHRD basing their classification on Garavan`s (1991)

nine characteristics of SHRD. Later, Garavan (2007) proposes a multi-level model of SHRD based on the

following rudimentary assumptions:

Table 1: Strategic HRD dimensions

McCracken and Wallace (2000) classified organisations according to their level of strategic maturity by

examining the evidence for the enhanced SHRD characteristics. They define training, HRD, and SHRD as

follows:

Training: there is little evidence of the existence of Garavan’s (1991) characteristics or of the modified

version. Thus, training has a reactive and ad hoc implementation role in relation to organization strategy.

Generally, these organizations have no learning culture.

HRD: organizations are beginning to develop a maturity in HRD terms. Organizations at this level have a

systematic implementation role, but show some signs of beginning to shape corporate strategy. HRD specialists

have an internal learning consultancy role, providing non-standardized services to line managers. Although,

such organizations are still characterized by a weak learning culture. Harrison (2002) suggests that the signs that

HRD is happening and operating within the strategic framework of a business are that it is clear and meaningful,

strategically aligned, and management-led.

SHRD: organizations here are more strategically mature in HRD. Organizations show evidence of all nine

of the Garavan`s (1991) characteristics. HRD is more proactive in both shaping and responding to corporate


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

4

strategy. SHRD specialists have a strategic and innovative role as organizational change consultants, as well as

facilitators and change agents. Overall, such organizations have a strong learning culture.

Despite some conservative views regarding the separation of HRD and SHRD, we found strong justification to

do so. As mentioned above, HRD is a wide and evolving area of practice (Training, systematic HRD, SHRD),

which leads to a high variance in levels of HRD development and consequently the impact of HRD practices on

organizations. Thus, in order to investigate the nature of HRD in Jordanian universities, the study will

investigate the three stages of the T&D cycle, followed by careful examination of HRD and SHRD

characteristics, thereafter the results will be examined and compared to the mentioned classification.

VII. Factors influencing HRD:

Many studies have explored factors influencing T&D, HRD and workplace learning (WPL). For example, Long,

et al., (1999) identify four factors influencing training: worker characteristics, job characteristics, enterprise

characteristics and socio-political and economic environment.

Sambrook (2005) has studied factors influencing the context and process of work related learning. She identified

contextual factors influencing learning at three levels: organizational (Culture, structure, senior manager support,

organization of work, work pressure, target, task vs. learning orientation). Functional (HRD, role clarity,

understanding of HRD, tasks and new initiatives, number of staff, expertise, amount of information). Personal

(responsibility for learning, motivation to learn, time, skills, confidence). Further, she categorized the factors

into four main themes: motivation, HRD, culture and pragmatic factors (attitudes to training, managerial skills,

lack of resources, lack of time, lack of reward). She states that inhabiting factors were insufficient HRD

resources, a traditional culture and an entrenched attitude toward training, business pressure, and poor

managerial skills. Whereas, the supporting factors were: sufficient HRD resources (HR such as facilitation skills,

learning expertise, flexible solutions, and financial resources), management support for learning, increasing

willingness to learn. Sambrook and Stewart (2000) have investigated factors influencing lifelong learning. They

suggest that factors enhancing learning included motivation (enthusiasm, involvement, clarity and understanding

of own role, and increased responsibility), culture (developing a learning culture and senior management

support), practice (organization restructuring, job design, investment in HRD and learning environment).

Managers’ skills (leadership style and role clarity), employees’ attitudes (confidence), organization of work

(time for learning and work environment), and HRD (resource availability and quality of HRD staff) also have

positive influences on workplace learning.

Ellinger (2005) identified positive and negative organizational factors influencing informal WPL. Positive

organizational contextual factors included senior management/ leadership commitment, an internal culture

committed to learning, managers who both act as role models and encourage learning and the sharing of

learning. Negative organizational contextual factors included leadership/ management not committed to learning,

structural inhibitors, an internal culture of entitlement, work tools and resources, people who disrupt webs of

relationships for learning, lack of time owing to job pressures and responsibilities, too much change too fast, and

not learning from learning.

Regarding factors influencing HRD in Arab organizations, Abdulrahim (2011) states that factors influencing

HRD in the Libyan manufacturing sector were: lack of qualified HRD practitioners, lack of long term HRD

plans, polices and performance evaluation. Analysing HRD needs and evaluation processes are restricted by

factors including time availability, financial limitation and lack of expertise. HRD activities were not associated

with reward strategies, lack of motivation among employees. In addition he added that top management support,

commitment, involvement of line managers in HRD processes especially TNA and assessment are critical

elements for the advancement of HRD.

Altarawneh (2005) claims that factors inhabiting T&D in the Jordanian banking sector were: lack of specific

T&D units, lack of experienced HR/T&D managers and professionals, lack of motivation and facilitation for

employees to attend T&D programmes, inaccurate TNA, sending inappropriate staff to training, lack of on-the-

job training, poor training planning, lack of appropriate training centres, senior managers doubt about the

importance of training, and lack of understanding of training importance.

Ensour and Kharabsheh (2015) have investigated the factors that shape the conceptualization and practice of

T&D in the Jordanian electricity industry, stating that the electricity companies shared almost the same training

problems, particularly poor top management commitment, employees’ lack of willingness to learn, a high


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

5

degree of centralization, poor quality of external T&D providers, failure to evaluate training outcomes,

inadequacy of TNA and lack of well-qualified HR staff.

Abdullah (2009) has examined challenges to effective management of HR/T&D activities in manufacturing

firms in Malaysia. The study revealed three major challenges including a shortage of intellectual HRD

professionals to manage HR/T&D activities, coping with the demand for knowledge workers and fostering

learning and development in the workplace.

Two basic points can be inferred from the above: first, the factors that influence HRD were categorized

according to their influence on T&D/HRD or work place learning, but were not studied in term of influencing

HRD strategic position. Second, despite some efforts to classify the factors as inhibitors and/or enhancing

factors, they were not investigated to show which factors have the most influence on SHRD. Overall, and

according to the numerous factors that were previously mentioned, it would be appropriate to categorize the

most frequently stated factors into three levels organizational, functional and individual.

1. Organizational factors: includes top management support (Sambrook and Stewart 2000; Sambrook, 2005;

Ellinger 2005, Abdulrahim, 2011; Altarawneh, 2005). Top management believe in HRD importance

(Altarawneh,2005; Ensour and Kharabsheh, 2015). Learning culture (Olsen, 1998; Sambrook and Stewart,

2000; Ellinger, 2005). Participation of different managerial level in HRD activities (Ellinger, 2005; Ensour

and Kharabsheh, 2015; Abdulrahim, 2011). Organizational policies and objectives (Altarawneh, 2005;

Ensour and Kharabsheh, 2015; Abdulrahim, 2011)

2. Functional factors: includes, existence and clarity of HRD strategies, plans, policies and objectives (Long,

et al., 1999; Altarawneh, 2005; Abdulrahim, 2011). Resource availability (Sambrook and Stewart 2000;

Sambrook, 2005; Ellinger, 2005). Quality of HRD staff (Shim, 2001; Lioyd, 2002; Sambrook and Stewart

2000, Altarawneh, 2005; Abdullah, 2009; Abdulrahim, 2011; Ensour and Kharabsheh, 2015).

3. Personal factors: employees’ enthusiasm (Long, et al., 1999; Sambrook and Stewart 2000; Sambrook,

2005; Altarawneh, 2005; Abdulrahim, 2011, Ensour and Kharabsheh, 2015). Motivation system

(Altarawneh, 2005; Abdulrahim, 2011). A belief in the importance of HRD (Altarawneh, 2005; Abdulrahim,

2011; Ensour and Kharabsheh, 2015). External support (Abdulrahim, 2011) and linking HRD activities to

promotion (Lioyd 2002; Abdulrahim, 2011).

Overall, the study will investigate the three stages of the T&D cycle, followed by careful examination of

HRD and SHRD characteristics. To discover the maturity level of HRD practices, the results will be

examined and compared to McCracken and Wallace’s (2000) model. Thereafter, the proposed factors at

three levels (individual, functional and organizational) will be examined to explore which factors have the

most influential impact on the strategic position of HRD. For the purpose of this study, a conceptual

framework illustrated in Figure 1 has been developed to explore the factors affecting HRD in Jordanian

universities as follows:

Figure 1: Research Model

3. Methodology:

According to the nature of the research objectives, the deductive (quantitative) approach was adapted. A

questionnaire was developed for data collection. The questionnaire was divided into three basic sections:

Section one: deals with the implementation of T&D activities and consequently it contain questions to explore

practise in the T&D cycle. Section two: consists of (17) questions to identify the status of HRD according to

McCracken and Wallace`s (2000) criteria for SHRD. Section three: aims to identify the factors that influence the

strategic position of HRD. Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the reliability for each section of the questionnaire

as follows:

Table 2: Reliability analysis of the questionnaire sections.

I. Research sample:

The research population consists of 25 universities 10 public and 15 private universities. The research sample

consists of six universities representing 24% of the population. 300 questionnaires were distributed, over a

period of 4-5 months, 234 questionnaires were returned as follows:

Table 3: The research sample


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

6

The participants comprised HR practitioners (HR managers, HR employees, training centres staff, HRD

managers and employees). The male respondents represented 51.3% of participants, and females represented

48.7%. Regarding participants qualifications, 50.9% held BCS degree. 38.5% of participants’ experience was

between 5-10 years, while 31.6% had 10 years and more of experience in the field of HR.

II. Data analysis:

The researchers adopted the SPSS software to enter, classify, and analyse the data. Descriptive statistics (mean

and standard deviations) were used to describe the characteristics of the sample and for each element of the

HRD practices. It was also used to analyse the indicators of TNA and the challenges to T&D evaluation.

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate our proposed model. As mentioned earlier Cronbach’s

Alpha was used to measure the reliability of the study measurements.

III. Results:

This study intends to investigate and compare the nature of HRD between Jordanian public and private

universities. Thus, the study started by investigating the practices of the traditional T&D cycle, and the

indicators of when T&D is needed to discover the direction of T&D/HRD initiatives. Thereafter, the strategic

position and factors that affect SHRD were investigated as follows:

IV. Training needs analysis:

It was found that neither the public nor the private universities have a regular schedule for conducting TNA.

79.5% of the public universities’ participants claimed that TNA is not conducted regularly, and so did 50% of

the private respondents. 44.7 % of public universities’ respondents state that their universities rarely conduct

TNA. In the private universities 28.4% responded `rarely` while 31.4% claimed that `sometimes` TNA is

conducted. Regarding the techniques used for TNA, the results were as follows:

Table 4: TNA techniques

The tables above shows that the techniques used in the private and public universities are almost the same. The

most common techniques used in public universities are first observation and then questionnaire. The private

universities use questionnaire first then observation. For a better understanding of the nature of HRD, indicators

for the needs of training were investigated to understand the direction and nature of HRD, and whether they

conduct it proactively or reactively. The responses were as follows:

Table 5: Indicators for training needs

The indicators in the table above show that the public as well as the private universities conduct training

fundamentally as a response to governmental laws and regulation. For the public it was respond to changes and

comply with governmental laws, introduction of new work procedures, newly recruited employees, cope with

technology changes and employees’ promotion respectively. For the private universities the indicators for

training need were respond to changes and comply with governmental laws, introduction of new work

procedures, newly recruited employees, employees promotion and cope with technology changes respectively.

These indicators show that HRD initiatives in the public and private universities play a reactive role.

V. Design and implementation:

It was found that the public as well as the private universities conduct training inside the universities. The most

common method used is lectures as 56.8% of the private universities respondents’ answers were `often` and

`always` with a mean of 3.21. There was a similar response from 45.5% of public universities with a mean of

3.48. This indicates that they rely heavily on the traditional approaches of training (Gomez et al., 2010), beside

this kind of training is considered trainer-centred (course- based) (Buckley and Caple, 2004). The least popular

methods used by public universities were administrative games, role playing and demonstration. The private

universities least utilized case studies, research and administrative games respectively as shown in the table

below.

Table 6: Design stage


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

7

VI. Evaluation stage:

The public as well as the private universities put some effort to evaluate training programmes. However

evaluation is not conducted regularly as a policy as 27.3% of the public universities respondents claimed that

`sometimes` they evaluate the training initiatives while 20.5% state òften`. The case is similar at the private

universities since 29.4% state `sometimes` while 23.5% state òften`. Furthermore, the Jordanian universities

evaluate their training programmes but did not evaluate the òutcomes` of these training programmes. They

basically rely on post training questionnaire. This indicates that T&D was not evaluated as a whole `process`.

Neglecting T&D as a complete process was obvious as 57.6% of the public respondents claimed that they never

utilized Kirkpatrick’s model. 61.4% claimed that CIRO model was never utilized, and 58.3% claimed that the

CIPP was never used. The private universities’ results for this dimension were 45.1%, 54.9% and 57.8%

respectively.

The limited effort for evaluating training programmes, and almost an absence of effort to evaluate T&D as a

process was attributed by the public universities’ workers to the difficulty of separating training outcomes from

other activities, and lack of quantitative techniques for evaluation. For the private universities the answers were

similar lack of quantitative techniques for evaluation, and difficulty of separating training outcomes from other

activities, and difficulty in measuring behavioural changes.

Table 7: Evaluation challenges

3.1 Strategic position of HRD:

The participants’ answers show clearly that none of the strategic dimensions proposed by Garavan, 1999;

McCracken and Wallace, 2000; or Garavan, 2007 exist in the public or in the private universities. The table

below shows the mean and standard deviation for each element.

Table 8: Strategic position of HRD

The table above shows that none of the strategic dimension was found. For the public universities the highest

mean was for èxistence of informal HRD plans`, but it was still weak with a mean of 2.56. The least dimension

was for èxistence of cultural support` with a mean of 1.93. For the private universities, the best dimension was

èxistence of HRD strategy` with a mean of 2.6 which is still weak, the least was ènvironmental scanning by

management` with a mean of 2.1.

3.2 Factors affecting SHRD:

Multiple regression analysis was applied to investigate the factors influencing the strategic position of HRD.

The proposed model includes the `strategic position of HRD` as dependent variable and òrganizational,

functional and personal factors` as independent variables. In the first stage the independent variables were

treated as an aggregate. Results shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between the dependent

and independent variables with r =.637. R squared is 41.3% suggesting that the independent variable explains

41.3% of the variation in the dependent variable. The table below summarized the model.

Table 9: Model summary

The next step is to compare the relative contribution of each independent variable included in the model to the

prediction of the dependent variable. Table 10 shows the betas and t values for each of the variables. The table

shows that all relationships are significant and that `functional factors` has the strongest effect with a Beta of

0.319, followed by òrganizational factors` 0.308, while the least effect was for `personal factors` 0.143.

Table 10: Regression analysis results

From another perspective, and for more further detailed analysis, each group of the independent variable was

subject to the same analysis `separately`. This was done based on the assumption that each factor organizational,

functional and personal could form a separate model. The results were as follows:


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

8

3.3. Organizational factors:

The proposed model here includes organizational factors (top management support to HRD initiatives, top

management believe in HRD’s importance, the existence of a learning environment, clarity of universities’

objectives and participation by different managerial levels in HRD activities). First the independent variables

(organizational factors) were treated as an aggregate. Results show a positive and significant relationship

between variables with r value = 610. R square was .403, suggesting that the independent variable explains 40.3%

of the variations in the dependent variable. The table below summarized the model.


To check whether each of the model variables is making a statistically significant contribution, Sig was checked.

All the proposed values were less than .05 this means that all the proposed variables are making a significant

unique contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable. The next step is to compare the relative

contribution of each element of the independent variables included in the model with the prediction of the

dependent variable. Table 12 shows the betas and t values for each of the variables. The table shows that all

relationships are significant and that `participation of different managerial levels in HRD activities ` has the

greatest beta value with .296. Whereas the least was for `clarity of university`s objectives` with a beta value

of .166.


3.4. Functional factors:

The proposed model here includes functional factors (existence and clarity of HRD strategies, existence and

clarity of HRD policies, existence and clarity of HRD objectives, quality of HRD staff and resource availability).

First the independent variables (functional variables) were treated as an aggregate. Results of the regression

analysis show a positive and significant relationship with r value of .603. Table 13 shows results obtained from

regression analysis, R squared is .387 suggesting that the independent variable explains 38.7% of the variations

in the dependent variable.

Table 13: Model Summary

Table 14 shows the betas and t values for each of the variables. The table shows that all the relations are

significant and that the `HRD staff qualification` have the greatest Beta value of .334, followed by `resource

availability`. Whereas the lowest was èxistence of HRD strategy` with a beta value of .168 as shown in table

below:


3.5. Personal Factors:

The proposed model here includes personal factors (employees’ enthusiasm to participate in HRD activities,

existence of motivation system, employees’ belief in HRD importance, linkage of HRD activities to promotion

and external support such as family and friends). The independent variables were treated as an aggregate.

Results show a positive relationship between the variables with r value= .233. R squared is .204% suggesting

that the independent variable explains 20.4% of the variations in the dependent variable. The table below

summarized the model.

Table 15 : Model Summary

Table 16 shows beta values and t values of each independent variable. Unlike the organizational and functional

variables, not and all the proposed elements are making a significant contribution to the prediction of the

dependent variable. The only influential factors were èxistence of incentive system` and `the linkage of HRD

activities to promotion`. The èmployees’ desire to participate in HRD activities`, èmployees’ belief in HRD

importance` and èxternal support` were not found to make a significant contribution to the prediction of the

dependent variable.



Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

9

4. Conclusion:

This study aims to investigate and compare the current status of HRD in private and public universities. The

study aims to explore the factors affecting the strategic position of HRD. For this purpose, the study investigated

the traditional T&D cycle (TNA, design and implementation and evaluation stages). The strategic dimensions of

HRD were also investigated in order to map the current practices against the normative models of SHRD.

Regarding the TNA stage, there was no significant differences in the way that the private and the public

universities conduct TNA. TNA was not conducted in a regular manner. In addition, traditional techniques were

utilized to assess the training needs like supervisors’ observation and questionnaire. These methods show that

employees were not fully engaged in deciding on their training needs. Furthermore, it was found that training is

conducted as a response to governmental laws and/or to fulfil the requirements of employees’ promotions. Thus,

T&D has a reactive role. Regarding design and implementation stage, initiatives were conducted basically inside

the universities, depending heavily on traditional techniques like lectures. There were some efforts to evaluate

HRD initiatives, but it was not as a permanent policy. Basically, training `programmes` were evaluated using

`after training questionnaire`, which indicated that each initiatives is evaluated separately and HRD activities

were not handled as a whole `process`. Finally, results showed similarities in the way HRD activities were

practised among the public and private universities. HRD initiatives are run through the traditional approach of

T&D with essentially a reactive role. This contradicts Al-Shqairat’s (2009) claim that there is a developmental

gap between the governmental and the private sector in Jordan, with the private more developed than public

institutions. Albahussain (2000) states that the majority of Saudi managers believe that investment in T&D must

be increased in terms of both quantity and quality in the private sector as they are expected to demonstrate their

ability to supply high quality goods and services in order to compete.

The analysis of the universities’ strategic position, compared to McCracken and Wallace’s (2000) model,

revealed that the six investigated universities had no positive culture for T&D. The training interventions were

carried out in an ad hoc manner without connection to the universities’ objectives and overall strategies.

Furthermore, it was found that there was a lack of top management support, little line managers’ and supervisors’

involvement, a weak recognition of culture and little emphasise on evaluation. Furthermore, the training policies

at the privatized and the public universities were mostly informal. Overall and in compared to McCracken and

Wallace’s (2000) model, these practices fall under the `training` level.

The next step is to discover the factors that affect SHRD, it was found that the functional as well as the

organizational factors have the greatest influence on HRD. The personal factors reported an influence; however,

it was the least on SHRD. In examining each factor separately, it was found that all the factors grouped as

functional and organizational have an impact on SHRD. This was not the case for the personal factors, as the

only elements that have an impact on SHRD were `existence of incentive system` and `the linkage of HRD

activities to promotion`. This contradicts what was proposed by (Long, et al., 1999; Sambrook and Stewart 2000;

Sambrook, 2005; Altarawneh, 2005; Abdulrahim, 2011, Ensour and Kharabsheh, 2015) who proposed that

employees’ enthusiasm has an impact on HRD and workplace learning. As well as employees’ belief in HRD

importance proposed by (Altarawneh, 2005; Abdulrahim, 2011; Ensour and Kharabsheh, 2015). This finding

also contradicts the impact of external support on HRD and workplace learning which is proposed by

(Altarawneh, 2005 and Abdulrahim, 2011).

5. Recommendation:

This study investigated the current status of HRD in private and public universities, which revealed `what` is

practised. This was compared with the normative models which showed `where` HRD should be. This

comparison highlighted many gaps that pointed to `what` should be done. From another angle, this study

investigates the factors that influence SHRD. This gives us an opportunity to recognize the starting points for

reform in order to propose a suitable model for HRD in Jordanian universities. The concluded factors that are

proposed to influence SHRD are summarized as follows:

Figure 2: Factors affecting SHRD at Jordanian universities

Accordingly the requirements of the proposed HRD model are as follows:

1. The first concern should be targeted toward establishing fundamental principles or philosophical

statements to direct and guide HRD interventions. Determining and communicating the university’s

attitudes, values and importance attached to HRD is expected not only to clarify the features of the

adopted HRD approach, but also to demonstrate the extent of top management commitment. Top


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

10

management support was recognized as one of the organizational factors that influence SHRD. Further,

developing and communicating a proper HRD philosophy should furnish the general outlines to guide

HRD interventions in a specific manner, to reduce the chaotic procedures and practices. In a similar

context, Swanson (2001) states that without a theoretical ground of HRD within an organizational

system and improvement context, HRD specialists would be left starting from zero for each HRD

challenge they face, or worse, they would charge ahead in a trial and error mode.

2. Establishment of a formal HRD strategy to direct HRD activities, which should be consistent with the

universities’ strategic goals.

3. Establishment of formal HRD objectives and policies: While the previous level’s concern falls under

the strategic level of HRD, this level focuses on how policies, procedures and plans could be

established. Thus, it concerns the steps that ought to be followed in order to shift the current practice to

have a more strategic focus. Besides, `existence and clarity of HRD objectives` and `existence of HRD

policy` were recognized as functional factors that influence SHRD. However, it is admitted that raising

this assumption is easier than implementing it, as the ideal accomplishment requires substantial and

comprehensive reform measures. Therefore, it is easier to simplify the process by categorizing the

required procedures as follows:

Figure 3: Proposed guidelines for improving HRD function

I. At policy level:

- Establish HRD policy to demonstrate how it could contribute to the fulfilment of universities’

strategic objectives. Moreover, HRD objectives should be linked to overall business objectives;

this was emphasized by many authors (Bowen, 1994; Bee and Bee, 2003; Wang, 2008; Harrison,

2009). In this regard, it is important to accentuate the need for communicating the universities’

overall goals to facilitate the prioritization of HRD interventions. It is appropriate to mention that

`clarity of university’s objectives` was found to be one of the organizational factors that influence

SHRD.

- At this level the universities should decide how to conduct the related activities, whether on-the-

job or off -the-job, internally (locally) or externally (outside the kingdom), why and on what basis.

In this regard, Hackett (1997) stresses that working with external providers requires absolute

clarity about who is going to do what, when and to what standard.

- A firm and clear policy should be established regarding how T&D needs are going to be assessed

to ensure the fair selection of candidates and to overcome the drawback of limited TNA procedures

utilized. In a similar context, Pettinger (2002) stresses that equality of treatment, opportunities and

values are a central element of all effective organization practice, including participating in

development programmes. Additionally, at this level, the universities should decide how the

emergent needs are to be prioritized to guarantee the most advantageous use of resources.

- Roles and responsibilities are to be decided at this level. These should be distributed in a

compatible manner that ensures the fulfilment of strategic objectives, policies and procedures. It is

useful to suggest the need for involvement of the largest segment of staff in TNA, giving the

employees the opportunity of self-assessment and/or peer assessment. Furthermore, there is the

responsibility of line managers, supervisors’ and department managers in TNA and facilitating the

implementation of the acquired knowledge and skills in the workplace. Further, Participation of

different managerial levels in HRD was found to be one of the organizational factors that influence

SHRD.

II. At procedural level:

- Universities need detailed rules and regulations to manage and direct HRD. These regulations

should be expanded to include the whole T&D process (TNA, designing, implementation and

evaluation).

- This in turn would mean expanding the roles and responsibilities of HRD staff. However, this

point should be associated with improving the current staff capabilities to enable them to fulfil the


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

11

new responsibilities effectively. It is reasonable to suggest the need for introducing HRD staff to

advanced related courses, to enhance their qualifications in related skills. The qualification of

HRD staff was one of the functional factors that was found to have an impact on SHRD.

III. At plan formulation level:

- HRD plans should identify the basic objectives required to be achieved within a particular period

of time. Furthermore, the universities should decide what aspects of performance are to be changed

or modified and to what level. Determining objectives would facilitate the measurement

procedures at the end of the specified period to overcome the problems associated with absence of

evaluation procedures mentioned earlier.

- Establish and follow up the implementation of HRD plans under the umbrella of universities’

overall strategy and objectives.

6. Suggestions for future research:

Yin (2003) states that the ultimate goal of any research is not only to conclude a study, but to develop ideas for

further study. In this paper, there is an opportunity for new research since it was conducted within the scope of

the universities. A research sample studying HRD practices within two or more sectors would be a valuable

contribution to verify similarities and/or differences between sectors. Secondly, this study proposes that the

current status of HRD is shaped by forces beyond the mere of ownership. This opens a wide horizon for

researchers to investigate the forces that shape HRD position. Finally, we concluded that the functional,

organizational and personal factors are all having an influence on SHRD. We propose five elements in each

factor category, which leaves a room for questioning whether there are other influential factors and/or different

elements that were not included in this study.

7. References:

Abdulla, H., (2009). Major Challenges to the Effective Management of Human Resource Training and

Development Activities, Journal of International Social Research, 2(8), PP. 11-25.

Abdulrahim, A. (2011). The Path to HRD: An Investigation of Training and Development Practices in

the Libyan Manufacturing Sector In 21st century, PhD Thesis, University of Gloucestershire, UK.

Afiouni, F., Karam, C., El-Hajj, (2013). The HR Value Proposition Model in the Arab Middle East:

Identifying The Contours of Arabic Middle Eastern HR model, International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 24(10), pp.1895-1932.

Alagaraja, M. (2013). Mobilizing Organizational Alignment Through Strategic Human Resource

Development, Human Resource Development International, 16(1), pp. 74-93.

Al-Shqairat, Z.(2009). Understanding the Role of Public-Private Partnership in E-Government

Implementation in Developing Countries: Case Study of Jordan, PhD Thesis, University of Leeds

Metropolitan, UK.

Altarawneh, I. (2005). Training and Development Effectiveness: Practices, Roles and Impacts on

Performance in Jordanian Banking Organizations, PhD Thesis, University of Huddersfield, UK.

Armstrong, M., (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 10thed, UK: Kogan

Page.

Bee. F., Bee, R., (2003). Learning Needs Analysis and Evaluation, 2nded, London: CIPD.

Belhaj, F., (2000). Training Practices In Yemeni Banks, Master Thesis, Yarmouk University, Jordan.

Bowen, P., (1994) The Trainer as Manager, In Gower Handbook of Training and Development, 2nded,

England: Gower Publishing.

Buckley, R., Caple, J., (2004). The Theory and Practice of Training, 5thed, London: Kogan Page.

Durra, A., (1991). Assessment of Training Needs Within the Context of Administrative Reform in

Jordan, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 4(4): pp.45-47.

Ellinger, A. (2005). Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in Workplace Setting: The Case

of “Reinventing Itself Company”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(3), pp. 389-415.

Ensour, W., Kharabsheh, R., (2015). The Philosophy And Practice Of Training and Development: The

Case of The Jordanian Electricity Sector, International Journal of Training and Development, 19(2),

pp. 138-160.


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

12

Garavan, N., O’Donnell, D., McGuire, D., Watson, S. (2007). Exploring Perspectives on Human

Resource Development: An Introduction, Advances in Developing Human Resources, (1), pp.3-11.

Garavan, N., N. Heraty, N., Barnicle, B., (1999). Human Resource Development Literature: Current

Issues, Priorities and Dilemmas. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4-5), pp.169-179.

Garavan, N.(1991). Strategic Human Resource Development, Journal of European Industrial Training,

15(1): pp.17-30.

Gomez- Mejia, L.; Balkin, D., Cardy, R. (2010). Managing Human Resources, 6th ed, USA: Pearson.

Griggs,V., McCauley,P., Glaister,C., Holden,R. Gold, J.(2010). The Identification of Training Needs,

In: Gold, J., Holden R., Iles, P., Stewart, J. and Beardwell, J., Human Resource Development: Theory

and Practice, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gubbins, C., Garavan, T., Hogan, C., Woodlock, M., (2006). Enhancing The Role of The HRD

Function: The Case of A Health Service Organization, The Irish Journal of Management, 27(1),

pp.171-206

Hackett, P. (1997). Introduction to Training, London: CIPD.

Hamlin, B., Stewart, J.(2011). What is HRD? A definitional Review and Synthesis of the HRD Domain,

Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(3): pp.199-220.

Harrison, R.(2009). Learning and Development, 5thed , UK: CIPD.

Harrison, R.(2002). Learning and Development, 3rded, UK: CIPD, The Cromwell Press.

Holton, E., Bates, R., Ruona, W., (2000). Development of A Generalized Learning Transfer System

Inventory, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11: pp.333–60.

Hurt, A., Lynham, S., McLean, G. (2014). Investigating the HRD cube and explicating extant

paradigms of HRD, European Journal of Training and Development, 38(4): pp.323-346.

Lloyd, C., (2002). Training and Development Deficiencies in High Skill Sectors, Human Resource

Management Journal, 12(2), p.64-81.

Long, M., R. Ryan, G. Burke, S. Hopkins, (1999). Enterprise-based Education and Training: A

Literature Review, ACER and Monash University- ACERcentre for the Economics of Education and

Training, Melbourne.

McCracken, M., Wallace, M.(2000). Towards A Redefinition of Strategic HRD, Journal of European

Industrial Training, 24(5), pp.281– 290.

Olian, j.; Durham, C.; Kristof, A.; Brown, K.; Pierce, R.; and Kunder, L. (1998). Designing

Management Training and Development for Competitive Advantage: Lessons From the Best, Human

Resource Planning, 21(1): pp.20-31.

Olsen, J. H. (1998). The Evaluation and Enhancement of Training Transfer. International Journal of

Training and Development, 2(1), 61‐75.

Pettinger, R. (2002). Mastering Employee Development, England: Palgrave.

Phillips, J., (2011). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods, 3rd edition,

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Price A. (2011). Human Resource Management, 4thed, UK: CENGAGE Learning.

Sambrook, S. (2005). Factors Influencing the Context and Process of Work-Related Learning:

Synthesizing Findings From Two Research Projects. Human Resource Development International, 8(1),

pp.101-119.

Sambrook, S. (2004). A Critical” Time for HRD?, Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(8/9),

pp.611-624.

Sambrook, S. and J. Stewart (2000). Factors Influencing Learning in European Learning Oriented

Organisations: Issues For Management, Journal of European Industrial Training 24(2-4): 209-228.

Sambrook, S.(1998). Models and Concepts of Human Resource Development: Academic and

Practitioner Perspectives. PhD Thesis, Nottingham Trent University. UK.

Shim, D.(2001). Recent Human Resource Development in OECD Member Countries. Public Personal

Management, 30(3):323.

Stead, V., Lee, M., (1996). Inter-Cultural Perspectives on HRD in Stewart, J., and McGoldrick, J., (eds)

Human Resource Development Perspectives, Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice Hall.

Stewart, J., Gold, J., Iles, P., Holden R. and Beardwell, J. (2010). The Nature and Scope of HRD. In:

Gold, J., Holden, R., Iles, P., Stewart, J. and Beardwell, J., Human Resource Development: Theory and

Practice, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Swanson, R. and Holton, E. (2001). Foundation of Human Resource Development, USA: Berrelt-

Koehler publishers.

Swanson, R. (2001). Human Resource Development and Its Underlying Theory, Human Resource

Development International, 4(3): pp.299-312.


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

13

Tseng,c., and McLean, G (2008). Strategic HRD Practices As Key Factors In Organizational Learning,

Journal of European Industrial Training, 32, PP.418-432.

Vince, R. (2003). The Future Practice of HRD, Human Resource Development International, 6(4), pp.

559-63.

Wilson, J. P. (2005). Human Resource Development: Learning and Training for Individuals and

Organizations. London: Paperback.

Walton, J. (1999). Strategic Human Resource Development, 1st ed, England: Prentice Hall.

Wang, Y., (2006). Strategic Employee Training and Development in Chinese Luxury Hotels, An

International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 1(1), pp:111-118.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Table 1: Strategic HRD dimensions

Garavan (1991) McCracken and Wallace

(2000)

Garavan (2007)

1 Integration of HRD

activities with

organization`s missions

and goals.

Shaping organization missions

and goals.

Existing overarching mission statement specifying

organizational commitment to learning. HRD

initiatives are linked and supported by organizational

policies, system and resource provision.

2 Top management

support

Top management leadership Senior management actively support learning and the

HRD specialist works in partnership with line

management and the HR function.

3 Environmental

scanning

Environmental scanning by

senior managers in HRD term

Environmental planning and scanning by senior

management is timely accurate, and realistic and

interpreted in terms of implications for learning

4 HRD plans and policies HRD strategies, policies and

plans

Planning processes are formal, systematic and holistic

in nature and integrated with the corporate plan as

well as emergent and planned HRM processes.

5 Line managers’

commitment and

involvement

Strategic partnership with line

management

- People at all organizational levels share

responsibility and accountability for learning

activities.

- HRD is a core element of the performance

expectation of line management.

6 Existence of

complementary HRM

activities

Strategic partnership with HRM Planning processes are formal, systematic and holistic

in nature and integrated with the corporate plan as

well as emergent and planned HRM processes.

7 Expanded trainer role Trainers as organizational

change consultant

All major strategic plans are weighted in terms of

human skills available to implement them and specify

alternative ways to obtain these skills.

8 Recognition of culture Ability to influence corporate

culture

Outcomes of HRD produce added value for the

organization and are enhanced by recognition of the

role of cultural fit.

9 Emphasis on

evaluation

Emphasis on cost-effectiveness

evaluation


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

14

Figure 1: Research Model

Table 2: Reliability analysis of the questionnaire sections.

Dimensions Number of items Cronbach`s Alpha

TNA stage 19 .786

Design stage 15 .827

Evaluation stage 19 .815

Strategic position 17 .841

Factors affecting the strategic position 15 .704

Table 3: The research sample

University name Ownership style Participants` number

1. University of Jordan Public 49

2. Hashemite University Public 32

3. Al-Balqa Applied University Public 51

4. Philadelphia University Private 38

5. Jadara University Private 20

6. Princess Sumaya University For Technology Private 44

Total 234

Table 4: TNA techniques

Public Private

Table: TNA techniques Mean Mean

Questionnaire 2.0379 2.7647

Interview with employees 1.9015 2.1863

Interview with supervisors 1.8788 1.9412

Observation 2.2803 2.6078

Training committee 1.8712 2.0980

Performance appraisal 2.0152 2.3137

Job description 1.9924 2.3529

Organizational factors:

- Top management support

- Top management believe in HRD

importance.

- Learning culture.

- Participation of different managerial level

on HRD activities.

- Clarity of organizational objectives

Functional factors:

- Existence and clarity of HRD strategies.

- Existence and clarity of HRD policies.

- Existence and clarity of HRD objectives

- Quality of HRD staff

- Resource availability

Personal factors:

- Employees’ enthusiasm

- Motivation system

- Belief in HRD`s importance

- Link HRD activities to promotion

- External support

Strategic

position of

HRD

Dependent variable


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

15

Table 5: Indicators for training needs

Ownership Public Private

Indicators for training needs Mean Mean

New recruited 3.1212 3.3824

Skills or knowledge shortage 2.2576 2.4902

Poor university performance 2.0833 2.1667

Introduction of new work procedures 3.2955 3.4706

High turnover 1.8409 2.0196

Promotion of employees 3.0606 3.2843

Low employees` morale 2.3636 2.3235

High absenteeism 2.1515 2.3039

Cope with technology changes 3.0833 3.2353

Respond to governmental law 3.7197 3.8922

Sections` request 2.9015 2.8627

Employees` request 2.4242 2.4804

Table 6: Design stage

Public Private

Design and implementation stage Mean Mean

On-the-job training 2.1591 2.5686

Inside university 2.5682 2.7157

Outside university 1.7121 2.0980

Lectures 3.2197 3.4804

Conferences 2.4318 2.5882

Group discussion 1.8030 2.0686

Research 1.5379 1.8039

Role playing 1.5152 1.8627

Administrative games 1.3788 1.8529

Demonstration 1.5682 1.9706

Case study 1.6288 1.7059

Computerized training 2.3258 2.7353

Video training 1.8333 2.0490

Supervision 2.1136 2.2941

Rotation 1.7955 2.0588

Table 7: Evaluation challenges


Evaluation challenges Mean Mean

Difficulty in measuring performance improvement 3.1212 3.1275

Difficulty in measuring behavioural changes 3.1667 3.1765

Lack of quantitative techniques 3.4394 3.5588

High cost of evaluation 2.9242 3.1569

Absence of appraising system 2.5909 2.6863

Absence of job description 2.5758 2.5784

Length of evaluation 2.3939 2.5392

Outcomes cannot be separated from other activities 3.4621 3.3725

Absence of responsible unit 3.2879 3.1471

Lack of managers’ participation 2.6515 2.9216

Table 8: Strategic position of HRD


Strategic dimensions Mean Std.

Deviation

Mean Std.

Deviation

Existence of HRD strategy 2.5303 1.01470 2.6078 1.01627

Consistency between HRD strategy and university strategy 2.3939 1.15089 2.5098 1.09676

HRD strategy help in shaping university strategy 2.4318 1.04255 2.4314 .98010

HRD managers help in shaping university strategy 2.1591 .88092 2.2549 .81673


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

16

Top management support to HRD 2.2197 1.16772 2.2843 1.09343

Top management believe in HRD role 2.4015 1.07618 2.3333 .98838

Environmental scanning by HRD 2.3636 1.02840 2.4314 .94931

Environmental scanning by management 2.2955 .81717 2.1569 .82947

Existence of HRD formal plan 2.1742 1.02262 2.2843 .95831

Existence of informal HRD plan 2.5606 1.10694 2.5392 .96135

Flexibility of HRD plans and policies 2.1818 1.04712 2.3431 .99000

Coordination between HRD staff and line managers 2.2879 .92901 2.5882 1.07494

Consistency HRD policies and HRM policies 2.3409 .88092 2.5000 .96216

HRD professionals as consultants 2.1591 .88092 2.2353 .85800

Culture transfer 2.0530 .98317 2.2157 .97114

Culture support 1.9394 .89747 2.2647 .99431

Cost-effective evaluation 2.3030 1.05526 2.4020 1.02696


Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .643a .413 .405 .40660

a. Predictors: (Constant), Personal, Functional, Organizational

b. Dependent Variable: SHRD


Model Standardized

Coefficients

T Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics

Beta Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 6.119 .000

Organizational .308 2.958 .003 .610 .191 .149 .236 4.235

Functional .319 3.095 .002 .603 .200 .156 .241 4.157

Personal .143 2.776 .006 .233 .180 .140 .962 1.039

Table11: Model Summary


1 .635a .403 .392 .41100

a. Predictors: (Constant), participation , top mgt support, University obj, learning environment



Model Standardized

Coefficients

T Sig. Correlations Collinearity

Statistics


(Constant) 12.981 .000

Top mgt support .255 4.494 .000 .429 .285 .229 .812 1.232

learning

environment .279 4.857 .000 .463 .306 .248 .793 1.261

University obj. .166 3.178 .002 .276 .206 .162 .961 1.041

Participation .296 5.669 .000 .401 .351 .290 .954 1.049

Table 13: Model Summary


1 .622a .387 .376 .41637

a. Predictors: (Constant), Resource availability, HRD policy, Qualified staff , HRD objectives



Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

17


Standardized

Coefficients



(Constant) 11.443 .000

HRD policy .168 3.114 .002 .160 .202 .161 .915 1.093

HRD objectives .209 3.566 .000 .429 .229 .184 .779 1.283

Qualified staff .334 6.118 .000 .385 .375 .317 .899 1.113

Resource

availability .307 5.328 .000 .463 .332 .276 .808 1.238

Table 15 : Model Summary


1 .451a .204 .186 .47566

a. Predictors: (Constant), linked to promotion, external support, employees belief, incentives system,

employees desire to participate.



Figure 2: Factors affecting SHRD at Jordanian universities

Model Standardized

Coefficients


Beta Zero-

order

Partial Part Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 10.788 .000

Employees’ desire to

participate -.045 -.694 .489 -.045 -.046 -.041 .823 1.215

Incentives system .291 4.773 .000 .352 .301 .282 .940 1.064

Employees believe .057 .883 .378 .006 .058 .052 .832 1.202

External support

(family, friends..) .028 .466 .642 .026 .031 .028 .935 1.069

Linked to promotion .283 4.603 .000 .348 .292 .272 .927 1.079

Personal factors:

- Existence of incentive system

- Linkage of HRD activities to promotion.

SHRD

Functional factors:

- HRD staff qualification

- Resource availability

- Existence and clarity of HRD

objectives

- Existence of HRD policy

Organizational factors:

- Participation of different managerial

levels in HRD.

- Existence of learning environment,

- Top management support.

- Clarity of universities’ objectives.


Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)

18

Figure 3: Proposed guidelines for improving HRD function

Strategy level

- Identify the

philosophical

approach and attitude

toward HRD.

- Determine what is

expected from HRD.

Policy level

- Determine the approaches,

criteria and standards for

HRD.

- Draw outlines toward TNA

methods and techniques.

- Identify priorities.

- Determine roles and

responsibilities of each

managerial level in HRD.

- Initiate the basics for

managing the

implementation and

evaluation of HRD activities.

Procedures:

- Develop HRD

function roles and

regulations that

comply with the

strategy and

policy.

- Determine roles

and

responsibilities of

HRD staff in

every HRD

function and

processes.

Plan formulation:

- Identify objectives and time frame

- Determine main activities

- Determine the programmes’ cost and budget

Influencing Factors on Strategic Human Resource Development Position … · Influencing Factors on...

Documents

Transcript of Influencing Factors on Strategic Human Resource Development Position … · Influencing Factors on...