Strategic Human Resource Development in Small Businesses in the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTOver 99% of the businesses in the United States are classified as small businesses. These businesses are responsible for at least half of: private sector employees, highly skilled and trained employees, new jobs created, and the private gross domestic product (nonfarm). Evidence is presented in this review to support that both strategic business planning and strategic human resource development work in combination to provide businesses with a competitive advantage. As we build on this research and strive to learn the best approaches for adopting adopt strategic human resource development in small businesses, we need to ensure the foundations for this research are strong. This review summarizes what we know about strategic human resource development in small businesses, the theoretical foundations for this work, and the role of critical definitions in this work. Suggestions are made for increasing the impact of research in this field and building support for the utilization of strategic business plans and strategic human resource development plans in businesses of all sizes.INTRODUCTIONThe aim of this review is to highlight the important research on the prevalence and impact of strategic human resource development (SHRD) in small businesses in the United States, and to find ways to improve the impact made by this work. This review explores foundational questions about this research. First, what theories are researchers relying on in support of strategic planning? Secondly, what does the term and construct 'small businesses' refer to? What defines a small business and why are small businesses important to the United States economy and subsequently its citizens? To what extent do small businesses create and utilize strategic business plans? And finally, do SHRD processes benefit small businesses? Existing research will be examined to provide insight on these questions. Following which is the discussion of the implications of this research for researchers, theorists, educators, and practitioners.Research articles included in this paper were located through a series of online title searches through a University of Illinois electronic library access and included searches of the following databases/tools: Business Source Complete, ABI Inform Complete, Scopus, Academic Search Premier Plus (Ebsco), PsychlNFO and Engineering Village. Additional articles were identified through a targeted title search of leading human resource development and human resource management journals. Search terms included combinations of the following: strategic plan, strategic planning, strategic business plan(s), strategic human resource development, SHRD, small business, small firms, Strategic planning theory, Resource Based Theory, and Human Capital Theory. Over 90 articles from peer reviewed journals were reviewed as a result of this process. A few additional articles were discovered via citations and references included in the aforementioned articles.Three articles were retained for which the sample of businesses were outside of the United States, which included businesses in Canada (Fabi & Lacoursiere, 2009) and the United Kingdom (Keogh, Mulvie, & Cooper, 2005; Richbell, Watts, & Wardle, 2001). These articles focus and methods were unique (i.e. there were not comparable studies published utilizing businesses in the United States), provided specific research findings relevant to the topic, were timely (published in the last 10 years), and because the countries included share a number of economic and cultural traits with the United States. Generalization of the findings from these studies to small businesses in the United States is inherently limited. Each of these studies represents research that has the potential to be replicated, to test for relevance in a United States setting, by utilizing a similar sample of small businesses in the United States.Studies that examined strategic planning that were published before 1980 were excluded due to the rapidly changing business environment and the growth of the human resource development profession in the 1980's (Kuchinki, 2007). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».