Development of an HR Practitioner Competency Model and Determining the Important Business Competencies: An Empirical Study in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study are to develop an HR competency model perceived by the HR professionals and to determine their roles as strategic business partner (SBP) in Malaysia. An empirical study was carried out during 2009-2010 among the HR practitioners and consultants. Data were collected by using structured questionnaires and a total of 380 (n) complete questionnaires were used for the statistical analysis. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was carried out to develop the HR practitioner competency model. Findings demonstrated that the ‘generic/ behavioral competency’ category and ‘technical HR competency’ category were significant to the competency model. Though, six business competency factors were found statistically important, but the overall business competency category was not significant. That implies HR professionals highly contribute to the operational activities rather than being strategic business partner (SBP). The findings can be useful in establishing competency frameworks, measuring human capital capabilities, designing training programs, establishing on-boarding programs, developing career and succession plans, and drawing the appropriate reward plans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".