人力資源外包外文翻譯--培訓與發(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商來供應公司的培訓與發(fā)展需求。但是，許多培訓計劃的戰(zhàn)略重點通常給組織機構的外包行為帶來特殊的挑戰(zhàn)。為了更好地理解這一關鍵領域內的外包行為的效果，我們使

41、用交易成本經濟學、社會交換理論和資源基礎論來確定外部培訓方可能影響客戶滿意度的因素。根據(jù)對157家機構的數(shù)據(jù)進行處理，我們通過結構方程建模獲取的結果表明：社會取向的信任和將合同細化可以調節(jié)客戶滿意度與供應商之間的關系。</p><p><b>　　簡介</b></p><p>　　隨著越來越多的傳統(tǒng)上在內部進行的活動正朝著外包的方向發(fā)展，許多人力資源活動現(xiàn)在也是被外包

42、的(Lepak& Snell，1998)。事實上，近期的調查表明93% 的公司至少在一些人力資源工作或計劃上有外包行為，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)。因為許多外包的任務大部分在本質上都是行政類或者事務性的，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，一些明顯與公司內部的戰(zhàn)略問題相關人力資源活動，例如：培訓

43、與發(fā)展(Huselid，Jackson & Schuler, 1997; Wright & Snell，1998),這些活動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(Becker & Gerhart,1996)就會帶來這樣的問題：公司依賴于外包行為何時能夠收益？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性活動上（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與發(fā)展領域。因為，培訓與發(fā)展領域中至少會有一些部分與企業(yè)可持續(xù)的競爭優(yōu)勢有著緊密的聯(lián)系(Bassi&VanBuren，1999)，那么在這個領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，培訓與發(fā)展的外包行為最有可能為機構帶來利益？在本文中，我們鑒定了一些我們認為的外包行為可能會影響客戶滿意度的因素。結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)合同細化與外包滿意度之間有著明顯和積極的關系。一些觀點認為：通過細化合同和具體明細來躲避投機主義最終會破壞外包關系

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：在培訓與發(fā)展方面，合同細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)培訓服務外包的特點影響著合同細化。例如，如果有很多不確定性，公司就不太可能與供應方建立一個明確的合約-大概是因為這樣做可能會更加困難。我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)合同細化與外包KSAs之間有積極的

47、聯(lián)系。這就意味著對外包關系有經驗和認識的客戶更有可能會避免不完整的合約，他們會盡量避免會給提供培訓計劃的供應方太多主動權的條款。</p><p>　　我們的結果對我們所預測的，社會導向的信任與外包客戶滿意度之間的積極關系也是支持的。這種關系也符合以下的理念，即：關系之間的互相信任可以阻止投機取巧的行為，鼓勵客戶接受服務商的建議，并減少客戶的監(jiān)管成本。此外，與社會交換理論相符合的是，信任與關系持續(xù)的時間和溝通行為有

48、關。關系相處時間對建立信任是非常重要的，因為信任是隨著客戶與服務商之間越來越習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，客戶與培訓服務方之間頻繁的、準確的和開誠布公的溝通也會帶來更多的信任，因為雙方互動與交換的信息越多，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>　　有一點非常重要的是：有兩種關系不能得

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被委托給外部供應商，客戶滿意度會降低。TCE和公司的資源基礎觀都認為，當有特殊要求的培訓被外包時，供應商容易投機取巧，且模仿式培訓的風險會增加(Ulrich,1996;Wmiamson，1983)。但是，卻沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)有證據(jù)支持，認為有特殊培訓的要求和客戶滿意度這種假想關系之間有消極的關系。</p><p>　　這一結論的一個釋是：公司在模仿其它公司在培訓和發(fā)展領

50、域上所作的工作時可能有明顯的限制。造就公司核心競爭力的主要商業(yè)過程一般被認為是相當復雜的，包含：知識、技能、技術和經驗等(Ulrich，1996;Williamson，1983)。因此，有可能一個機構在培訓方式上貌似無關緊要的一個方面卻在該機構的成功中有重要的作用，這一事實有可能不能被其它公司所理解。</p><p>　　另外一個解釋是：客戶公司并沒有感受到他們遭到了培訓機構的投機行為的侵害。正如上文中所說的，特

51、殊性培訓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系，為了鼓勵服務商合作并減少投機行為。因為信任被發(fā)現(xiàn)與客戶滿意度有積極的聯(lián)系，適應性反應可能影響依賴于培訓外包的結果。特殊性培訓與合同細化之間的積極關系也符合以下想法：想要外包特殊性培訓的公司通常會通過合同細化的方式來保護自身利益。這就意味著：要求資產專屬可能意味著會使公司更容易遭受投機主義行為，公司通常會意識到這一點，并會主動采取措施來限制風險。</p>

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

53、特殊性培訓所投入的資源可能會導致客戶代表偏頗的評論。另外，特殊性培訓所必須的資源有可能主要是由供應商提供的。這一點可能否定了特殊性培訓與客戶滿意度之間所預期的關系。</p><p>　　本文不支持的第二種關系是服務商的依賴與信任之間所預期的關系。依賴于某一特定客戶的服務商會主動作出調整來適應客戶需求。并且，因為適應性行為是信任建立的一個主要基礎，因此可以認為信任也會隨之增加。但是，很有可能當一個服務商具有高度依賴

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

55、信任有一定的關系。</p><p>　　從本文中的幾項限制的角度來考慮我們的研究結果是重要的。首先，因為本文是一項典型性研究，我們進行因果推論的能力有限。事實上，一些研究認為本論文中所提及的關系比我們的理論框架中所論述的更加復雜。例如，有研究表明，隨著信任的不斷提高，雙方會更加樂意溝通交流，這就產生了這些變量之間的重復、連鎖的反應過程(Anderson&Narus，1990)。另外，有人可能會爭辯稱：公司

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

57、者人力資源的其它領域的外包行為也應該引起關注。根據(jù)一些制度主義者，例如Williamson(1996)的觀點，在不同的背景環(huán)境下，事物特點和其它制度因素可能會有所不同，而這些差別可能會影響我們所觀測到的關系結果。</p><p>　　第三，在本文中，同一家公司的培訓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培訓供應商，這種方法在了解客戶

58、-供應商關系時或多或少會有些限制。除此之外，調查對象還要求對他們合作的供應商進行總體評分（而不是對具體的某一個提供方打分）。因此，因為不是所有的服務商都是同一類型的，很有可能公司對它們的培訓服務商的某些措施（例如：客戶滿意度）的看法有明顯的區(qū)別，認識到這一點很重要。也有可能這些范圍限制會導致更保守的系數(shù)估計。因為我們從原始的調查表中去掉了幾個與其它明顯無關的項目，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經理，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。因此，我們的研究結果是否能夠適用于這樣的組織機構也是一個疑問。</p><p>　　盡管有這些限制，本文能夠幫助我們理解，在將設計和提交培訓計劃進行外包時，這些組織機構如何才能提高滿意度。