Human resource debate
Summery
Charles
1. Human resources development is good in theory but bad in practice
2. Even for large corporations, human resource development programs take 3-5 years to develop and only large corporations have the theoretical financial resources and acumen to invest in HRD. This excludes most business in Australia as:
a) 96 per cent of Australian companies are small business
b) Most business go bust in the first 3-5 years
c) Thus Even assuming that there may be a small chance for human resource development to have any positive effect whatsoever, it is totally out of the question for 96 per cent of Australian businesses
Simone
1. Just because large corporations use HRD and are profitable while using HRD does not mean that they are profitable because they use HRD. It simply means that large corporations use HRD
2. The primary objective of any business is to create the maximum possible profit. There are other forms of investment that have been historically proven to generate a higher rate of return than HRD
3. This is the investment in capital and product development over labor. For e Samsung invested in product development. Nokia invested in HR. Which of these companies is the most successful? Nokia has the largest investment in HR.
4. Investing in HRD is a pointless and useless waste of time as this creates policies in the work place where employees are focusing more on complying with HR policies and protecting their own job through HR rather than focusing on the company as a whole. This creates individualistic self-centered power bases within the organization, which is destructive and fractional preventing and diminishing focus on business operation and competitors impeding organizational efficiency and profitability. From this perspective, investments in HRD create a more individualistically focused workforce diminishing the whole of the business for the benefit of the HR complicit individual.
Anthony
1. Historically we have seen how
Charles
1. Human resources development is good in theory but bad in practice
2. Even for large corporations, human resource development programs take 3-5 years to develop and only large corporations have the theoretical financial resources and acumen to invest in HRD. This excludes most business in Australia as:
a) 96 per cent of Australian companies are small business
b) Most business go bust in the first 3-5 years
c) Thus Even assuming that there may be a small chance for human resource development to have any positive effect whatsoever, it is totally out of the question for 96 per cent of Australian businesses
Simone
1. Just because large corporations use HRD and are profitable while using HRD does not mean that they are profitable because they use HRD. It simply means that large corporations use HRD
2. The primary objective of any business is to create the maximum possible profit. There are other forms of investment that have been historically proven to generate a higher rate of return than HRD
3. This is the investment in capital and product development over labor. For e Samsung invested in product development. Nokia invested in HR. Which of these companies is the most successful? Nokia has the largest investment in HR.
4. Investing in HRD is a pointless and useless waste of time as this creates policies in the work place where employees are focusing more on complying with HR policies and protecting their own job through HR rather than focusing on the company as a whole. This creates individualistic self-centered power bases within the organization, which is destructive and fractional preventing and diminishing focus on business operation and competitors impeding organizational efficiency and profitability. From this perspective, investments in HRD create a more individualistically focused workforce diminishing the whole of the business for the benefit of the HR complicit individual.
Anthony
1. Historically we have seen how