influencing factors on strategic human resource development position … · influencing factors on...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Department of Business
The Hashemite University– Jordan
Amer Al-Shishani Assistant professor
Department of Business
The Hashemite University– Jordan
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.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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 `often`. The case is similar at the private
universities since 29.4% state `sometimes` while 23.5% state `often`. Furthermore, the Jordanian universities
evaluate their training programmes but did not evaluate the `outcomes` 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 `existence of informal HRD plans`, but it was still weak with a mean of 2.56. The least dimension
was for `existence of cultural support` with a mean of 1.93. For the private universities, the best dimension was
`existence of HRD strategy` with a mean of 2.6 which is still weak, the least was `environmental 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 `organizational,
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 `organizational 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:
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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.
Table 11: Model summary
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.
Table 12: Regression analysis results
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 `existence of HRD strategy` with a beta value of .168 as shown in table
below:
Table 14: Regression analysis results
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 `existence of incentive system` and `the linkage of HRD
activities to promotion`. The `employees’ desire to participate in HRD activities`, `employees’ belief in HRD
importance` and `external support` were not found to make a significant contribution to the prediction of the
dependent variable.
Table 16: Regression analysis results
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Ownership Public Private
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
Ownership Public Private
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
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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
Table 9: Model summary
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
Table 10: Regression analysis results
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
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .635a .403 .392 .41100
a. Predictors: (Constant), participation , top mgt support, University obj, learning environment
b. Dependent Variable: SHRD
Table 12: Regression analysis results
Model Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig. Correlations Collinearity
Statistics
Beta Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
(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
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .622a .387 .376 .41637
a. Predictors: (Constant), Resource availability, HRD policy, Qualified staff , HRD objectives
b. Dependent Variable: SHRD
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 4, Issue 1, (pp.01-18)
17
Table 14: Regression analysis results
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Beta Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
(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
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .451a .204 .186 .47566
a. Predictors: (Constant), linked to promotion, external support, employees belief, incentives system,
employees desire to participate.
b. Dependent Variable: SHRD
Table 16: Regression analysis results
Figure 2: Factors affecting SHRD at Jordanian universities
Model Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics
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.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business ISSN: 2046-7141
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