برنامه درسی مربوط به مدیریت منابع انسانی
Abstract
1- Introduction
2- Traditional HRM practices
3- Contemporary HRM framework
4- The proposed HRM teaching guide
5- Recommendation to higher education
6- Conclusion
References
Abstract
Purpose – Despite business schools teaching human resources management (HRM) for several decades, the skill set of graduates today fails to match the requirements of the industry. Although some attempt has been made to make the HRM curricula relevant, in most cases, a large gap exists between the subject, its assessment and the industry demands. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the changing trends in the field of HR and present ideas that will guide modern HRM curriculum development. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on professional experience of the authors in teaching and developing HR curricula as well as literature illustrations from work-based learning. Findings – To achieve relevancy, HR curricula need to focus more on professional work-based skills that are pertinent to the contemporary workplace and re-structure exam formats to be in line with skills required in the HR profession. Research limitations/implications – There is an opportunity to test the ideas expressed in this paper empirically; this can normally be done through a triad focus group including employers, students and teachers. Originality/value – The paper is predicated on the mismatch between the teaching and assessment of some HR subjects and the needs of the contemporary HR profession.
Introduction
The business world is changing exponentially and so is the practice of human resources management (HRM). Some of the key changes in the business field over the past two decades include the diversity of digital platforms available to educators and students of HRM. In the fast changing business world, methods, tools and processes used in recruitment and selection, training and development are vastly different compared to just three decades ago. It is apparent that business schools will be better off if they can adapt their teaching and course offering to the changing needs of industry. In the field of HR practice, changes have occurred in the recruitment, selection, training and appraisal methods and the processes used in ensuring that these core functions of HR are strategically fit for purpose. Possibly, a long list of changes occurring in the business world exists albeit this is not the focus of this paper. In some sectors, educational transformation has been embraced particularly in the field of teaching and learning although such a change is mainly in approaches to pedagogy and less so in content. Recently, Helyer (2015) carried out a study that calls for reflective thinking in work-based learning (WBL) emphasising that such an approach promotes adaptable behaviours that can address the changing roles in today and future jobs market. Such a radical move to incorporate hitherto unpopular methods of assessing learning is defensible, and has been supported by others including Garnett and Cavaye (2015) and Morris and Blaney (2014) who advocated for the recognition of prior learning (RPL) practiced widely by Teesside University, University of Lancaster and Middlesex University. Still, there are gaps in the curricula of several other universities. As the gap between subject matters, current HRM practices, teaching practices and assessment methods continue to widen, a number of scholars in HR (Herman, 2007; Martin-Rios et al., 2017) and in other educational work (Garnett et al., 2016; Graham, 2017) have expressed their concern, calling for a review of the approach taken in educating the modern HRM graduate. One area in particular that lags behind in educational practice is the method by which students of HRM are assessed—this is not exclusive to HRM; several higher educational institutions including, high-ranking universities in the UK, Australia as well as several government institutions in Vietnam and most of the developing world, continue to still assess their students in the traditional way—typically, a 3-h final exam aimed sometimes, and unintentionally, at regurgitation of semestral course material that features theories often formulated five decades ago.