单选题 If sustainable competitive advantage depends on workforce skills, American firms have a problem. Human resource management is not traditionally seen as central to the competitive survival of the firm in the United States. Skill acquistion is considered an individual responsibility. Labour is simply another factor of production to be rented at the lowest possible cost much as one buys raw materials or equipment.
The lack of importance attached to human resource management can be seen in the corporate hierarchy. In an American firm the chief financial officer is almost always second in command. The post of head of human-resource management is usually a specialized job, off at the edge of the corporate hierarchy. The executive who holds it is never consulted on major strategic decisions and has no chance to move up to Chief Executive Officer (CEO). By way of contrast, in Japan the head of human-resource management is central, usually the second most important, after the CEO, in the firm's hierarchy.
While American firms often talk about the vast amounts spent on training their work forces, in fact they invest less in the skills of their employees than do either Japanese or German firms. The money they do invest is also much more narrowly focused on the basic background skills that make it possible to absorb new technologies.
As a result, problems emerge when new breakthrough technologies arrive. If American workers, for example, take much longer to learn how to operate new flexible manufacturing stations than workers in Germany (as they do), the effective cost of those stations is lower in Germany than it is in the United States. More time is required before equipment is up and running at capacity, and the need for extensive retraining generates costs and creates bottlenecks that limit the speed with which new equipment can be employed. The result is a slower pace of technological change. And in the end the skills of the bottom half of the population affect the wages of the top half. If the bottom half can't effectively staff the processes that have to be operated, the management and professional jobs that go with these processes will disappear.
If sustainable competitive advantage depends on workforce skills, American firms have a problem. Human resource management is not traditionally seen as central to the competitive survival of the firm in the United States. Skill acquistion is considered an individual responsibility. Labour is simply another factor of production to be rented at the lowest possible cost much as one buys raw materials or equipment.
The lack of importance attached to human resource management can be seen in the corporate hierarchy. In an American firm the chief financial officer is almost always second in command. The post of head of human-resource management is usually a specialized job, off at the edge of the corporate hierarchy. The executive who holds it is never consulted on major strategic decisions and has no chance to move up to Chief Executive Officer (CEO). By way of contrast, in Japan the head of human-resource management is central, usually the second most important, after the CEO, in the firm's hierarchy.
While American firms often talk about the vast amounts spent on training their work forces, in fact they invest less in the skills of their employees than do either Japanese or German firms. The money they do invest is also much more narrowly focused on the basic background skills that make it possible to absorb new technologies.
As a result, problems emerge when new breakthrough technologies arrive. If American workers, for example, take much longer to learn how to operate new flexible manufacturing stations than workers in Germany (as they do), the effective cost of those stations is lower in Germany than it is in the United States. More time is required before equipment is up and running at capacity, and the need for extensive retraining generates costs and creates bottlenecks that limit the speed with which new equipment can be employed. The result is a slower pace of technological change. And in the end the skills of the bottom half of the population affect the wages of the top half. If the bottom half can't effectively staff the processes that have to be operated, the management and professional jobs that go with these processes will disappear.

单选题 Which of the following can best describe the management of human resources in American companies?
A. Human-resource management is not considered principal to the survival of American companies.
B. Human-resource management is next to financial management.
C. Gaining of skills is seen as the firms responsibility.
D. Human-resource manager only hired skilled workers.

单选题 What's the position of the head of human resources management in American companies?
A. He is one of the most influential executives in the firm.
B. His post is likely to rise when new technologies are introduced.
C. He is directly under the chief executive.
D. He has no right in marking important decisions in the firm.

单选题 Most American firms put their money mainly in
A. the establishment of new branches in foreign countries.
B. the training of basic skills of their workforces.
C. the research and development of new products.
D. the financial and administrative fields.

单选题 According to the text, the decisive factor in maintaining a firm's competitive advantage is
A. the introduction of new technologies.
B. the improvement of workers' basic skills.
C. the composition of professional and managerial employees.
D. the attachment of importance to the bottom half of the employees.

单选题 What's the main idea of the text?
A. American firms are putting less emphasis on human-resource management.
B. Extensive retraining is vital to effective human-resource management.
C. The head of human-resource management shouldn't be in the central position in a firm's hierarchy.
D. The human-resource management strategies of American firms will affect their competitive capacity.