Abstract

In order to study the causes of weak human capital structure strategic classification management in China, we analyze that enterprises around the world face increasingly difficult for human capital management. In order to provide strategically sound answers, the HR managers need the critical information provided by the right technology processing and analytical tools. In this study, there are different types and levels of human capital in formal organization management, which is not the same contribution to a formal organization. An important guarantee for sustained and healthy development of the formal or informal organization is lower human capital risk. To resist this risk is primarily dependent on human capital hedge force and appreciation force in value, which is largely dependent on the strategic value of the performance of senior managers. Based on the analysis of high-level managers perspective, we also discuss the value and configuration of principles and methods to be followed in human capital strategic classification based on Boston Consulting Group (BCG matrix) and build Human Capital Classification (HCC) matrix based on biological natural attribute to effectively realize human capital structure strategic classification.

Keywords:

Appreciation force, biological natural attribute, HCC matrix, hedge force, human capital strategy,

References

1. Amador, C., J.P. Emond and M.C.N. Nunes, 2009. Application of RFID technologies in the temperature mapping of the pineapple supply chain [J]. Sens. Instrumen. Food Qual. Safe., 3(1): 26-33.
   CrossRef    
2. Crook, T.R., S.Y. Todd, J.G. Combs, D.J. Woehr and D.J. Ketchen, 2011. Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. J. Appl. Psychol., 96(3): 443-456.
   CrossRef    PMid:21244126    
3. Fischer, A.R.H. and P.W. De Vries, 2008. Everyday behaviour and everyday risk: an exploration how people respond to frequently encountered risks. Health Risk Soc., 10: 324-389.
   CrossRef    
4. Gaskell, G., N. Alum, W. Wagner, N. Kornberger, H. Torgensern, J. Hampel and J. Barbes, 2004. GM foods and the misperception or risk perception. Risk Anal., 24: 185- 194.
   CrossRef    PMid:15028010    
5. Hui, S.K., P.S. Fader and E.T. Bradlow, 2009. Path data in marketing: An integrative framework and prospectus for model building. Market. Sci., 28: 320-335.
   CrossRef    
6. Mingwei, L., G. Huancheng and S. Yihui, 2008. Production Ecology Life the Planning and Construction of Sansheng One Body of Taiwan. Leisure Agricultural Fields, Chinese Garden, pp: 16-20.
   
7. Rindermann, H., 2008. Relevance of education and intelligence at the national level for the economic welfare of people. Intelligence, 36(2): 127-142.
   CrossRef    
8. Sami, M., 2007. Assessing human resources for science and technology: The 3Ds framework. Sci. Public Policy, 34(7): 489-499.
   CrossRef    
9. Schultz, T.W., 1960. Investment in man: An economist's view. Soc. Serv. Rev., 32: 110-117.
   
10. Wang, G.G. and E.F. Holton, 2005. Neoclassical and institutional economics as foundations for human resource development theory. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev., 4(2): 86-108.
    CrossRef    
11. Xie, G.D., L. Zhen, C.X. Lu, Y. Xiao and C. Chen, 2008. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. J. Nat. Res., 23: 911-919 (In Chinese).
    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.