Advertisement

Building Local Labor Market Dynamics into Workforce 2000

  • D. M. Atwater
  • J. A. Nelson
  • R. J. Niehaus

Abstract

During the mid-1980s executives and managers began to develop interest in the work force as it would exist in the year 2000. The Hudson Institute study, which was sponsored by the Department of Labor, entitled Workforce 2000, created an awareness that labor markets were going to be dramatically different. (See the Hudson Institute and Department of Labor (1987)). Some organizations even began to develop human resource plans to address key Workforce 2000 themes so they would have the time to make needed changes. One of the themes from Workforce 2000 which got addressed very early was to improve the basic communication skills of Hispanic workers. Since these early studies were fifteen years before the end of the century, the themes presented were often broad enough to withstand the test of time. Some of the themes presented for Workforce 2000 are already visible today.

Keywords

Labor Market Business Unit Local Labor Market Human Resource Planning Availability Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atwater, D.M., An Opportunity Based Modeling Approach: The Decision to Begin Work, Los Angeles, CA;1988.Google Scholar
  2. Atwater, D., E. Bres III, J. Nelson and R. Niehaus, “A System for Estimating the Availability and Retention of U.S. Navy Civilian Personnel”, OP-16H Research Report No. 50, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OP-16H), 1988.Google Scholar
  3. Atwater, D., E. Bres III, J. Nelson and R. Niehaus, “Navy EEO Labor Market Availability Data for the 1990’s”, OP-16H Research Report No. 47, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OP-16H), 1986.Google Scholar
  4. Atwater, D., E. Bres III, J. Nelson and R. Niehaus, “Analyzing Organizational Structure Change Using Proactive Labor Market Forecasts”, OP-16H Research Report No. 49, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OP-16H), 1987.Google Scholar
  5. Atwater, D., E. Bres III, R. Niehaus, and J. Sheridan, “Labor Market Availability for U.S. Navy Civilian Professions in the 1980’s”, OP-16H Research Report No. 42, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (0P-16H), 1983.Google Scholar
  6. Atwater, D., E. Bres III, R. Niehaus, and J. Sheridan, “Navy EEO Labor Market Availability Data for the 1980’s”, OP-16H Research Report No. 43, Washington, D.C.: Office of the chief of Naval Operations (OP-16H), 1983.Google Scholar
  7. Atwater, D., E. Bres III, R. Niehaus, and J. Sheridan, “Human Resources Supply-Demand Policy analysis Models”, in R.J. Niehaus, Ed. Human Resource Policy_Analysis: Organizational Applications, New York: Praeger, 1985, pp. 92–120.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., “Bush Administration Civil Rights Bill Introduced March March 12, 1991 with Section by Section Analysis of Proposed Legislation,” Daily Labor Report, Washington, D.C., March, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. Feurer, M.J., R.J. Niehaus, and J.A. Sheridan, “Human Resource Forecasting: A Survey of Practice and Potential”, Human Resource Planning, vol. 7, No. 2, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. Gaertner, K.N., “Managerial Careers and Organization-wide Transformations”, R.J. Niehaus (Ed.), Creating the Competitive Edge through Human Resource Applications, New York, Plenum Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. Hay Group, “The Hay Human Resource Forecast, 1991–2000”, New York, NY, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, W.B., S. Faul, B. Huang and A.H. Packer, Civil Service 2000, Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C., June, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Niehaus, R., Computer-Assisted Human Resource Planning, New York: Wiley Interscience, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Niehaus, R., Human Resource Policy Analysis: Organization Applications, New York: Praeger, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. Rosenblum, J.E., “Organizational Career Mobility: Promotion chances in a Corporation During Periods of Growth and Contraction”, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 1979a.Google Scholar
  16. Slocum, J.W. Jr., W.L. Cron, R.W. Hansen, and S. Rawling, “Business Strategy and the Management of Plateaued Employees”, Academy of Management Review, 28, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. Towers Perrin, “Workforce 2000: Competing in a Seller’s Market—Is Corporate America Prepared?”, Spectrum, 12, September 17, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Department of Labor and Hudson Institute, Opportunity 2000: Creative Affirmative Action Strategies for a Changing Workforce, Indianapolis, Indiana, September, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Navy Office of Civilian Personnel Management, Navy Civilian Workforce and Civil Service 2000, Washington, DC, March, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. Weekly Federal Employees’ News Digest, “Special Report-Base Hit List, State by State”, April 22, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. William M. Mercer, “Work Force Planning and Management Study,” October 17, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. William M. Mercer, “1990 Annual Round Table Discussion Seminar — Workforce 2000”, October, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. Workforce 2000: Work and Workers in the 21st Century, Hudson Institute and Department of Labor, Indianapolis, Indiana, June, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Atwater
    • 1
  • J. A. Nelson
    • 1
  • R. J. Niehaus
    • 2
  1. 1.William M. Mercer, Inc.Los AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Office of the Chief of Naval OperationsUSA

Personalised recommendations