HRD system in India: conceptual framework, measure development & model fit.
With reference to Indian organizations, two HRD conceptualizations have been highlighted-one by Rao (1986) and the other by Kandula (2001). Rao (1986) presented illustrative lists of HRD mechanisms, process variables, process outcomes and organizational effectiveness dimensions in a schematic presentation. Kandula (2001) developed a conceptualization of strategic HRD system which consists of two broad components, i.e., strategic HRD practices and strategic HRD facilitators. We combined both the frameworks and further enlarged the same by adding the influence of management styles on HRD practices. Further, we tested the validity and reliability of the four scales adapted for the purpose and finally we tested the model fit by applying Structural Equation Modeling.
Earlier research indicates that HRD system, processes and practices intended to incremental development of employees' competencies/commitment and change in organizational climate are positively related to various parameters of organizational performance such as employee turnover (Singh, 2000; Batt, 2002), increased productivity (Guzzo, Jettie & Katzell, 1985; Ichniowski, 1990; MacDuffie, 1995), payoff in terms of bottom-line financial performance (Radford & Kove, 1991; Flynn, 1994; Huselid, 1995), greater commitment (Agrawal, 2003; Gong, Law, Chang & Xin, 2009), higher safety performance (Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson, 2005), better service performance (Chuang & Liao, 2010) etc. Thus, in extant research, HRD system has been found positively associated with different outcomes that range from very proximal (i.e. productivity enhancement) to more distal (i.e. profitability). However, the mechanisms linking HRD and HR outcomes appear fragmented in earlier research. For such a linkage, various perspectives that have been frequently adopted by previous researchers mainly include behavioral perspective, human capital and resource based perspective, and holistic perspective. For example, Yeung & Berman (1997) have identified three paths through which HRD practices contribute to business performance: by building organizational capabilities, by improving employee satisfaction, and by shaping customer and shareholder satisfaction. Kandula (2001) made a survey of fifty-nine Indian organizations representing twenty different industries to study HRD practices and found moderate status with almost equal status to all the study variables (HRD mechanisms) in the studied organizations. In his study, all the study variables (HRD mechanisms) were found to have significant and positive correlation with each other. Jiang, Hu & Baer (2012) found that three dimensions of HR systems (i.e., skill-enhancing, motivation enhancing, and opportunity-enhancing HR practices) were positively related to human capital and employee motivation in different patterns in such a way that, compared with the other two HR dimensions, skill-enhancing HR practices were more positively related to human capital and less positively related to employee motivation. In addition, human capital and employee motivation mediated the relationships between three HR dimensions and voluntary turnover and operational outcomes, which in turn related to financial outcomes. In extant research, mainly additive approach has been adopted in order to measure the impact of HR mechanisms on HR outcomes; however, in recent studies (e.g., Gong, Law, Chang & Xin, 2009; Subramony, 2009; Batt & Colvin, 2011), it is argued that different sets of HR practices or different components of HR system may have differential effects on the HR outcomes.
We developed a conceptual framework of HRD system which is visualized in Fig. 1. A brief description of the key elements of such a framework is being presented here: (1) Functioning of HRD department, employee training, performance appraisal, job enrichment, career planning, employee communication, and employees empowerment are the key sub-systems / HRD mechanisms.(2) Concerns and active support of various stakeholders (viz., top management, line managers & supervisors, individual employees, and employee unions) facilitate the effectiveness of such sub-systems / mechanisms in practice. (3) Participative, altruistic, professional, and organic management styles further facilitate the effectiveness of such sub-systems / mechanisms in practice. (4) Effective functioning of such HRD sub-systems / mechanisms has significant positive impacts on productivity and adaptability of human resources. Obviously, productivity and adaptability of human resources are the important indicators of organizational performance.
Key Variables Studied
HR Effectiveness: The key indicators of organizational performance include increments in productivity, adaptability, and commitment of organization's human resources. If human resources contribute to transferring inputs into outputs at the lowest cost and thus contribute to the achievement of organizational goals, the human resources will be termed as productive. In order to deal with new or changed situation and in this sense adaptability of human resources is the employees' ability and self-efficacy by which they can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situation and to contribute to introduce necessary changes in internal organizational climate in fine tune with the changes in external environment.
The most important objective of the HRD function is to create a 'learning environment' and 'enabling culture' in the organization HRD Department's Functioning: It is expected from the HRD managers of a separate HRD department that they should work for the cause of HRD in close collaboration with other functionaries in the organization. The most important objective of the HRD function is to create a 'learning environment' and 'enabling culture' in the organization so that each member of the organization continuously learns and acquires new competencies and sharpen the existing competencies.
Employee Training: All organizations are expected to recognize that employee training is a strategic priority rather than a tactical response. For all benefits to be gained, it must be introduced as one of the integrated sub-systems of HRD. There is an increasing recognition that training is a critical system not only for individual effectiveness but also for enhancing organizational effectiveness leading to a more holistic approach to training in practice.
Performance Appraisal: Designing/ re-designing performance appraisal system and its effective implementation need to be considered as a top priority of the management and such processes should be handled with utmost sincerity. Efforts should be made to make the employees feel that the performance appraisal system is not only fair but also that it is being administered in an equitable manner.
Career Planning & Development: Career planning is the process by which one selects career goals and the paths to these goals; the major focus of career planning is on assisting the employees achieve a better match between personal goals and the opportunities that are realistically available in the organization; upward mobility may not be a reality for a large number of employees and hence career planning efforts need to pin point and highlight those areas that offer psychological success instead of vertical growth (Rao, 2000).
Job Enrichment involves three basic elements: elimination of de-motivating tasks from the job, horizontal stretching and vertical loading. Job enrichment involves adding more motivators to a job to make it more rewarding. Job becomes enriched when its nature gives job-holders more powers for planning, execution, control, evaluation and decision making regarding his / her work in an organizational setting
Employee Communication is at the heart of all organizational operations as it is the basis for understanding, co-operation and action. The very vitality and creativity of an organization depends upon the content and character of its communications. Effectiveness of employee communication in an organization can no longer be ensured by hunch, it requires due attention of HRD department and its managers in particular and all other functionaries of an organization in general.
Employee Empowerment is a psychological concept in which people experience four kinds of feelings: (i) feeling of self-determination which consists of freedom, independence and discretion over their work; (ii) feeling of meaningfulness for their work; (iii) feeling of self-efficacy which means their potential effectiveness on their jobs; and (iv) feeling of being active participants in their organizations (Spreitzer, 1995). Job characteristics such as high degree of autonomy, minimum bureaucratic control, high level of task identity, high degree of task significance; effective implementation of job enrichment programs; individual competencies; and organizational factors such as availability of relevant resources to the employees, learning orientation culture, trustworthy & risk taking leaders etc. generally inculcate the feeling of empowerment among employees.
Facilitation by Top Management: The top and semi-Enrichment or executives should have fundamental concepts, assumptions and values regarding humanism, humanization, human processes and human resource development. Each person has unlimited potential to be developed / to develop the required dynamism; dynamic people can build dynamic organizations. Top and senior executives should facilitate this process by planning for it, by allocating organizational resources (including budget provisions) for the purpose, and by exemplifying an HRD philosophy that values human beings and promotes their development (Rao, 1986).
Facilitation by HRD Managers: Competent, committed and credible HRD managers can make others in the organizations capable, dedicated and creditable resources for achieving the goal of organizational excellence. For the purpose, HRD managers are expected to provide expertise on all the issues relevant to HRD to all concerned in the organization.
Facilitation by Line Managers & Supervisors: The HRD Department and line managers & supervisors have the joint responsibility which means they have mutually complimentary & supplementary roles to play in relation to development of the employees (Pareek and Rao, 1986).
Facilitation by Individual Employees: The development of the individual employees requires the following conditions to be satisfied: (i) they should perceive that acquiring new capabilities helps them in fulfilling their psychological needs; (ii) they should be aware of the capabilities they need to develop; (iii) they should perceive opportunities for acquiring such capabilities; (iv) they should have the means to assess their own growth; (v) they should enjoy the process of growth itself (Pareek & Rao, 1986).
Facilitation by Employee Unions: The leaders of employee unions should actively participate in workers' education programs and they should also involve themselves with enthusiasm in various HRD activities. Employee unions and their leaders need to redefine their agenda by making themselves accountable not only for the well-being of employees but also for the health of organizations.
Participative Management Style: The most common form is group decision-making in which the group head does not act as a boss but coordinates and facilitates decision making by the group as a whole. This sort of decision making is based on free and frank discussion, sharing of information and views, generation of many alternatives and the gradual emergence of a consensus view to which everyone feels at least some commitment to the decision made because it has emerged through participation of all concerned (Khandwalla, 1995).
Altruistic Management Style: Altruistic is unselfish concern for other people's happiness & welfare as well as a feeling of compassion for others. Almost all the good management styles have the altruistic base but they are often affected by the organization centered considerations. 'Altruistic Management Style' goes beyond organization centered considerations to larger social concerns and the pursuit of larger ideals / social goals (Khandwalla, 1995). Such social concerns / social goals may include affirmative action for workers' education, training, and development.
Organic Management Style: The managers who practice organic style believe (a) in providing multi-channel & multi-directional information network; (b) in creating widespread awareness of organization's goals, business strategies and action plans among employees at all levels ; (c) in using cross-hierarchical and cross-functional teams; (d) in having flat organizational structure and low formalization; (e) in adopting decentralized decision making; (f) in creating a work environment for nurturing flexibility, transparency, openness, mutual understanding, experimentation, learning, development, creativity & innovation; (g) in exercising control not through positional power but rather by peer pressure and mutual interaction; and (h) in emphasizing greater commitment to the organization's progress, expansion & well being rather than to loyalty to the position holders.
Professional Management Style: The managers who practice professional management style believe (a) in decision-making by formally educated & trained people; (b) in using experts extensively for relevant action researches before decision-making; (c) in giving prime importance to long-term planning and strategy formulation; (d) in formulation, internalization and following of code of professional ethics; (e) in using research and experience based high standardized work-methods and procedures; (f) in exercising control by systematic and sophisticated way; (g) in following an all-pervasive scientific approach for designing and implementation of business strategies; and (h) in using 'management information system (MIS)' for putting all the above mentioned things into action.
The research work was completed in six phases. In Phase I, review of literature was done. In phase II, keeping the key findings as emerged from the review of literature, a conceptual framework of HRD system as in Fig. 1 was developed. In phase III, measures for relevant variables that were readily available in the published literature were studied. In Phase IV, for measuring the HRD practices regarding various HRD mechanisms and facilitators as well as for measuring the practice of various management styles, already available Likert type scales were selected and later on adapted in consultation with a pool of experts for the purpose of the study. In order to assess the perceived productivity and adaptability of the human resources, Human Resource Effectiveness (Productivity and adaptability) Scale was also developed afresh by the investigators. In phase V, reliability and validity of such measures were tested. In Phase VI, empirical assessment of HRD mechanisms and management styles as being practiced in India was done and the proposed conceptual framework was validated.
The primary data were collected through the administering of the relevant questionnaires to the three hundred executives belonging to both public sector and private sector organizations as well as both manufacturing and service providing organizations in India, the details of which are given in Table 1. Three hundred respondent executives belong to various strata of sex, age-group, qualification levels, and group of varying length of work experience, details of which are given in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
The following four Likert type scales were used to make empirical assessment of the variables studied: (1) HRD Practices Scale; (2) HRD Facilitators Scale; (3) Management Styles Questionnaire; (4) Human Resource Effectiveness (Productivity and Adaptability) Scale. Likert type scales for measuring the HRD practices regarding various HRD practices (HRD mechanisms) and facilitators developed by Kandula (2001) were modified / adapted and the scale for measuring the practice of various management styles developed by Khandwalla (1995) was adapted for the purpose of the study. In order to assess the perceived productivity and adaptability of the human resources, Human Resource Effectiveness (productivity and adaptability) Scale was also developed afresh by the investigators (Premkumar, 2007).
Reliability of various scales / subscales administered have been tested by the method of obtaining reliability coefficient i.e. Cronbach's Alpha (a) scores. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was exercised for determining the construct validity of the above mentioned scales / sub-scales. Subsequently, structure equation modeling (SEM) was performed using the AMOS version 6.0 to validate the proposed model.
Reliability of the Measures
In order to test the reliability of various scales / sub-scales administered for the purpose of the study, reliability coefficient i.e. Cronbach's Alpha (a) scores have been obtained. The same are given in Table 5. Reliability coefficient i.e. Cronbach's Alpha (a) scores for various scales / sub-scales were found more than 0.6 (the minimum value that is acceptable as per standard norms) which indicates the reliability of all the measures used for the study.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
CFA was exercised for determining the construct validity of the above mentioned scales / sub-scales. The results of the same are given in Table 6. The acceptable standards for various values for statistical significance of a good model fit are given as: (i) Chi-square/df (cmin/ df) - < 3 good; < 5 sometimes permissible, p - value for the model - >.05; (ii) CFI - > .95 great; > .90 traditional; > .80 sometimes permissible; (iii) GFI >.95; (iv) AGFI > .80; (v) NFI > .90; and (vi) RMR < .10. The results given in Table 6 indicate that the model fit values for all the constructs were found to match such acceptable standards. In view of such observation, it may be concluded that the construct of the various measures adopted for the purpose of the study could be validated well.
Structural Equation Modeling
Subsequently, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the proposed conceptual framework. SEM fit indices and other relevant details of the SEM are given in Table 7 and Table 8 respectively. The regression values given on the arrows in Fig. 2 reveal the significant positive relationships between the key variables given in the proposed framework which are specified below: (i) Concerns of the various stakeholders and the selected four management styles were found to have significant impact on the HRD sub-systems (HRD mechanisms) as well as on HR effectiveness (productivity and adaptability of human resources); (ii) HR subsystems (HR mechanisms) were also found to have significant impact on organizational effectiveness in terms of HR productivity and HR adaptability; and (iii) The Concerns of the various stakeholders and the selected four management styles were found to have impact on organizational effectiveness in terms of HR productivity and HR adaptability. The model also suggests that there is high covariance (0.99) of the HRD Facilitators between (a) the HRD Facilitators, i.e., facilitation by concerns of various stakeholders and (b) the management styles. On the basis of results given in Tables 7-8 and the regression values given on the arrows in Fig. 2, it may be inferred that the proposed model could be found fit and validated.
As indicated from the results given in Table 9, all the sub-systems (mechanisms) of HRD, viz., Functioning of HRD Department, Employees' Training, Performance Appraisal, Job Enrichment and Career Planning (except a very few, i.e. Employee Communication and Employees' Empowerment) were found to be moderately effective in Indian organizations across the various sectors. Concerns of various stakeholders have also been found to be at moderate level across the sectors as revealed in Table 10. However, the selected four management styles were found to be practiced to low extent in the various organizations (Table 11). Organizational Effectiveness in terms of both 'productivity' and 'adaptability' of human resources was also found at moderate degree (Table 12). Correlation analysis (Table 13) indicates that almost all the dimensions of the HRD sub-systems (mechanisms), concerns of the various stakeholders and the selected four management styles were found to be positively correlated. The above mentioned findings suggest that in the context of Indian organizations management professionals should understand that there exists a dire need to improve the level of HR effectiveness and in order to achieve this goal, there exists an urgent need of continuous improvement in design and implementation of HRD sub-systems (HR mechanisms); Level of concerns of various stakeholders also needs to be enhanced; application of the four management styles also need to be further strengthened.
Directions for Future Research
Conceptual Framework of HRD System as presented and tested in this paper suggests that management concerns and styles have definite impact on HRD practices as well as on HR effectiveness which in turn contributes to incremental improvements in organizational effectiveness. A few earlier researches (e.g., Delery, 1998; Wright et al, 1994) generally indicate that HR systems / practices do not have direct impact on organizational effectiveness; rather they influence employees' behavior that ultimately has effect on organizational effectiveness.
However, how do the HR practices / systems impact on organizational effectiveness or organizational performance? This issue is still quite less studied in earlier research.
Park, Mitsuhashi, Fey & Bjorkman (2003) in their partial mediating model used employee skills, attitudes and motivation as mediating variables between HR systems and organizational performance. Paul & Anantharaman (2003) indicated that the intervening variables of employee competence, teamwork, organizational commitment and customer orientation affect the organizational performance variables of employee retention, employee productivity, product quality, speed of delivery and operating cost, which then determine financial performance. Guest (2001) used employee satisfaction, commitment, and flexibility as mediating variables. Doty & Delery (1997) argue that HR practices influence organizational performance by creating a workforce that is skilled, motivated and empowered. Bowen & Ostroff (2004) argue that climate constitutes a key mediating factor in the HR-performance relationship.
Jiang, Hu & Baer (2012) examined the effects of three dimensions of HR systems--skills-enhancing, motivation-enhancing, and opportunity-enhancing--on proximal organizational outcomes (human capital and motivation) and distal organizational outcomes (voluntary turnover, operational outcomes, and financial outcomes). Thus, the theoretical logic underlying the mechanisms linking HR and organizational performance remains fragmented. Therefore, "to further exploring mediating mechanisms through which HR practices influence organizational performance" needs to be focused in future research. Further, the earlier research highlights that most studies examining the relationship between HR and organization's performance have been conducted in the US / UK cultures with the exception of a study carried by Katou & Budhwar (2006). They tested a mediation model to examine the link between HR and organizational performance in the Greek manufacturing context and found that the relationship between the HR systems of resource-development and reward-relations, and organizational performance, is mediated through the HR outcomes of skills and attitudes. They further found that HR outcomes partially mediate the relationship between HR systems and organizational performance. To fill such a research gap it is meaningful for future researchers to further explore mediators of the relationship between HRM and organizational performance in non-US / UK contexts also. The present study is a step in this direction and hence it makes a significant value addition to the body of knowledge in the area of HRD. Recent research suggests the heterogeneous effects of the components of HR systems on organizational performance parameters (e.g., Batt & Golvin, 2011; Gardner, Wright & Moynihan 2011; Gong, Law, Chang & Xin, 2009; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009; Shaw, Dineen, Fang, & Vellella, 2009; Subramony, 2009). Different HRD sub-systems may have unique relationships with specific organizational performance indicators. HR practices are not only distinct, but also operate via different pathways (Jiang, Hu & Baer, 2012). Therefore, additional research to explore the influence of the specific HR sub-system needs to be taken up to advance knowledge of the relationship between HR and organizational performance.
Batt, R. & Colvin, A.J.S. (2011), "An Employment System Approach to Turnover: HR Practices, Quits, Dismissals, and Performance", Academy of Management Journal, 54 (4): 695-717.
Batt, R. (2002), "Managing Customer Services: Human Resource Policies, Quit Rates, and Sales Growth", Academy of Management Journal, 45 (3):587-97.
Bowen. D. & Ostroff, C. (2004), "Understanding HRM-Firm Performance Linkages: The Role of the "Strength" of the HRM System, Academy of Management Review, 29 (2): 203-21.
Chuang, C. & Liao, H. (2010), "Strategic Human Resource Management in Service Context: Taking Care of Business by Taking Care of Employees and Customers", Personnel Psychology, 63 (1): 153-96.
Delery. J.E. (1998), "Issues of Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: Implications for Research", Human Resource Management Review, 8 (3): 289-309.
Doty, D. H. & Delery, J. E. (1997), "The Importance of Holism, Interdependence, and Equifinality Assumptions in High Performance Work Systems: Toward Theories of the High Performance Work Force", paper presented in Academy of Management Annual Meeting (Conference), Boston, MA.
Flynn, Gillian. (1994), "Effective People Management Helps the Bottom Line",. Personnel Journal, 73 (12): 17-19.
Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M. & Moynihan, L. M. (2011),"The Impact of Motivation, Empowerment, and Skill Enhancing Practices on Aggregate Voluntary Turnover: The Mediating Effect of Collective Affective Commitment", Personal Psychology, 64 (2): 315-50.
Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S.Y. (2010), "High Performance Work System and Collective OCB: A Collective Social Exchange Perspective", Human Resource Management Journal, 20 (2): 119-37.
Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S. & Xin, K. R. (2009), "Human Resource Management and Firm Performance: The Differential Role of Managerial affective and Continuous Commitment". Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1): 263-75.
Guest, D. E. (2001), "Human Resource Management: When Research Confronts Theory", International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (7): 1092-1106.
Guzzo, R. A., Jettie, R. D. & Katzell, R. A. (1985), "The Effect of Psychologically Based Internvention Programs in Worker Productivity: A Meta-Analysis", Personnel-Psychology, 38(4): 275-91
Hall, Douglas T. & Goodale, James G. (1986), Human Resource Management: Strategy, Design and Implementation. London: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance", Academy of Management Journal, 38 (3): 635-72.
Ichniowski, C. (1990), "Human Resources Management Systems and the Performance of US Manufacturing Businesses", NBER Working Paper Series, No. 3449. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jiang, Kaifeng; Hu, Jia & Baer, Judith C. (2012), How Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-Anaytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6): 1264-94.
Kandula, Srinivas R. (2001), Strategic Human Resource Development. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.
Katou, A. A. & Budhwar, P. S. (2006), "Human Resource Management Systems and Organizational Performance: A Test of a Mediating Model in the Greek Manufacturing Context", International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (7): 1223-53.
Khandwalla, P.N. (1995), Management Styles. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J. & Shamian J. (2001), "The Impact of Workplace Empowerment, Organizational Trust on Staff Nurses' Work Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment", Healthcare Management Review, 26 (3): 7-23.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P. & Hong, Y. (2009), "Do They See Eye to Eye? Management and Employee Perspectives of High-Performance Work Systems and Influence Processes on Service Quality", Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2): 371-91.
McDuffie, J.P. (1995), "Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48 (2): 197-221.
Pareek, Udai & Rao, T.V. (1986), "Line Managers and Human Resource Development", in Rao, T.V. & Pereira, D.F. (Eds.), Recent Experiences in Human Resource Development, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.
Park. H.J., Mitsuhashi, H., Fey, C. F. & Bjorkman, I. (2003), "The Effect of Human Resource Management Practices on Japanese MNC Subsidiary Performance A Partial Mediating Model" The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (8): 1391-06.
Paul. A. K. & Anantharaman. R. N. (2003), "Impact of People Management Practices on Organizational Performance", International Journal of Human Resource Management. 14 (7): 1246-66.
Premkumar (2007), Strategic HRD Practices, Facilitators and Management Styles in Indian Organizations, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Vikram University, Ujjain (India).
Radford, J. & Kove, S. (1991). "Lessons from the Silicon Valley", Personnel Journal, 70 (2), 38-43.
Rao, T.V. (1986), "Integrated Human Resource System", in Rao, T.V. & Pereira, D.F. (Eds.), Recent Experiences in Human Resource Development, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd.
Rao, T.V. (1990), The HRD Missionary: Role and Functions of HRD Managers and HRD Departments. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Rao, V.S.P. (2000), Human Resource Management: Text and Cases. New Delhi: Excel Books.
Shaw, J. D., Dineen, B. R., Fang, R. & Vellella, R. F. (2009), "Employee-Organization Exchange Relationships, HRM Practices, and
Quit Rates of Good and Poor Performers", Academy of Management Journal, 52 (5): 1016-33.
Singh, K. (2000), "Effect of Human Resource Management (HRM) Practices on Firm Performance in India", The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 36 (1): 1-23.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), "Psychological Empowerment in the Work Place: Dimensions, Measurement and Validation", Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5): 1442-65.
Subramony, M. (2009), "A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Relationship between HRM Bundles and Firm Performance", Human Resource Management, 48 (5): 745-68.
Townley, B. (1994), Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, Ethics and the Subject at Work, London: Sage Publications.
Wright, P.M., McMahan. G.C. & McWilliams, A. (1994). "Human Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based Prspective." International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5 (2): 301-26.
Yeung, A.K. & Berman, R. (1997), "Adding Value Through Human Resources: Reorienting Human Resources Management to Drive Business Performance", Human Resource Management, 36 (3): 321-35.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. & Iverson, R.D. (2005), "High Performance Work Systems and Occupational Safety", Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (11): 77-93.
Ravindra Jain is Professor in Business Management, Faculty of Management Studies, Vikram University, Ujjain 456010. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. Premkumar (E- mail:email@example.com,) is Registrar & Sachin Kamble (E-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org) is Associate Professor (Operations Management), National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai 400087.
Table 1 Coverage of the Executives in the Sample Survey Organizational No. of Executives in the Sample Grand Total of Sector Executives in the Sample Manufacturing Service Provider Organizations Organizations Private Sector 80 50 130 (43.3%) Organizations Public Sector 106 64 170 (56.7%) Organizations Total 186 (62.0%) 114 (38.0%) 300 Table 2 Age and Gender Profile of the Respondents in the Sample Survey Age Range No. of Executives Total No. of Executives (in years) in the Sample in the Sample Male Female Between 25 to 35 73 10 83(27.7%) Between 35 to 50 165 25 190(63.3%) Above 50 24 03 27(9.0%) Total 262 (87.3%) 38 (12.7%) 300 Table 3 A Profile of Educational Qualifications of the Respondents in the Sample Survey Qualification Number of Executives in the Sample Matriculation 07(2.3%) Graduate Degree 163(54.3%) Post Graduate Degree 70(23.4%) Professional Diploma 60(20.0%) Total 300 Table 4 A Profile of Length of Work Experience of the Respondents in the Sample Survey Length of Number of the Executives' Executives in Work Experience the Sample Below 05 Years 58 (19.3%) Between 05 to 10 Years 88 (29.37%) Above 10 Years 154 (51.4%) Total 300 Table 5 Results of Reliability Test of Various Scales Scales No. of Mean S.D. Items Value HRD Practice (HRD Mechanisms) Sub-scales Functioning of HRD Department 03 3.148 1.145 Employee Training 05 3.170 1.166 Employees' Performance Appraisal 04 3.156 1.180 Job Enrichment 02 3.301 1.118 Career Planning 04 3.144 1.108 Employee Communication 04 3.144 1.108 Employee Empowerment 02 4.144 0.810 HRD Facilitator Sub-scales Concerns of Top Management 04 3.318 0.884 Concerns of Line Managers & Supervisors 04 3.622 0.991 Concerns of Individual Employees 06 3.369 0.995 Concerns of Employee Unions 05 2.795 1.202 Management Styles Sub-scales Participative Management Style 04 2.9254 .91137 Altruistic Management Style 04 2.8746 .91681 Professional Management Style 06 2.8112 .89339 Organic Management Style 05 2.8385 .90064 Sub-scales Pertaining to Effectiveness of Human Resources Productivity of Human Resources 04 3.477 0.856 Adaptability of Human Resources 04 3.433 1.037 Scales Range of Cronbach's Item to Item Alpha (a) Correlation Score HRD Practice (HRD Mechanisms) Sub-scales Functioning of HRD Department 0.266 **-0.580 ** 0.724 Employee Training 0.097-0.522 ** 0.701 Employees' Performance Appraisal 0.012-0.378 ** 0.689 Job Enrichment 0.331 ** 0.531 ** 0.691 Career Planning 0.275 **-0.454 ** 0.667 Employee Communication 0.275 **-0.554 ** 0.782 Employee Empowerment 0.780 HRD Facilitator Sub-scales Concerns of Top Management 0.640 **-0.640 ** 0.654 Concerns of Line Managers & Supervisors 0.179 *-0.647 ** 0.647 Concerns of Individual Employees 0.007-0.547 ** 0.527 Concerns of Employee Unions 0.031-0.510 ** 0.796 Management Styles Sub-scales Participative Management Style 0.230 **-0.684 ** .871 Altruistic Management Style 0.275 **-0.657 ** .880 Professional Management Style 0.311 **-0.649 ** .895 Organic Management Style 0.154-0.723 ** .910 Sub-scales Pertaining to Effectiveness of Human Resources Productivity of Human Resources 0.350 **-0.593 ** 0.768 Adaptability of Human Resources 0.414 **-0.661 ** 0.805 Notes: ** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Construct Validity Test of Various Scales(All the constructs are with initial model fit values) Scales No. of Range of CFI Items Standard Loadings HRD Practice (HRD Mechanisms) Sub-scales Functioning of HRD Department 03 0.373-0.814 Employee Training 05 0.214-0.801 0.989 Employees' Performance Appraisal 04 0.363-0.676 0.892 Job Enrichment 02 0.525-0.631 Career Planning 04 0.456-0.694 0.96 Employee Communication 04 0.315-0.633 0.938 Employee Empowerment 02 0.781-0.820 HRD Facilitator Sub-scales Concerns of Top Management 04 0.399-0.740 0.869 Concerns of Line Managers & 04 0.166-0.771 0.935 Supervisors Concerns of Individual Employees 06 0.176-0.723 0.945 Concerns of Employee Unions 05 0.559-0.829 0.936 Management Styles Sub-scales Participative Management Style 10 0.415-0.802 0.917 Altruistic Management Style 9 0.524-0.805 0.930 Professional Management Style 9 0.625-0.773 0.924 Organic Management Style 14 0.585-0.730 0.918 Sub-scales Pertaining to Effectiveness of Human Resources Productivity of Human Resources 04 0.553-0.787 0.94 Adaptability of Human Resources 04 0.614-0.872 0.959 Scales GFI NFI RMR CMIN/ DF HRD Practice (HRD Mechanisms) Sub-scales Functioning of HRD Department Employee Training 0.983 0.948 0.031 1.249 Employees' Performance Appraisal 0.972 0.872 0.081 4.224 Job Enrichment Career Planning 0.938 0.932 0.19 0.340 Employee Communication 0.981 0.912 0.059 2.709 Employee Empowerment HRD Facilitator Sub-scales Concerns of Top Management 0.948 0.859 0.068 8.192 Concerns of Line Managers & 0.969 0.921 0.051 4.512 Supervisors Concerns of Individual Employees 0.973 0.885 0.054 1.676 Concerns of Employee Unions 0.953 0.915 0.077 3.629 Management Styles Sub-scales Participative Management Style 0.901 0.869 0.055 2.423 Altruistic Management Style 0.907 0.888 0.050 2.448 Professional Management Style 0.906 0.887 0.043 2.714 Organic Management Style 0.876 0.852 0.051 2.012 Sub-scales Pertaining to Effectiveness of Human Resources Productivity of Human Resources 0.997 0.995 0.009 0.376 Adaptability of Human Resources 0.966 0.950 0.041 4.873 Table 7 Results of Structural Equation Modeling [x.sup.2] (d.f.) 911.732 P .000 CMIN/ DF 3.08 NCP 798.732 RMR 0.081 RMSEA 0.224 CFI 0.864 NFI 0.678 GFI 0.962 Table 8 Model Summary [right arrow] Estimate S.E. C.R. P HRD Facilitators (HRDF) [right .910 .157 13.746 *** arrow] HRD Practices (HRD Mechanisms) (HRDP) Management Styles (MS) [right .885 .011 16.390 *** arrow] HRD Practices (HRD Mechanisms) HRD Practices (HRD Mechanisms .889 .314 8.920 *** [right arrow] HR Effectiveness HRD Facilitators [right arrow] HR .971 .261 7.134 *** Effectiveness Concerns of Top Management (HRDF) .873 .071 12.210 *** [right arrow] HRD Facilitators (as a whole) Concerns of Line Managers & 5.270 .398 13.245 *** Supervisor (HRDF) s [right arrow] HRD Facilitators (as a whole) Concerns of Individual 1.000 Employees(HRDF) [right arrow] HRD Facilitators (as a whole) Concerns of Employee Unions (HRDF) .873 .071 12.210 *** [right arrow] HRD Facilitators (as a whole) Participative Management Style .771 .045 17.306 *** [right arrow] Management Styles (as a whole) Altruistic Management Style [right .992 .044 22.462 *** arrow] Management Styles (as a whole) Professional Management Style .953 .050 18.909 *** [right arrow] Management Styles (as a whole) Organic Management Style [right 1.000 arrow] Management Styles (as a whole) Functioning of HRD Department .110 8.966 *** [right arrow] HRD Practices (HRD Mechanisms) .987 (HRDP) (as a whole) Employee Training [right arrow] HRD .866 .098 8.857 *** Practices (HRD Mechanisms) (HRDP) (as a whole) Performance Appraisal [right arrow] 1.160 .133 8.690 *** HRD Practices (HRD Mechanisms) (HRDP) (as a whole) Job Enrichment [right arrow] HRD 1.187 .153 7.773 *** Practices (HRD Mechanisms) (HRDP) (as a whole) Career Planning [right arrow] HRD 1.000 Practices (HRD Mechanisms) (HRDP) (as a whole) Employee Communication [right .972 .129 7.554 *** arrow] HRD Practices (HRD Mechanisms) (HRDP) (as a whole) Employee Empowerment [right arrow] 1.083 .152 7.130 *** HRD Practices (HRD Mechanisms) (HRDP) (as a whole) Productivity of Human Resources .661 .090 7.328 *** [right arrow] HR Effectiveness Adaptability of Human Resources 1.000 [right arrow] HR Effectiveness *** stands for statistiecly statistically significant relationship at .01 Table 9 The Extent of Effectiveness of the HRD Sub--Systems Various Sub-systems of HRD Mean Values S.D. Extent of HRD System (N = 300) Effectiveness Functioning of HRD Deptt. 3.09 1.01 Moderate Extent Employee Training 3.00 0.69 Moderate Extent Performance Appraisal 3.12 0.73 Moderate Extent Job Enrichment 3.01 0.66 Moderate Extent Career Planning 3.08 0.74 Moderate Extent Employee Communication 2.79 0.82 Low Extent Employees Empowerment 2.86 0.80 Low Extent Table 10 The Extent to which the HRD Facilitators are Effective Various Dimensions of HRD Mean Value S.D. Extent of Facilitators (N = 300) Effectiveness of HRD Facilitators Concern of Top Management 3.62 .66 Moderate Extent Concerns of Line Managers & 3.68 .74 Moderate Extent Supervisors Concerns of Individual 3.53 .94 Moderate Extent Employees Concerns of Employees Unions 3.25 .62 Moderate Extent Table 11 The Extent of Effectiveness to which the Four Management Styles Practiced Management Style Mean Value S.D. Extent of which the (N = 300) Four Management Styles Practiced Participative 2.9254 .91137 Low Degree Altruistic 2.8746 .91681 Low Degree Professional 2.8112 .89339 Low Degree Organic 2.8385 .90064 Low Degree Table 12 The Perceived Degree of HR Effectiveness Mean Value S. D. Perceived Degree of (N = 300) Effectiveness Productivity of Human 3.5 .65 Moderate Degree Resources Adaptability of Human 3.3 .77 Moderate Degree Resources Overall Effectiveness 3.4 .64 Moderate Degree of Human Resources Table 13 Inter-correlations between Various HRD Sub-systems (HRD Mechanisms) and HRD Facilitators HRDP and Functioning Training Performance HRDF of HRD Deptt. Appraisal Dimensions Functioning .1 of HRD Deptt Training .704(**) 1 Performance .683(*) .996(**) 1 Appraisal Job Enrichment .642(*) .721(**) .835(**) Communication .739(**) .646(*) .761(**) Career Planning .528(*) .709(**) .741(**) Employees .862(**) .611(*) .731(**) Empowerment Concern of Top .710(**) .927(**) .605(**) Management ConcernofTrade .848(**) .702(**) .602(**) Union Concerno .665(*) .805(**) .820(**) fIndividualEmployees Concernof .818(**) .706(*) .646(*) Supervisor Participative MS .716(**) .661 .750(**) Altruistic MS .755(**) .455(*) .497(*) Professional MS .655(*) .474(*) .418(*) Organic MS .764(**) .431(*) .446(*) HRDP and Job Communication Career HRDF Enrichment planning Dimensions Functioning of HRD Deptt Training Performance Appraisal Job Enrichment 1 Communication .805(**) 1 Career Planning .842(**) .879(**) 1 Employees .886(**) .953(**) Empowerment Concern of Top .824(**)) .883(**) .733(**) Management ConcernofTrade .867(**) .750(**) .769(**) Union Concerno .709(*) .747(**) .832(**) fIndividualEmployees Concernof .902(*) .780(**) .735(**) Supervisor Participative MS .620(*) .592(*) .708(**) Altruistic MS .541(*) .393(*) .471(*) Professional MS .516(*) .454(*) .484(*) Organic MS .496(*) .403(*) .446(*) HRDP and Workers Concern of Concern HRDF Empowerment Top of Trade Dimensions Management Union Functioning of HRD Deptt Training Performance Appraisal Job Enrichment Communication Career Planning Employees 1 Empowerment Concern of Top .753(**) 1 Management ConcernofTrade .718(**) .845(**) 1 Union Concerno .934 .933(**) .768(**) fIndividualEmployees Concernof .856(**) .739(**) .760(**) Supervisor Participative MS .658(*) .568(*) .716(**) Altruistic MS .746(**) .400(*) .460(*) Professional MS .366(*) .508(*) Organic MS .771(**) .360(*) .448(*) HRDP and Concern Concern of Participative HRDF of Individual Line MS Managers Dimensions Worker & Supervisor Functioning of HRD Deptt Training Performance Appraisal Job Enrichment Communication Career Planning Employees Empowerment Concern of Top Management ConcernofTrade Union Concerno 1 fIndividualEmployees Concernof .776(**) 1 Supervisor Participative MS .640(*) .720(**) 1 Altruistic MS .494(*) .767(**) .759(**) Professional MS .394(*) .761(**) .760(**) Organic MS .444(*) .786(**) .690(*) HRDP and Altruistic Professional Organic HRDF MS MS MS Dimensions Functioning of HRD Deptt Training Performance Appraisal Job Enrichment Communication Career Planning Employees Empowerment Concern of Top Management ConcernofTrade Union Concerno fIndividualEmployees Concernof Supervisor Participative MS Altruistic MS 1 Professional MS .663(*) 1 Organic MS .623(*) .771(**) 1 Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||human resource development|
|Author:||Jain, Ravindra; Premkumar; Kamble, Sachin|
|Publication:||Indian Journal of Industrial Relations|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Employee engagement & industrial relations climate in a large public sector organization.|
|Next Article:||Factors influencing disintegration of informal networks in organizations.|