Discussion Post
ashe.a
HumanResourceDevelopmentClimateinIndia.pdf
Forster 41
Human Resource Development Climate in India: Examining the Psychometric Properties of HRD Climate Survey Instrument
Richa Chaudhary Santosh Rangnekar Mukesh Barua
Abstract The purpose of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of scores from human resource development (HRD) climate survey instrument by Rao and Abraham (1986). Data were obtained from 403 Indian business executives working in both public and private sector business organizations. Six interpretable factors were extracted as a result of exploratory factor analysis instead of three dimensional structure proposed by the authors of the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results provided support for the superiority of six factor model over alternative models. All the six factors were found to be internally consistent. Results indicated that Rao and Abraham’s scale with sound psychometric properties showed promise for HRD research. Establishing the psychometric properties of the instrument will further accelerate the HRD research in India. Importantly, the study has made an attempt to address the lack of research and practice on organizational climate, which is a matter of concern as expressed by several researchers, and revive the interest in climate studies to some extent.
Key Words HRD Climate, Reliability, Validity, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Introduction In the present business environment characterized by uncertainty and fierce competition, organizations are con- tinuously looking for ways to improve their performance. Looking at the intricacies which continue to creep into every aspect of business, the time-honoured four Ps of marketing have lost insignificance and fifth P, that is, people, has gained increased significance. It is the people and their performance which defines an organization’s competitive advantage (Colan, 2009). The ideas for inno- vation, quality and continuous improvement as well as other critically important inputs needed to compete in the modern, highly competitive business world, come from people and not from machines. In fact, in the new economy human capital is the foundation of value creation (Becker et al., 2001). The need for human resource development (HRD) has never been as imperative as it is today because an organization’s capability to a large extent depends upon the capability of its human resource which is the conse- quence of HRD. Consequently, in order to have an edge
over its competitors, firms should invest considerably in the development of its major value adding asset, that is, human resource. In order to keep up with the changing business needs human resources have to be continuously developed by regularly updating their knowledge, skills and abilities. As a result, the organizations are resorting to sophisticated HRD strategies to develop employee compe- tencies (Losey, 1999; Spangenburg et al., 1999).
Human resource development has been defined in a number of ways by different scholars in the field. Here we choose to restrict ourselves to the definitions by Rao (1987) and Swanson (1995). HRD is the process of helping people to acquire competencies which may include knowledge, skills, abilities and values (Rao, 1987). According to Rao, HRD in the organizational context is a process by which the employees of an organization are helped in a continuous and planned way to (a) acquire competencies required to meet present and future challenges; (b) develop their capabilities as individuals and realize and exploit their hidden potential for their own and organizational development; (c) develop an organizational culture in which supervisor–subordinate
Vision 17(1) 41–52 © 2013 MDI
SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0972262912469564 http://vision.sagepub.com
Article
42 Human Resource Development Climate in India
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
relationships, team work and collaboration among sub- units are strong and contribute to the employee well-being and motivation. According to Swanson (1995) ‘HRD is a process for developing and unleashing human expertise through organization development and personnel training and development for the purpose of improving performance’ (p. 208).
It is largely the HRM practices and policies in the organization which determine the climate perceptions of employees (Kopelman et al., 1990). However, the liberali- zation of Indian economy and the competition from foreign firms has led to the tremendous changes in the HRM pat- terns, with more emphasis now being given on develop- ment of human resources (Budhwar and Boyne, 2004). There is clear shift in HRM function in India from routine HR activities towards a strategic approach to HRD (Budhwar, 2000). With rapid transformation of HRD prac- tices and systems in the organizations, it becomes impor- tant to study employee perceptions of the HRD environment (HRD climate). According to Rao (1987) in order to facili- tate HRD processes it was important to create HRD climate. In addition, Mufeed and Gurkoo (2006) argued that ‘HRD benefits can be best reaped when it is adopted as a company-wide philosophy in an integrated manner by the organization which is conducive both for employee growth and organization development to be referred as HRD climate’ (p. 27). Further, according to Pareek (1988), in order sustain HRD efforts it was important that HRD prac- tices focus on creation of organizational culture congenial for development. According to Hassan et al. (2006) it is the HRD practices which determine the HRD climate of an organization. As per the findings of Hassan et al., organiza- tions with better learning, training and development systems, reward and recognition, and information systems promoted HRD climate. Also, according to Agarwala (2002) HR systems and practices play a significant role in initiating, facilitating and promoting HRD culture. HRD climate in turn facilitates, sustains and helps in the success- ful implementation of HRD practices and efforts (Athreya, 1988). Thus, both HRD practices and HRD climate are complementary and interdependent (Agarwala, 2002).
Abraham (1989) in a survey of HRD practices in 68 Indian organizations reported that it is the HRD climate which was responsible for company performance rather than the HRD profile. Thus, HRD climate is an important intervening variable in translating HRD practices into organizational performance, that is, HRD practices lead to organizational effectiveness through HRD climate and HRD outcomes (Mufeed and Gurkoo, 2006). Thus, HRD climate can only be created through effective HRD prac- tices and processes.
A plethora of research is available linking HRD climate with different measures of individual and organizational
performance like job satisfaction (Ahuja, 2002; Kumar and Patnaik, 2002; Rohmetra, 1998), organizational commit- ment (Purang, 2008), organizational citizenship behaviour, turnover intentions (Akinyemi, 2012), organizational effec- tiveness and productivity (Jain et al., 1997). Consequently, in order to remain competitive it is important for the organi- zations to ensure an optimal level of development climate.
HRD Climate Organizational climate is a set of global perceptions held by organizational members about their organizational environment (Schneider and Hall, 1972). HRD climate is an integral component of organizational climate (Mishra and Bhardwaj, 2002). HRD climate could be defined as a sub-climate of overall organizational climate which reflects the perception that the employees have of the development environment of the organization (Rao and Abraham, 1986). There has been a great deal of inconsistency in the climate literature regarding the climate dimensions. Five decades of research on climate has not resulted in any conclusive set of climate dimensions. Different researchers have given their own label to climate dimensions which makes the cross study comparisons difficult (e.g., Brown and Leigh, 1996; Campbell et al., 1970; Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Ostroff, 1993; Pritchard and Karasick, 1973).
A large number of researchers have studied HRD climate and its correlates in Indian organizations. Earlier the focus of the HRD climate research studies was towards identifying the factors or dimensions constituting the HRD climate of an organization. The researchers have identified OCTAPAC culture, integrity, participation, training and development, fair compensation, corporate philosophy, superior–subordinate relationships and respect for the indi- vidual as some of the important factors influencing the HRD climate in different business organizations like hos- pitals, educational institutes and banking and finance (Alphonsa, 2000; Jain et al., 1997; Kalburgi, 1984; Kumar and Patnaik, 2002; Mishra and Bhardwaj, 2002; Murthy and Gregory, 1989; Rodrigues, 2005; Rohmetra, 1998; Srimannarayana, 2001; Venkateswaran, 1997). In addition, much research is conducted on determining extent of favourableness of development climate in different nature of organizations (Agarwala, 2002; Jain et al., 1997; Krishna and Rao, 1997; Mishra and Bhardwaj, 2002; Patel, 1999; Pillai, 2008; Rao and Abraham, 1986; Rohmetra, 1998; Srimannarayana, 2001). Later the focus shifted towards relating HRD climate to different attitudinal and behav- ioural outcomes (cf. Ahuja, 2002; Jain et al. 1997; Kumar and Patnaik, 2002; Purang, 2008; Rohmetra, 1998).
If we look at all these studies, most of them have used HRD climate survey instrument by Rao and Abraham (1986) or have modified it as per their needs to capture the
Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar and Mukesh Barua 43
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
development climate in the organizations as it is customized to cater to specific types of organizations and employees as per country-specific requirements. 38-item HRD climate survey instrument developed by Rao and Abraham (1986) has conceptualized HRD climate as consisting of three dimensions of general climate, culture of openness, confron- tation, trust, autonomy, proactivity, authenticity and collabo- ration (OCTAPAC) and implementation of HRD mechanisms. The general climate deals with the importance given to HRD in general by the top management and line managers. The OCTAPAC items deal with the extent to which openness, confrontation, trust, autonomy, proactivity, authenticity and collaboration are valued and promoted in the organization. HRD mechanisms measure the extent to which HRD mechanisms like performance appraisal, poten- tial appraisal, career planning, performance rewards, feed- back and counseling, training, employee welfare and job rotation are implemented seriously.
Since Rao and Abraham did not provide the item distri- bution under each of these three dimensions, researchers have classified the items based on their understanding of these items into these three dimensions. This trend still seems to be continuing not only with the Indian researchers but also researchers from different countries like Nigeria, Rwanda, Malaysia and Dubai (cf. Akinyemi, 2011, 2012; Hassan et al., 2006; Srimannarayana, 2007) where the instrument has been used. This practice has not resulted in consistent distribution of items under different dimensions with different researchers putting different items under dif- ferent heads. In addition, several researchers have divided items into different dimensions like top management’s belief in HRD, superior–subordinate relationship, person- nel policies, team spirit, employee development, training, employee initiatives and management encouragement and others simply based on their understanding of items. To both our surprise and distress none of the studies made an attempt to examine the psychometric properties of HRD climate survey instrument. At the most, the studies reported the reliability value of the complete measure with nothing being reported about the reliability value of the dimensions considered. In fact, Rao and Abraham recommended using each of the 38 items as a dimension as the factor analysis indicated that there is one general factor running through all the items explaining about 36 per cent of the variance. Also, the cluster analysis indicated that all items belong to the same cluster and dropping any of the items did not improve that one cluster (Rao and Abraham, 2010). But since it is not feasible to treat each of the 38 items as a dimension while studying HRD climate in relation to dif- ferent employee attitudes and behaviours, it is important that the number of climate dimensions be reduced for the ease of interpretation while retaining the explanatory power (D’Amato and Zijlstra, 2008).
Given the importance of HRD climate for the success of HRD efforts and in predicting the performance related outcomes, it is crucial to measure it precisely with the help of reliable and valid measurement instruments. With continued use of the HRD survey instrument in both India and outside it is important that the psychometric properties of the scale be evaluated and dimensionality of the scale be tested and established. With this background, the present study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the scale using first exploratory and then confirmatory factor analysis along with the internal consistency and item analysis.
Methodology Participants
About 403 employees from both public and private sector manufacturing and service organizations in India participated in the study. 82.3 per cent participants were males and 17.6 per cent were females. The mean age was 33.69 years. Based on the organizational structure, there were 272 junior-level (67.49 per cent), 100 middle-level (25.55 per cent) and 33 (8.18 per cent) senior-level employees. The educational levels of the participants were varied: 189 undergraduates (46.89.86 per cent) and 180 postgraduates (45.16 per cent) and diploma holders (7.44 per cent). The work experience profile of the sample was: less than 5 years (41.68 per cent), between 5 years and 10 years (22.33 per cent) and above 10 years (34.49 per cent). Seventy-eight per cent of the respondents belonged to the private sector while only 22 per cent were from the public sector. The percentages may not aggregate to 100 per cent due to missing responses. The sample was drawn through personal contacts based on the convenience and readiness of the employees to respond to the questionnaire.
Instrument
HRD climate survey instrument by Rao and Abraham (1986) was used for assessing the level of HRD climate in the organizations under study. The HRD climate questionnaire consists of 38 items and uses a 5-point scale (almost always true, mostly true, sometimes true, rarely true and not at all true); average scores of 3 and around indicate a moderate tendency on that dimension existing in that organization. Scores around 4 indicate a fairly good degree of that dimension existing in the organization. Some sample items of this measure are ‘The top manage- ment believes that human resources are an extremely important resource and that they have to be treated more humanly’ and ‘People in this organization are helpful to each other’.
44 Human Resource Development Climate in India
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
Data Analysis
First, the scores on HRD climate survey instrument were sub- jected to principal component analysis to determine the factor structure and see if it results in three dimensions as proposed and defined by Rao and Abraham (1986). An item analysis was used to estimate internal consistency reliability for item subsets. Additionally, internal consistency reliability esti- mates for the extracted factors and total scale were computed. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis was used to confirm the factor structure and compare the alternative models.
Results Exploratory Factor Analysis
In order to test the factor structure of the scores obtained from present study sample, principal component analysis
was used. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.959, that is, above the recommended value of 0.6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (703) = 6466, p < 0.001). In addition, all communality values were above 0.40 which means each item shared some common variance with other item. All these conditions justify the use of factor analysis. Principal component analysis using both varimax and oblimin rotation criterion was conducted on scores obtained from 38 items of the scale. Six factors were extracted as a result of principal component factor analysis with an eigenvalue of greater than 1 together accounting for 52.45 per cent of the total variance in the sample. Both the rotation criterion resulted in similar clustering of the items under six factors. The factor loadings for the scale items along with eigenvalues and percentage of variance explained by each factor are shown in Table 1.
Table1. Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation for 38 Items (N = 403)
Item No. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6
Top Management Belief and Commitment to HRD 21 Seniors guide their juniors and prepare them for future responsibilities/
roles they are likely to take up. 0.68
32 The top management of this organization makes efforts to identify and utilize the potential of the employees.
0.58
16 Employees are sponsored for training programmes on the basis of genuine training needs.
0.56
30 Employees returning from training programmes are given opportunities to try out what they have learnt.
0.54
19 Development of the subordinates is seen as an important part of their job by the managers/officers here.
0.53
24 Managers in this organization believe that employee behavior can be changed and people can be developed at any stage of their life.
0.51
25 Performance appraisal reports in our organization are based on objective assessment and adequate information and not on favoritism.
0.48 0.42
15 The top management is willing to invest a considerable part of their time and other resources to ensure the development of employees.
0.41 0.33
17 Senior officers/executives in this organization take active interest in their juniors and help them learn their job.
0.41
Employee Development 33 When behavior feedback is given to employees they take it seriously and
use it for development. 0.63
37 Career opportunities are pointed out to juniors by senior officers in the organization.
0.62
22 This organization ensures employee welfare to such an extent that the employees can save a lot of their mental energy for work purpose.
0.57
35 Employees in this organization take pains to find out their strengths and weaknesses from their supervising officers or colleagues.
0.49
27 The top management of this organization goes out of its way to make sure that employees enjoy their work.
0.36 0.47
18 Delegation of authority to encourage juniors to develop handling higher responsibilities is quite common in this organization.
0.35 0.47 0.39
23 People lacking competence in doing their jobs are helped to acquire competence rather than being left unattended.
0.44
29 The personnel policies in this organization facilitate employee development.
0.36 0.44 0.37
14 When an employee does good work his supervising officers take special care to appreciate it.
0.35 0.41
(Table 1 continued)
Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar and Mukesh Barua 45
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
Item No. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 26 When employees are sponsored for training, they take it seriously and
try to learn from the programmes they attend. 0.35 0.37
Autonomy, Openness and Authenticity 0.74 7 Employees are encouraged to take initiative and do things on their own
without having to wait for instructions from supervisors. 0.58
11 Employees are not afraid to express or discuss their feelings with their subordinates.
10 Employees are encouraged to experiment with new methods and try out creative ideas.
0.42 0.58
12 Employees in this organization are very informal and do not hesitate to discuss their personal problems with their supervisors.
0.37 0.55
36 People in this organization do not have any fixed mental impressions about each other.
0.43
Rewards, Performance and Potential Appraisals 28 The organization’s future plans are made known to the managerial staff
to help them develop their juniors and prepare them for future. 0.57
34 There are mechanism in this organization to reward any good work done or any contribution made by employees.
0.34 0.55
38 Job-rotation in this organization facilitates employee development 0.43 0.52 3 When any employee makes a mistake his supervisors treat it with
understanding and help him to learn from such mistakes rather than punishing him or discouraging him.
0.39 0.48
31 Promotion decisions are based on the suitability of the promotee rather than on favoritism
0.34 0.47 0.41
4 Employees are not afraid to express or discuss their feelings with their superiors.
0.46
Superior Subordinate Relationship 1 The top management believes that human resources are an extremely
important resource and that they have to be treated more humanly. 0.43
5 The psychological climate in this organization is very conducive to any employee interested in developing himself by acquiring new knowledge and skills.
0.33 0.69
8 When seniors delegate authority to juniors, the juniors use it as an opportunity for development.
0.36 0.51
6 Weaknesses of employees are communicated to them in a non- threatening way.
0.34 0.5
Trust, Collaboration and Team Spirit 9 People trust each other in this organization. 0.74 2 People in this organization are helpful to each other. 0.47 0.6 13 Team spirit is of high order in this organization. 0.47 20 When problems arise people discuss these problems openly and try to
solve them rather than keep accusing each other behind the back. 0.46
Eigen Values 4.608 4.033 3.232 2.698 2.691 2.67 Percentage of Variance explained 12.127 10.614 8.504 7.1 7.083 7.26
Based on the clustering/grouping of the items, six factors were named as Top Management Belief and Commitment to HRD (F1), Employee Development (F2), Autonomy, Openness and Authenticity (F3), Rewards, Performance and Potential Appraisal (F4), Superior–Subordinate Relationship (F5) and Trust, Collaboration and Team Spirit (F6).
Internal Consistency and Item Analysis
The internal consistency of the scale and each of the factors was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the 38-item HRD climate
survey instrument was found to be 0.953. The Cronbach’s alpha values for the factors were: 0.863 for Manage- ment Belief and Commitment to HRD (9 items), .868 for Employee Development (10 items), 0.768 for Autonomy, Openness & Authenticity (5 items), 0.788 for Rewards, Performance & Potential Appraisal (6 items), 0.684 for Superior–Subordinate Relationship (4 items) and 0.722 for Trust Collaboration and Team Spirit (4 items). The item analyses of the responses clearly revealed that removing any of the items did not result in any improvement in Cronbach’s alpha value as can be seen from Table 2.
(Table 1 continued)
46 Human Resource Development Climate in India
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
In order to corroborate the factor structure obtained as a result of exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood procedure was conduc- ted using AMOS 4 statistical package (Arbuckle, 1997).
A non-significant χ2 value indicates the model fits the data; though large sample sizes often lead to the rejection of the hypothesized model (Kline, 2005). As a result, the ratio of χ2 to its degree of freedom (χ2/df) was used. The
ratio of less than 3 is indicative of an acceptable fit between the hypothetical model and the sample data (Carmines and McIver, 1981). In addition, different fit indices were used to test the model fit. Specifically, the normed-fit index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approxi- mation (RMSEA) were used in the present study. RMSEA, a parsimony-adjusted index, values < 0.05 indicate approxi- mate fit and values < 0.08 indicate reasonable error of approximation (Browne and Cudeck, 1992). NFI and CFI
Table 2. Item-wise Analysis of the Responses on 38 Items
Item No. Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item
Deleted Corrected Item—Total
Correlation Cronbach’s Alpha
if Item Deleted
1 133.27 434.7 0.417 0.953 2 133.55 431.63 0.466 0.953 3 133.46 426.15 0.589 0.952 4 133.5 427.23 0.579 0.952 5 133.41 425.78 0.669 0.952 6 133.41 429.36 0.534 0.952 7 133.52 428.96 0.518 0.953 8 133.37 429.55 0.527 0.952 9 133.67 428.69 0.495 0.953 10 133.65 426.12 0.567 0.952 11 133.49 424.71 0.604 0.952 12 133.63 426.85 0.584 0.952 13 133.51 426.19 0.604 0.952 14 133.33 429.99 0.578 0.952 15 133.39 426.56 0.62 0.952 16 133.41 427.32 0.568 0.952 17 133.48 425.51 0.617 0.952 18 133.48 426.12 0.603 0.952 19 133.44 427.28 0.605 0.952 20 133.52 428.25 0.589 0.952 21 133.42 428.12 0.601 0.952 22 133.42 427.43 0.612 0.952 23 133.55 426.98 0.585 0.952 24 133.46 427.51 0.582 0.952 25 133.55 423.52 0.613 0.952 26 133.35 425.94 0.649 0.952 27 133.66 425.53 0.612 0.952 28 133.4 428.44 0.605 0.952 29 133.5 424.51 0.64 0.952 30 133.5 425.17 0.623 0.952 31 133.62 425.59 0.581 0.952 32 133.47 426.68 0.636 0.952 33 133.42 427.3 0.59 0.952 34 133.41 426.38 0.57 0.952 35 133.63 426.81 0.576 0.952 36 133.6 429.15 0.509 0.953 37 133.7 426.69 0.543 0.952 38 133.62 429.28 0.517 0.953
Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar and Mukesh Barua 47
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
values > 0.90 indicate reasonably good fit (Hoyle, 1995). The results revealed an acceptable fit for the six factor research model as shown in Figure 1 (χ2 = 1141.837; χ2/df = 1.7406; NFI = 0.977; TLI = 0.989; CFI = 0.990; RMSEA = 0.043 [0.039, 0.047]). As can be seen from Figure 1, factor loadings of items on respective factors were all greater than 0.40 ranging between 0.53 and 0.73.
In addition, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to test different conceptualizations of the factor structure. Four different factor structures were tested for the model fit. First, a one factor model which does not differentiate between the factors and assumes HRD climate to be a unidimensional construct was tested. Second, a six factor model with uncorrelated factors which assumes that rather than being correlated, factors were independent. Third, the six factor model as shown in Figure 1 which tested whether the six factors were correlated. Fourth, a higher order model which tested the notion that the relationship between the three factors was accounted for by a second order factor. It defined six primary factors and a secondary factor as can be seen in Figure 2.
Table 3 shows the fit indices for each of the four models. As can be seen from the table the correlated six factor model and second order model best fit the data with no differences in their fit indices. In addition, it can also be noticed that one factor model also showed acceptable data fit. However, the uncorrelated six factor model did not show the acceptable model fit with RMSEA value greater than .08. Thus, it can be said that the six factor correlated model and second order model adequately represent the dimensions of HRD climate perceptions of Indian business executives.
Discussion In the present business environment characterized by uncertainty, changing market conditions, rising customer and employee expectations, technological advancement, fierce competition, the need for HRD was never so imperative. In order to facilitate successful implementation of different HRD strategies it is important to have congenial HRD climate. As a result, it is important to measure the HRD climate perceptions of employees from time to time in the organizations. The accurate measurement of HRD climate is not possible in the absence of reliable and valid measurement instrument. Majority of the studies in India both in past and present are using the 38 item HRD climate survey instrument by Rao and Abraham (1986) to capture the employees’ perception of development climate. The instrument measures HRD climate under the dimensions of general climate, OCTAPAC culture and HRD mechanisms. The researchers have been blindly using the instrument with the distribution of items under these dimensions based on
their own choice and understanding of items without any evaluation of the psychometric properties and dimen- sionality. In order for this instrument to continue to be used for research purpose in India it was important to examine its psychometric properties. The present study made an effort in this direction to examine and establish the validity and dimensionality of scores on HRD climate survey instrument.
For this purpose data were collected from a sample of 403 Indian business executives and scores obtained were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. As opposed to three factor structure proposed by Rao and Abraham (1986) six factors were extracted as a result of exploratory factor analysis. Later, using confirmatory factor analysis strong support was found for six distinct but correlated dimensions of HRD climate. This indicates that though the participants had discriminated between the three factors but they were correlated. Also, all six dimensions, namely, Top Management Belief and Commitment to HRD (F1), Employee Development (F2), Autonomy, Openness & Authenticity (F3), Rewards, Performance & Potential Appraisal (F4), Superior–Subordinate Relationship (F5) and Trust Collaboration & Team Spirit (F6), were found to have reliability values above the acceptable value of 0.60. Further, exactly same fit indices were obtained for a second order HRD climate factor with six underlying dimensions, providing strong support to it. Since higher order model showed equally good fit to the data, HRD climate can be used as latent construct with six underlying factors for research purposes. Interestingly, the one factor model as also recommended by authors of the scale was found to have acceptable fit. However, six factor uncorrelated model did not fit the data. Thus, six factor correlated model and second order model were found to have better fit over all the other alternative models. Therefore, the HRD climate survey instrument measures HRD climate under the six dimensions of Top Management Belief and Commitment to HRD, Employee Development, Autonomy, Openness and Authenticity, Rewards, Performance and Potential Appraisal, Superior–Subordinate Relationship and Trust Collaboration and Team Spirit. Importantly, results indicated that Rao and Abraham’s scale with sound psychometric properties showed promise for HRD research. Though the present study provided support for the six factor structure of the scale, any conclusion regarding the dimensionality of the scale should be avoided without further research. This clearly demon- strates the need for more rigorous and intensive research studies to establish the dimensionality of the scale.
At the same time we acknowledge that since the concept of HRD has changed tremendously in the past few years with it playing an important role in strategic human resource management, long-term sustainable development, promoting workforce diversity and human capital development, the
48 Human Resource Development Climate in India
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
Figure 1. Six Factor Model of HRD Climate Survey Instrument
0.81
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5
e6 e7 e8 e9
e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18
e19
e20 e21 e22 e23 e24
e25 e26 e27 e28
e29 e30
e31 e32 e33 e34
e35 e36 e37
e38
HRD21 HRD32 HRD16 HRD30 HRD19 HRD24 HRD25 HRD15
HRD17
HRD33 HRD37 HRD22 HRD35 HRD27 HRD18 HRD23 HRD29 HRD14 HRD26
HRD7 HRD11 HRD10 HRD12 HRD36
HRD28 HRD34 HRD38 HRD3 HRD31
HRD4
HRD1 HRD5 HRD8 HRD6
HRD2 HRD9 HRD13 HRD20
F1
F2
F5
F3
F4
F6
0.65
0.87
0.67
0.57
0.65
0.64
0.61
0.62 0.61
0.56 0.53
0.73
0.58 0.600.69
0.61
0.53
0.64 0.61
0.64
0.87
0.92
0.85
0.90
0.90
0.84
0.86
0.83
0.87
0.77 0.88
0.84
0.59
0.94
0.65 0.68 0.66
0.66
0.57
0.64
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.64
0.64
0.60
0.59 0.65
0.60
0.62 0.64
0.61
0.42
0.47
0.42
0.44
0.37
0.32
0.39
0.37
0.28 0.54
0.28
0.34
0.37
0.48 0.38
0.32
0.37 0.45
0.40 0.41 0.41
0.40
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.38
0.34
0.41 0.36
0.41
0.47 0.36
0.45
0.33
0.44
0.47
0.42
0.35
Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar and Mukesh Barua 49
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
Figure 2. Second Order Model of HRD Climate
Note: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6 are represented by F, G, H, I, J and K, respectively in the figure.
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9
e25 e26 e27 e28
e29 e30
e31 e32 e33 e34
e35 e36 e37 e38
HRD21 HRD32 HRD16 HRD30 HRD19 HRD24 HRD25 HRD15 HRD17
HRD28 HRD34 HRD38 HRD3 HRD31 HRD4
HRD1 HRD5 HRD8 HRD6
HRD2 HRD9 HRD13 HRD20
0.42
0.47
0.42
0.44
0.38
0.32
0.39
0.37
0.28 0.53
0.28
0.34
0.37
0.48
0.38
0.33
0.37 0.44
0.41 0.41 0.41
0.40
0.38
e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18
e19
HRD33 HRD37 HRD22 HRD35 HRD27 HRD18 HRD23 HRD29 HRD14 HRD26
0.40
0.42
0.38
0.34
0.42 0.37
0.41
0.46 0.36
0.45
e20 e21 e22 e23 e24
HRD7 HRD11 HRD10 HRD12
HRD36
HRDC
F
G
J
H
I
K
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
0.96
0.94
0.65
0.93 0.67
0.57
0.65
0.64
0.61
0.62 0.61
0.57 0.53
0.73
0.58 0.610.69
0.62
0.53
0.63 0.62
0.64
0.79
0.76
0.93
0.89
0.88
0.66
0.64
0.68 0.61
0.94
0.89
0.94
0.87
0.68
0.67
0.64
0.64
0.60
0.58 0.65
0.60
0.62 0.63
0.59 0.64 0.68 0.66 0.58
0.33
0.44
0.47 0.42
0.35
50 Human Resource Development Climate in India
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
HRD climate instrument (Rao and Abraham, 1986) needs to be revisited in order to incorporate the latest developments in the field.
To conclude, the study failed to obtain the three dimensional structure of HRD climate survey instrument as proposed by the authors of the scale. Instead, the six factor structure was validated and was found to be superior to any other alternative model. Though the one factor model showed acceptable fit it was inferior to the six factor and second order HRD climate model. Consequently, six factor model and higher order model provide adequate representations of HRD climate perceptions of Indian business executives. Thus, by providing the empirical evidence on dimensionality and validity of the scores on HRD climate survey instrument the study makes a significant contribution to the HRD literature in India. This is because HRD research in India can flourish only if well- established and reliable research instruments are available to measure development climate perceptions of employees. Since climate surveys are often used as diagnostic tools for organizational improvement and change (Parker et al., 2003); this study makes an impor tant contribution in this direction. Establishing the psychometric properties of the instrument will further accelerate the HRD research in India. Importantly, the study has made an attempt to address the lack of research and practice on organizational climate which is a matter of concern as expressed by several researchers (Patterson et al., 2005) and revive the interest in climate studies to some extent. Further, this instrument should also be tested in different countries to see if it could meet the need for global HRD climate measure.
Limitations of the Study The study carries certain limitations which need to be addressed while extending this study in future. First, as the data are based on self-report measures, common method variance could be a problem. As Storm and Rothmann (2003) rightly cited from (Schaufeli et al., 2003) ‘in validation studies at least part of the common variance of the measures has to be attributed to method variance’ (p. 69). Further, intensive psychometric studies should be carried out with larger sample and for different occupational
groups to generalize the findings of the present study and to confirm the dimensionality of the HRD climate scale in India. Now that the construct of HRD has changed in the past few years, future studies should extend the present study by determining the criterion validity of the HRD climate measure by collecting responses on external scale measures in the present context.
References Abraham, E. (1989). Study of human resource development
practices in Indian organizations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, 1989. (c. ref: Rao, T.V. [2009] HRD audit: Evaluating the human resource function for business improvement. New Delhi: SAGE).
Agarwala, T. (2002). Human resource management: The emerg- ing trends. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(3), 315–331.
Ahuja, S. (2002). Creating corporate advantage through HRD. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 6(1), 73–86.
Akinyemi, B. (2011). An assessment of human resource devel- opment climate in Rwanda private sector organisations. International Bulletin of Business Administration, 12, 56–68.
Akinyemi, B.O. (2012). Human resource development climate as a predictor of citizenship behaviour and voluntary turn- over intentions in the banking sector. International Business Research, 5(1), 110–119.
Alphonsa, V.K. (2000). HRD climate in a private hospital in Hyderabad: An empirical study. Indian Journal of Training and Development, 30(4), 50–67.
Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). Amos users’ guide version 4.0. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.
Athreya, M.B. (1988). Integrated HRD system-intervention strategies. In T.V. Rao, K.K. Verma, A.K. Khandelwal & E. Abraham (Eds), Alternative approaches and strategies of human resources development. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Becker, B.E., Huslid, M.A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR score- card. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, S.P., & Leigh, T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358–368.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assess- ing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258.
Budhwar, P. (2000). Indian and British personnel specialists’ understanding of the dynamics of their function: An empirical study. International Business Review, 9(6), 727–753.
Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Alternative Models
Model χ2 df χ2/df NFI TLI CFI RMSEA
1. One-factor 1294.81 665 1.947 0.974 0.986 0.987 0.049 2. Six-factor uncorrelated 2906.52 665 4.3707 0.941 0.949 0.954 0.092 3. Six-factor correlated 1141.83 656 1.7406 0.977 0.989 0.99 0.043 4. Second-order model 1141.83 656 1.7406 0.977 0.989 0.99 0.043
Note: *p. <0.001
Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar and Mukesh Barua 51
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
Budhwar, P., & Boyne, G. (2004). Human resource manage- ment in the Indian public and private sectors: An empirical comparison. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(2), 346–370.
Campbell, J.J., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., & Weick, K.E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effective- ness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carmines, E.G., & McIver, J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Colan, L.J. (2009). Engaging the hearts and minds of all your employees: How to ignite passionate performance for better business results. US: McGraw-Hill.
D’Amato, A., & Zijlstra, F.R.H. (2008). Psychological climate and individual factors as antecedents of work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 33–54.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equa- tion modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Krishna, P.M., & Rao, P.S. (1997). Organizational and HRD cli- mate in BHEL: An empirical study. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 43(2), 209–216.
Hassan, A., Hashim, J., & Ismail, A.Z.H. (2006). Human resource development practices as determinant of HRD climate and quality orientation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(1), 4–18.
Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and application. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Jain, V.K., Singhal, K.C., & Singh, V.C. (1997). HRD climate in Indian industry. Productivity 37(4), 628–639.
Kalburgi, M.S. (1984). Human resource management. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Kopelman, R.E., Brief, A.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282–318). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kumar, S., & Patnaik, S.P. (2002). Human resource development climate and attributes of teachers in JNVs. Indian Journal of Training and Development, 32(2), 31–37.
Litwin, G.H., & Stringer, R.A., Jr. (1968). Motivation and organ- izational climate. Boston: Harvard University.
Losey, M.R. (1999). Mastering the competencies of HR manage- ment. Human Resource Management, 38(2), 99–111.
Mishra, P., & Bhardwaj, G. (2002). Human resource develop- ment climate: An empirical study among private sector managers. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(1), 66–80.
Mufeed, S.A., & Gurkoo, F.A. (2006). Enhancing educational institutions effectiveness through HRD climate: An empirical assessment. Management & Change, 10(2), 25–64.
Murthy, P.Y.R., & Gregory, J.X. (1989). Relevance of Japanese HRD practices in Sundaram Clayton. In T.V. Rao, K.K. Verma, A.K. Khandelwal & E. Abraham (Eds), Alternative approaches and strategies of HRD. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influ- ences on individual behavior and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56(1), 56–90.
Pareek, U. (1988). Demystifying HRD. Prashasnika, 15(1), 229–236.
Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, R.A., Altman, R.A., Lacost, H.A., & Roberts, J.E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work out- comes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389–416.
Patel, M.K. (1999). HRD climate: A comparative study among two ends of performance. The Journal of Indian Management and Strategy, 4(3), 24–27.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., & Wallace, A.M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379–408.
Pillai, P.R. (2008). Influence of HRD climate on the learning orientation of bank employees. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(3), 406–418.
Pritchard, R.D., & Karasick, B.W. (1973). The effects of organi- zational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 9(1), 126–146.
Purang, P. (2008). Dimensions of HRD climate enhancing organ- izational commitment in Indian organizations. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(4), 528–546.
Rao, T.V. (1987). Planning for human resources development. Vikalpa, 12(3), 46–51.
Rao, T.V., & Abraham, E. (1986). HRD climate in organizations. In T.V. Rao (Ed.), Readings in human resource development (pp. 36–45). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
———. (2010). HRD climate in organizations. In T.V. Rao (Ed.), Readings in human resource development (pp. 36–45). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Rodrigues, L.L.R. (2005). Industry-institute correlates of HRD climate: Empirical study based implications. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 167–187.
Rohmetra, N. (1998). Towards creating a learning organization: The HRD climate focus. Paradigm, 2(1), 56–63.
Schneider, B., & Hall, D. (1972). Toward specifying the con- cept of work climate: A study of Roman Catholic Diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 447–456.
Spangenburg, H.H., Schroder, H.M., & Duvenge, A. (1999). A leadership competence utilization questionnaire for South African managers. South African Journal of Psychology, 29(3), 117–129.
Srimannarayana, M. (2001). HRD climate in a software organiza- tion. HRD Newsletter, 2(3), 6–14.
———. (2007). Human resource development climate in Dubai organisations. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1), 1–12.
Storm, K., & Rothmann, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South African police service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 62–70.
Swanson, R.A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 62(2), 207–213.
52 Human Resource Development Climate in India
Vision, 17, 1 (2013): 41–52
Venkateswaran, S.K.P. (1997). A note on human resource devel- opment climate. Vikalpa, 22(1), 51–53.
Richa Chaudhary ([email protected]) is a full-time research scholar at Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India. She is currently researching on employee engagement, self- efficacy and human resource development climate in Indian business organizations. Her other research interests include human capital, motivation, career exploration, career success, career strategy implementation. She has published research papers in international and national journals of repute like The Psychologist Manager Journal, Team Performance Management, Europe’s Journal of Psychology, Review of Management and Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. She has also presented papers in many national and international conferences in India and abroad.
Santosh Rangnekar ([email protected]) is Associate Professor and HOD at Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India. He has 25 years of work experience in both industry and academics.
Under his supervision four candidates have been awarded Doctorate degree and currently eight candidates are pursuing Ph.D. He is currently researching on different dimensions of human resource practices in organizations and the factors responsible for developing human capital for effective performance. He has so far researched in the area of personality traits, leadership traits and creation of intellectual capital, organizational culture and organizational development.
Mukesh Barua ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor at Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India. He is a mechanical engineer by profession. He obtained his Ph.D. from Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. He has more than 15 years of work experience in academics. He has attended many national and international conferences and has published several papers in national and international journals. He has organized a large number of workshops on statistical tools and techniques. He is currently guiding four Ph.D. students. His research interests include operations manage- ment and supply chain management.
Copyright of Vision (09722629) is the property of Management Development Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
