International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
31
HRD Maturity-A Study in a Ferro Alloy Company
1Padmalita Routray,
2Pinakshi Bag
1Assistant Professor, Department of Business Management, Fakir Mohan University, Balasore
2Faculty Member, MEMS, Balasore
Abstract: HRD maturity makes an
organization more performance oriented. In
the present study a Ferro Alloy company is
chosen which has initiated many HRD
activities over the years. The authors examine
whether the HRD subsystems have achieved
high level of maturity or not. The study
identified 16 factors under HRD maturity by
administering a valid instrument. The
difference of opinion is also observed for few
factors under HRD maturity. Though the
maturity level is very high the adequacy of the
subsystems is not optimum.
Keywords: HRD Maturity, Integrated HRD
System, Strategic HRD Practices,
Performance Management System
I. INTRODUCTION
Different approaches to evaluate HR
function have been used by different
researchers. Kaplan & Norton's (1992, 1993)
Balance Score Card approach, Ulrich &
Lake's (1990) Strategic HR Frame work and
integrative framework approach of Yeung&
Berman (1997) were the most promising
approaches used to evaluate the HR
functions and it impact.Rao (1999) proposed
a model called HRD Score card to evaluate
HRD maturity level of an organisation based
on the work of Pareek & Rao (1992). In
the model proposed by Rao (1999) first
time exclusive emphasis on HRD function
and its effectiveness was given.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE
STUDY
The Indian Ferro Alloys industry established
over 50 years ago is engaged in supplying
crucial intermediates to the steel industry.
The organization under study is
manufacturer of Ferro Alloys located in
northern part of the state and recognised as a
major business house in the country.
The company saw a change in management
set up towards the end of the year 2003 and
a new beginning was made. Various
Organisational Development Initiatives were
put into place and several other steps were
taken to improve the operational efficiency
and to achieve optimum level of
productivity. The Company has continued
its focus towards various strategic
management initiatives with a view to
exploit favorable market conditions and
bring razor edge performance. Putting
people first has been the key aspect of every
turnaround strategy and the organisation has
continuously ensured adopting the best
Human Resource Development practices.
With the above background, the present
study aims at identifying the strength and
weakness of HRD systems &subsystems in
the present organisation. The organization
has initiated several HRD practices since its
inception and has adopted several changes to
overcome the problems related to people
development. All the strategic initiatives of
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
32
the organization were backed by different
HRD activities. Therefore, the researchers
have tried to examine various HRD issues
by assessing maturity level of HRD
subsystems. Researcher has used an
instrument developed by Rao(1999) to
assess the HRD system maturity.
III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Lee (1996), using a model of training
maturity originally proposed by Burgoyne
(1986) in relation to management
development, suggested that in strategically
mature organisations, SHRD resides in a
proactive role at the top of the scale.
Training and learning are processes through
which strategy is formulated; training and
learning possibilities help to shape
strategy, training is the means for
implementing corporate strategy and
achieving change, and training is integrated
with operational management. HRD score
card approach formulated by Rao (1999)
envisages that, in order to make the right
business impact, HRD interventions should
be mature in terms of HRD systems,
competencies, cultures and business
linkages. Through a well formulated HRD
audit, the following are assessed:
a. The maturity level and appropriateness of
each of the subsystem.
b. The appropriateness of each of the
HRD structure, level of competencies of
HR staff, line managers and top
management.
c. The appropriateness of HRD culture and
style of top management.
The effectiveness and success of HRD
interventions is conceptualised from a
formal, structured and strategically focused
HRD orientation (Garavan, 1991; Garavan
et al, 1995; Mc Goldrick& Stewart, 1996;
McCracken & Wallace, 2000; Swanson &
Holton III, 2001; Gilley et al, 2002).
Moreover, a strategically focused HRD
structure is argued to consist of the ability of
organisations to formulate plans and
policies for HRD and integrate them with
plans and policies in HR, and also with
overall business plans (Garavan, 1991;
McCracken & Wallace, 1999).
IV. METHODOLOGY
A questionnaire was constructed for
measuring HRD system maturity using
Rao‟s(1990) framework. To measure this
dimension the respondents were asked to
evaluate various sub systems on basis of
their relevance to organisational goals, the
extent to which it balances the current and
future HR needs, the extent to which it flows
from corporate strategies, the extent to
which it is designed systematically, whether
it is implemented properly or not, the extent
to which it is integrated with other
subsystems and the level of adequacy of
these subsystems in a five point likert scale
(strongly agree-5 to strongly disagree-1).
However, in the questionnaire, these were
presented in form of a matrix having 11
variables as HRD subsystems in the row and
7 organisation specific descriptors in the
columns. By cross-multiplication 77 items
were derived for considering the same for
factor analysis. The reliability test of the
questionnaire was done by calculating
Cronbach‟s Alpha statistics which was
found to be 0.975. A total of 300
questionnaires were distributed, out of
which 180 (60%) was the response rate and
further 150 (50%) questionnaires were
perfectly in usable form. Four categories of
employees in the sample are included viz.
supervisors, executives, officers and
managers.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the present study is to
identify the HRD maturity level of the
organisation,
find out the perception of different
employees across supervisors,
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
33
managers, executives and officers
categoryand
determine the factors those are
important to strengthen HRD practices
to increase the HRD maturity level.
Hypotheses of the Study
Assuming that perception of different
employees significantly varies across
supervisors, managers, executives and
officers on HRD system maturity the
following hypothesis was framed.
“There is no difference between
supervisor, manager, executive and
officer for the factors of HRD system
maturity”.
V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The respondents‟ profile shown in table 1
reveals that the sample size covers
respondents from various length of service,
age-groups and having different types of
qualification. Looking at the descriptive
statistics of the variables under HRD
system maturity is it is observed from table
2 that all the subsystems are highly relevant
for the organisations. However, most of the
subsystems are not properly integrated with
other subsystems and to some extent are
able to balance the current and future HR
needs. Though the systems are well
designed, flow from corporate strategies and
implemented properly, scope for
improvement is still there. The subsystems
adequacies are at high level in many cases
like Training and HR Information System.
To draw a better picture on HRD system
maturity factor analysis was employed to
find the underlying construct for all the 77
variables representing different subsystems
taken together. This aspect is analysed in
subsequent section.
Table: 1 Respondents’ Profile
Criteria for
Classificatio
n
Classification of
Respondents
Freque
ncy
Percenta
ge
Category
of
Respondents
Supervisors 50 33.3
Managers 30 20.0
Executives 26 16.0
Officers 46 30.7
Length of
Service
Less than 5 year 33 22.0
6 to 10 year 38 25.3
11 to 15 year 33 22.0
16 and above 46 30.7
Qualification Matriculation 22 14.7
Intermidiate /
diploma/ ITI
38 25.3
Bachelor degree 64 42.7
Master/Profession
al degree
26 17.3
Age Group 20 to 25 years 4 2.7
26 to 30 years 20 13.3
31 to 35 years 32 21.3
36 to 40 years 34 22.7
41 to 45 years 30 20.0
46 to 50 years. 18 12.0
51 to 55 years 12 8.0
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of HRD System Maturity
HRD Subsystem
It is relevant to organisational
goals
It balances the current and future
HR needs
It flows from corporate strategies
It is designed systematically
It is being implemented properly
It is integrated with other subsystems
The level of adequacy of this subsystem
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Manpower planning & recruitment(MPR)
4.47 .682 4.28 .725 4.45 .585 4.36 .735 4.20 .655 4.13 .791 3.97 .806
Potential appraisal and promotions
4.53 .711 4.20 .742 4.29 .790 4.22 .996 4.13 .822 3.80 .851 3.89 .901
Career planning &development
4.47 .631 4.29 .871 4.38 .692 4.16 .812 4.15 .708 3.67 1.033 4.06 .845
Performance Planning and
Management
4.64 .482 4.41 .852 4.52 .514 4.45 .808 4.25 .779 4.20 .786 4.06 .788
Training 4.57 .649 4.07 .997 4.39 .590 4.30 .833 4.19 .800 4.31 .634 4.28 .725
Performance Coaching & Feedback
4.42 .813 4.33 .790 4.35 .777 4.33 .737 4.33 .672 4.24 .711 4.06 .735
Job rotation 4.35 .837 4.31 .872 4.44 .690 4.24 .766 4.11 .829 4.15 .814 3.99 .859
Worker Development 4.31 .851 4.26 .728 4.43 .649 4.29 .797 4.22 .767 3.90 .873 4.06 .821
OD & Self-renewal
systems
4.46 .701 4.24 .833 4.28 .812 4.28 .778 4.25 .741 4.06 .845 4.05 .846
HR Information Systems 4.55 .630 4.27 .843 4.43 .669 4.38 .739 4.33 .690 4.11 .790 4.25 .779
Quality Circles 4.49 .693 4.32 .780 4.39 .731 4.28 .820 4.21 .753 4.05 .805 3.92 1.078
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
34
Table 3 KMO and Bartlett's Test of HRD System Maturity
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .720
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-
Square
14409.123
Df 2926
Sig. .000
To reduce the number of variables under
HRD System Maturity factor analysis
through principal component method and
varimax rotation was employed to find
underlying constructs explaining these
variables. The adequacy of the data is
obtained on the basis of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) and
Bartlett‟s test of Sphericity and the results
are shown in table 3. Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin
Measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) is a
statistics that indicates the proportion of
variance in the variables that might be
caused by underlying factors. High value
(close to 1) generally indicates that factor
analysis is useful with the data. In the
present study the value is 0.720 which
indicates the suitability of the technique.
Bartlett‟s test of sphericity tests the
hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an
identity matrix, which would indicate that
the variables are unrelated and therefore
unsuitable for structure detection. Small
values (less than 0.05) of the significance
level indicate that a factor analysis may be
useful with the data. In the present data the
value of significance level is .000 which
shows that it is useful for factor analysis.
The table 4 explains the initial eigen values
which represent the total variance explained
by each factor. Using Kaiser criterion
factors having eigen value more than 1 is
retained. By taking more than 1 eigenvalue
16 factors have been extracted from 77
variables, which explain 78.61% variance as
shown in table 4.Factor 1 alone explains
29.376 percent of variance and the
cumulative percent of 79% explains the
variance accounted by all other extracted
factors.
Table 4 Total Variance Explained of HRD system Maturity
Component
Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulativ
e %
Total % of
Variance
Cumulativ
e %
Total % of
Variance
Cumulativ
e %
1 29.37
6
38.151 38.151 29.37
6
38.151 38.151 17.17
3
22.303 22.303
2 5.846 7.593 45.743 5.846 7.593 45.743 6.353 8.250 30.553
3 3.964 5.148 50.891 3.964 5.148 50.891 3.948 5.127 35.680
4 2.631 3.417 54.309 2.631 3.417 54.309 3.677 4.776 40.456
5 2.344 3.044 57.353 2.344 3.044 57.353 3.569 4.635 45.090
6 2.248 2.920 60.273 2.248 2.920 60.273 3.381 4.391 49.481
7 1.955 2.539 62.812 1.955 2.539 62.812 3.317 4.308 53.789
8 1.786 2.320 65.132 1.786 2.320 65.132 2.664 3.460 57.249
9 1.610 2.091 67.223 1.610 2.091 67.223 2.592 3.367 60.616
10 1.473 1.913 69.137 1.473 1.913 69.137 2.477 3.217 63.833
11 1.351 1.755 70.892 1.351 1.755 70.892 2.363 3.069 66.903
12 1.299 1.687 72.579 1.299 1.687 72.579 2.001 2.599 69.502
13 1.295 1.681 74.260 1.295 1.681 74.260 1.941 2.520 72.022
14 1.218 1.581 75.842 1.218 1.581 75.842 1.833 2.381 74.402
15 1.107 1.437 77.279 1.107 1.437 77.279 1.628 2.114 76.517
16 1.025 1.331 78.610 1.025 1.331 78.610 1.612 2.093 78.610
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
35
Figure : Scree plot of HRD System Maturity
From the scree plot it is also evident that
though 16 items (factors) have more than 1
eigen value three factors explain the concept
of strategic HRD maturity. The factors, the
corresponding variables under it, the loading
and the mean score are given below.
Factor-1 Integrated HRD System
Factor-2 Strategic HRD Practices Statement/variables Factor Loading Mean score
MPR relevant to organizational goals. 0.690 4.47
MPR flows from corporate strategies 0.590 4.45
Career planning & development relevant to organizational goals 0.725 4.47
Career planning & development balances HR needs 0.582 4.29
Performance planning & mgt. relevant to organizational goals, 0.453 4.64
Training is relevant to organizational goals 0.541 4.57
Job rotation flows from corporate strategies 0.484 4.44
Job rotation designed systematically 0.587 4.24
OD & self renewal systems relevant to organizational goals 0.465 4.46
Average mean score 4.44
Statements/ variables Factor Loadings Mean score
MPR balances the current & future HR needs 0.544 4.28
MPR is designed systematically 0.628 4.36
MPR is implemented properly 0.768 4.20
MPR integrated with other subsystems 0.805 4.13
MPR subsystem adequacy is optimum 0.786 3.97
Potential appraisal and promotion level is adequate 0.496 3.89
Career planning & development implemented properly 0.760 4.15
Optimum level of adequacy of Career planning & development subsystem is there 0.563 4.06
Level of adequacy of the subsystem „training‟ is optimum 0.620 4.28
Performance coaching & feedback integrated with other subsystems 0.731 4.24
Job rotation implemented properly, 0.542 4.11
Job rotation integrated with other subsystems, 0.899 4.15
Optimum level of adequacy is there in job rotation 0.791 3.99
Worker development balances HR needs 0.525 4.26
Worker development implemented properly 0.666 4.22
Worker development integrated with other subsystems, 0.524 3.90
Optimum level of adequacy of worker development mechanism is there 0.828 4.06
OD & self renewal systems designed systematically 0.445 4.28
OD & self renewal systems implemented properly 0.704 4.25
OD & self renewal systems integrated with other subsystems 0.822 4.06
Optimum level of adequacy of the subsystem OD& self renewal is there 0.811 4.05
HR information system implemented properly 0.566 4.33
HR information system integrated with other subsystems 0.566 4.11
Optimum level of adequacy of HR information system is there 0.803 4..25
Quality circles implemented properly 0.583 4.21
Quality circles integrated with other subsystems 0.841 405
Optimum level of adequacy of the subsystem „quality circles‟ is there 0.695 3.92
Average mean score 4.29
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
36
Factor-3 Performance Management System
Statements/ variables Factor
Loading
Mean score
Performance planning &management implemented properly 0.369 4.25
Performance planning & mgt. integrated with other subsystems 0.501 4.20
Optimum level of adequacy of the subsystem „performance planning
& management is there
0.634 4.06
Performance coaching & feedback designed systematically 0.445 4.33
HR information system balances HR needs 0.606 4.27
Average mean score 4.22
Factor-4 OD
Factor-5 Corporate Strategy & HRD
Factor-6 Identification of HR needs
Factor-7 Promotion system
Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean score
Potential appraisal and promotion designed systematically 0.542 4.22
Potential appraisal and promotion implemented properly 0.769 4.13
Potential appraisal and promotion integrated with other subsystem 0.804 3.80
Average mean score 4.12
Factor-8 Training Strategy
Statements/ variables Factor
Loading
Mean
score
Performance planning &management flows from corporate
strategies
0.505 4.52
Training flows from corporate strategies 0.441 4.39
Training designed systematically 0.692 4.30
Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean score
Worker development flows from corporate strategies 0.508 4.43
OD & self renewal systems balances HR needs 0.468 4.24
HR information systems relevant to organizational goals 0.650 4.55
HR information system flows from corporate strategies. 0.706 4.43
Average mean score 4.41
Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean score
Career planning and development strategy flows from corporate
strategies
0.405 4.38
Performance coaching & feedback flows from corporate strategies 0.590 4.35
Quality circles flow from corporate strategies 0.784 4.39
Quality circles are designed systematically 0.465 4.28
Average mean score 4.35
Statements/ variables Factor
Loading
Mean score
Potential appraisal and promotion balances HR needs 0.383 4.20
Performance planning &management balances HR needs 0.439 4.41
Performance planning & management designed
systematically
0.517 4.45
Training balances HR needs 0.747 4.07
Job rotation balances HR needs 0.622 4.31
Average mean score 4.28
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
37
Training integrated with other subsystems 0.629 4.31
Average mean score 4.38
Factor-9Potential appraisal strategy
Statements/ variables Factor
Loading
Mean
score
Potential appraisal and promotion relevant to organizational goals 0.741 4.53
Potential appraisal and promotion flows from corporate strategies. 0.688 4.29
Average mean score 4.41
Factor-10 Performance Coaching
Factor-11 Quality Orientation
Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean score
Performance coaching & feedback implemented properly 0.610 4.33
Worker development designed systematically, 0.503 4.29
Quality circles relevant to organizational goals 0.423 4.49
Quality circles balances HR needs 0.448 4.32
Average mean score 4.35
Factor-12 Worker Development
Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean score
Worker development relevant to organizational goals 0.827 4.31
Average mean score 4.31
Factor-13Self-renewal system
Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean
score
OD & self renewal systems flows from corporate strategies 0.678 4.28
Average mean score 4.28
Factor-14 Training Implementation
Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean score
Training implemented properly 0.738 4.19
Average mean score 4.19
Factor -15 Integrated Career Planning
Statement Factor
Loading
Mean score
Career planning & development integrated with other
subsystems.
0.761 3.67
Average mean score 3.67
Factor -16 Systematic Career Planning
Statement Factor Loading Mean score
Career planning & development designed 0.481 4.45
Statements/ variables Factor
Loading
Mean score
Performance coaching & feedback relevant to organizational
goals
0.796 4.42
Level of adequacy of the subsystem performance coaching & feedback is optimum
0.419 4.06
Job rotation relevant to organizational goals. 0.483 4.35
Average mean score 4.27
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
38
systematically
Average mean score 4.45
Factor-1 which is named as Integrated HRD
System has highest loadings on 27 variables.
The average score of these variables shows
that factor is very relevant. The second
factor is named Strategic HRD Practices
where 9 variables are loaded. Performance
Management System is identified as third
important factor where 5 variables are
loaded on it .OD is identified as fourth
factor and Corporate Strategy & HRD is
identified as the fifth factor where 4
variables are loaded on each factor.
Identification of HR needs is identified as
sixth important factor where 5 variables are
loaded on it. Promotion System ,Training
Strategy ,Potential Appraisal Strategy,
Performance Coaching, Quality Orientation
Worker Development, Self-Renewal
System, Training Implementation,
Integrated Career Planning, Systematic
Career Planning are the other important
factors.
To test the effect of supervisors, executives,
officers and managers on the factors of HRD
System Maturity, One-Way ANOVA was
conducted with the following null
hypothesis.
Ho: There is no difference between
supervisor, manager, executive and officer
for the factors of HRD system maturity.
Levene‟s statistics shown in table 5 rejects
(Sig. value less than 0.05) the hypothesis
that the group (respondents‟ group)
variances are equal for the factors of HRD
system maturity like „Integrated HRD
System‟, „OD‟, „Promotion System‟,
„Potential Appraisal Strategy‟, „Performance
Coaching‟, „Self-Renewal System‟, „
Training Implementation‟, „Integrated
Career Planning‟, „Systematic Career
Planning‟.At the same time the above said
statistics accept the hypothesis that there are
equal variances between 4 categories of
respondents for the factors like „SHRD
Practices‟, „Performance Management
System‟, „Corporate Strategy & HRD‟,
„Identification of HR Needs‟, „Training
Strategy‟, „Quality Orientation‟, „Worker
Development‟.
Table 5 Test of Homogeneity of Variances of HRD System Maturity
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Integrated HRD System 2.749 3 146 .045
SHRD practice .937 3 146 .425
Performance management System .277 3 146 .842
OD 3.222 3 146 .025
Corporate strategy & HRD 1.641 3 146 .182
Identification of HR Needs 2.644 3 146 .051
Promotion system 5.862 3 146 .001
Training strategy .800 3 146 .496
Potential appraisal strategy 6.595 3 146 .000
Performance Coaching 3.452 3 146 .018
Quality Orientation .523 3 146 .667
worker development 1.554 3 146 .203
Self –Renewal System 3.210 3 146 .025
Training Implementation 2.991 3 146 .033
Integrated Career Planning 3.869 3 146 .011
Systematic Career Planning 2.710 3 146 .047
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
39
Table 6 ANOVA Analysis of HRD System Maturity Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Integrated HRD System Between Groups 14.163 3 4.721 5.112 .002
Within Groups 134.837 146 .924
Total 149.000 149
SHRD practice Between Groups 12.169 3 4.056 4.328 .006
Within Groups 136.831 146 .937
Total 149.000 149
Performance
management System
Between Groups 5.169 3 1.723 1.749 .160
Within Groups 143.831 146 .985
Total 149.000 149
OD Between Groups .433 3 .144 .142 .935
Within Groups 148.567 146 1.018
Total 149.000 149
Corporate strategy &
HRD
Between Groups 6.034 3 2.011 2.054 .109
Within Groups 142.966 146 .979
Total 149.000 149
Identification of HR
Needs
Between Groups 4.735 3 1.578 1.597 .193
Within Groups 144.265 146 .988
Total 149.000 149
Promotion system Between Groups 2.065 3 .688 .684 .563
Within Groups 146.935 146 1.006
Total 149.000 149
Training strategy Between Groups .333 3 .111 .109 .955
Within Groups 148.667 146 1.018
Total 149.000 149
Potential appraisal
strategy
Between Groups 1.301 3 .434 .429 .733
Within Groups 147.699 146 1.012
Total 149.000 149
Performance Coaching Between Groups 2.708 3 .903 .901 .442
Within Groups 146.292 146 1.002
Total 149.000 149
Quality Orientation Between Groups 1.531 3 .510 .505 .679
Within Groups 147.469 146 1.010
Total 149.000 149
Worker development Between Groups 2.451 3 .817 .814 .488
Within Groups 146.549 146 1.004
Total 149.000 149
Self –Renewal System Between Groups .977 3 .326 .321 .810
Within Groups 148.023 146 1.014
Total 149.000 149
Training Implementation Between Groups .806 3 .269 .265 .851
Within Groups 148.194 146 1.015
Total 149.000 149
Integrated career
planning
Between Groups 2.474 3 .825 .822 .484
Within Groups 146.526 146 1.004
Total 149.000 149
Systematic career
planning
Between Groups 4.349 3 1.450 1.463 .227
Within Groups 144.651 146 .991
Total 149.000 149
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
40
From the statistics of table 6 it is evident
that the average assessment score are not
equal over four categories of respondents on
the factors, „Integrated HRD System‟, and
„SHRD Practices‟. But for rest of the14
factors, the average assessment score over
four groups of respondents are equal. Now
studying the structure of the differences for
four groups of respondents for 16 factors by
the graphs (means plot) given below it can
be found that the differences exist between 4
groups of respondents for all factors
individually
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
41
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
42
MAJOR FINDINGS:
Factor analysing the variables under HRD
System Maturity reveals 16factors viz.
Integrated HRD System, SHRD Practices,
Performance Management System, OD,
Corporate Strategy & HRD, Identification of
HR needs, Integrated Promotion System,
Training Strategy, Potential Appraisal
Strategy, Performance Coaching, Quality
Orientation, Worker Development, Self-
Renewal System, Training Implementation,
Integrated Career Planning and Systematic
Career Planning. While judging HRD
System Maturity, supervisors, managers,
executives & officers differ over 9 factors
and those factors are Integrated HRD
System, OD, Integrated Promotion System,
Potential Appraisal Strategy, Performance
Coaching, Self-Renewal system, Training
Implementation, Integrated Career Planning,
and Systematic Career Planning and for rest
of 7 factors, the said group of employees of
Ferro Alloy Company do not differ on their
judgment. In specific the following findings
are revealed while judging HRD System
Maturity. Integrated HRD System is
identified as the single factor contributing to
HRD system maturity The same fact has
also been identified by the study of Routray
(2012) where she has already identified the
relevance of integrated HR practices in
BAL. However, Integrated HRD System
when combined with Strategic HRD
Practices and Performance Management
System explain substantially the HRD
system maturity. The organization has
implemented various subsystems like
Manpower Planning and Recruitment,
Career Planning and Development,
Performance Planning etc, where each of the
subsystem integrated well with other
subsystems. Though the systems are
designed well the adequacy of these
subsystems are not at optimum level.
However, the perceptions of managers and
executives are very poor so far as the
contribution of Integrated HRD System to
the HRD system maturity is concerned. But
the managers and executives rated the factor
SHRD Practices high and the officers and
the supervisors rated the same factor at
lowest level. This implies senior level
managers and executives are more involved
in strategic HRD practices. Though the other
factors under HRD system maturity do not
create any significant difference among
different categories of employees but
graphical analysis revealed that supervisors
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
43
rated very low the factors like SHRD
Practices, Performance Planning &
Management System, OD, Corporate
Strategy and HRD, Promotion System,
Potential Appraisal Strategy, Self- Renewal
System and Systematic Career Planning.
However, they rated very high Integrated
HRD System, Identification of HR needs,
Training Strategy and also to some extent
Performance Coaching, Worker
Development, Training Implementation and
Integrated Career Planning. This implies that
the various subsystems implemented well to
the lowest level and employees at lower
level are properly deployed through focus on
their development needs. At the lower level
Performance Coaching & Feedback is more
practiced. The organisation is concerned
about growth of the employees at lower
level. Managers perceive that Performance
Management System could have been more
systematic and authentic, through which
Identification of HR needs and development
of Training Strategy could have been better.
The managers perceive that career planning
is not linked to other subsystems for which
growth of employees is not very attractive in
the organisation particularly for employees
working at higher level. Officers rated many
factors high, except SHRD practices,
Performance Coaching, Worker
Development and Systematic Career
Planning which were very low. This implies
officers are least involved in strategic
decision making. Their own development
are not given importance by the organisation
and they think that worker development
could have been better in this organisation.
Executives have poor opinion particularly in
Training Implementation and Quality
Orientation in the organisation. They felt
that Performance Coaching & Feedback
should have been given more importance.
Worker Development should have been
systematic and Quality Circles should have
been more effective. They also felt that
training programmes could have been
implemented more effectively in this
organisation. Analysing the different HRD
subsystems it is revealed from the
perception of the employees that a high level
of HRD system maturity exists, though
scope for improvement is there.
CONCLUSION
The relevancy of various subsystems in any
organisation in relation to its goal cannot be
undermined. It should be linked to corporate
strategies, designed systematically,
implemented properly and be integrated
with other subsystems. Further, optimum
level of system adequacy must be there
where the organization should move from
simple subsystems to sophisticated
subsystems and spread the HRD activities
vertically.
REFERENCES
[1] Burgoyne, J.(1986),``Management
development for the individual and
the organisation'', Personnel
Management, June,pp.40-4.
[2] Garavan, T. N. (1991). “Strategic
Human Resource Development”
Journal Of European Industrial
Training, 15(1), 17-30.
[3] Garavan, Thomas N., Costine, P. and
Heraty, N. (1995). Emergence of
strategic HRD. Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol.19 No.10, pp.
4-10 <online resources
emeraldinsight.com accessed Oct 3,
2009
[4] Gilley, J.W., Eggland, S.A. and
Gilley, A.M. (2002) Principles of
Human Resource Development. (2nd
ed) Cambridge, Perseus Publishing.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journ
als.htm%3Farticleid%3D882228,
accessed on 12.08.2012
(chhhh=2)Journal of Manpower, 12
(6): pp. 21-34.
[5] Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1993)
Putting the Balanced Scorecard to
Work, Harvard Business Review
International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSN (Print): 2319–5479, Volume-4, Issue–1, 2015
44
(September-October). Harvard
Business Review. pp. 134- 142.
[6] Kaplan, R.S. and D. P. Norton (1992)
The Balanced Scorecard: Measures
that Drive Performance, Harvard
Business Review, (January-
February):pp.71-79.
[7] Lee, R. (1996a), What makes training
pay?, Issues in People
Management,No.11,Institute of
Personnel and Development, London.
[8] McCracken, M. and Wallace, M.
(1999) “Towards a Redefinition of
Strategic HRD”. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 24 (5): pp. 281-
290.
[9] McGoldrick, J. and Stewart, J. (1996)
The HRM-HRD nexus in Stewart, J.
and McGoldrick, J. (eds) Human
Resource Development: Perspectives,
Strategies and Practice. London:
Prentice Hall.
[10] Rao, T. V. (1999) HRD Audit:
Evaluating the HRD Function for
Business Improvements, New Delhi,
Response Books- SAGE India.
[11] Rao, T.V., (2004). “HRD Audit”,
Evaluating the Human Resource
Function for Business Improvement,
Sage Publications, New Delhi, ISBN:
0-7036-814-4
[12] Routray, P. (2012), “Diffusion of HR
Practices and its Effectiveness: A
Case of Ferro Alloys Company in
India, Value Creation through
Human Development - The Emerging
Dimensions”, ISTD, Kolkata.
[13] Swanson, R. A. and Holton, III, E. F.
(2001) Foundations of Human
Resource Development. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Inc.
[14] Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. (1990)
Organizational Capability; competing
from the inside out.New York; John
Wiely & Sons.
[15] Yeung, A K and Berman, B (1997)
“Adding Value through Human
Resources: Reorienting Human
Resource Measurement to Drive
Business Performance,” Human
Resource Management, Vol 36, No 3,
pp 321-335.