hrd maturity-a study in a ferro alloy company - ird · pdf filehrd maturity-a study in a...

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


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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,


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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.


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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



_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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


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


Factor-8 Training Strategy


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


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



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



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



_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


37

Training integrated with other subsystems 0.629 4.31


Factor-9Potential appraisal strategy


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


Factor-10 Performance Coaching

Factor-11 Quality Orientation


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


Factor-12 Worker Development


Worker development relevant to organizational goals 0.827 4.31


Factor-13Self-renewal system

Statements/ variables Factor Loading Mean

score

OD & self renewal systems flows from corporate strategies 0.678 4.28


Factor-14 Training Implementation


Training implemented properly 0.738 4.19


Factor -15 Integrated Career Planning

Statement Factor

Loading

Mean score

Career planning & development integrated with other

subsystems.

0.761 3.67


Factor -16 Systematic Career Planning

Statement Factor Loading Mean score

Career planning & development designed 0.481 4.45


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



_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


38

systematically


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


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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


Total 149.000 149

Performance

management System

Between Groups 5.169 3 1.723 1.749 .160


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


Total 149.000 149

Identification of HR

Needs

Between Groups 4.735 3 1.578 1.597 .193


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


Total 149.000 149


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


41


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm%3Farticleid%3D882228

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm%3Farticleid%3D882228


_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


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.

hrd maturity-a study in a ferro alloy company - ird · pdf filehrd maturity-a study in a...

Documents