Table 4.1Item to Total Correlation of Human Resource Development Practices

Results

4.1 Consistency

To check the consistency of all variables item to total correlation test were applied through SPSS. Theitem-total correlationtest arises inpsychometricsin contexts where a number of tests or questions are given is consistent or not. The analysis is performed to purify the measure by eliminating ‘garbage’ items prior to determining the factors that represent the construct Churchill, G.A., (1979). Under this correlation of every item with total was measured and the computed value was compared with standard value.

Table 4.1Item to Total Correlation of Human Resource Development Practices

S No. / Items / Corrected Item to total correlation value / Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted / Result
1 / Training programmes on specific knowledge. / 0.494 / 0.595 / Accepted
2 / Satisfied on existing training programme. / 0.264 / 0.632 / Accepted
3 / Aware of training policy / 0.456 / 0.601 / Accepted
4 / Training helps to know hidden talent / 0.611 / 0.571 / Accepted
5 / Job rotation to development. / 0.230 / 0.643 / Accepted
6 / Appraisal system is growth & development oriented. / 0.184 / 0.643 / Accepted
7 / Criteria adopted for performance appraisal in your company / 0.210 / 0.635 / Accepted
8 / Satisfaction level with the Performance Appraisal system / 0.310 / 0.665 / Accepted
9 / Frank discussion for both the appraisal & the appraised / 0.191 / 0.647 / Accepted
10 / Is transfer helps to avoid boredom / 0.426 / 0.602 / Accepted
11 / Is promotion helps for boosting moral / 0.198 / 0.644 / Accepted
12 / Is promotion based on seniority & merit level of employees / 0.189 / 0.648 / Accepted
13 / Is transfer satisfying needs of both employer & employees / 0.286 / 0.629 / Accepted

Here corrected Item to total correlation value had taken which were >.2 asEveritt, B.S. (2002)has taken in his study. Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted were also measured and found there is no item when dropped increases reliability.

Table 4.2Item to Total Correlation Impact of Technological Changes on HRD Practices

S. No. / Questionnaire / Corrected Item to total correlation value / Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted / Consistent / Result
1 / Hiring Developed workforce / 0.505 / 0.708 / Consistent / Accepted
2 / Outsource Technology / 0.401 / 0.727 / Consistent / Accepted
3 / Outsource Human Resource / 0.358 / 0.735 / Consistent / Accepted
4 / Frequency of training &development program / 0.498 / 0.710 / Consistent / Accepted
5 / Technical training / 0.284 / 0.747 / Consistent / Accepted
6 / In house training programme / 0.495 / 0.710 / Consistent / Accepted
7 / Specialized training / 0.490 / 0.710 / Consistent / Accepted
8 / Adventure training / 0.497 / 0.709 / Consistent / Accepted

Table 4.3 Item to Total Correlation of Impact of Working Environment on HRD Practices

S. N / Items / Corrected Item to total correlation value / Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted / Consistency / Result
1 / Care by Supervisor officers. / 0.185 / 0.717 / Consistent / Accepted
2 / Supervisor asks for feedback. / 0.112 / 0.720 / Consistent / Accepted
3 / Satisfaction with Position / 0.102 / 0.723 / Consistent / Accepted
4 / Emotionally disturbing Situation / 0.092 / 0.721 / Consistent / Accepted
5 / Put all Efforts / 0.005 / 0.726 / Consistent / Accepted
6 / Understand the Mission. / 0.050 / 0.726 / Consistent / Accepted
7 / Good Team Spirit / 0.148 / 0.719 / Consistent / Accepted
8 / Emotional attachment / 0.058 / 0.725 / Consistent / Accepted
9 / Provide you right atmosphere / 0.169 / 0.717 / Consistent / Accepted
10 / Reasonable chance for promotion / 0.149 / 0.719 / Consistent / Accepted
11 / Psychological climate / 0.154 / 0.718 / Consistent / Accepted
12 / Rewards & Reorganization / 0.216 / 0.714 / Consistent / Accepted
13 / Satisfaction with workload / 0.581 / 0.686 / Consistent / Accepted
14 / Personnel Policy / 0.564 / 0.687 / Consistent / Accepted
15 / Women employees / 0.552 / 0.690 / Consistent / Accepted
16 / To Prove My Worth / 0.482 / 0.694 / Consistent / Accepted
17 / Involve employees to set the goals / 0.534 / 0.689 / Consistent / Accepted
18 / Help to Reduce Stress / 0.410 / 0.700 / Consistent / Accepted
19 / Feedback on his/her Performance / 0.283 / 0.710 / Consistent / Accepted
20 / To help another Employees / 0.000 / 0.735 / Consistent / Accepted
21 / Great place to work / 0.465 / 0.700 / Consistent / Accepted
22 / Accusing each other. / 0.448 / 0.701 / Consistent / Accepted
23 / Enjoy their work / 0.331 / 0.708 / Consistent / Accepted
24 / Extra circular activity / 0.305 / 0.709 / Consistent / Accepted
25 / Think outside / 0.170 / 0.718 / Consistent / Accepted
26 / Fairly distributed / 0.352 / 0.707 / Consistent / Accepted
27 / Treated with Respect / 0.156 / 0.717 / Consistent / Accepted
28 / Security & Improve productivity / 0.027 / 0.730 / Consistent / Accepted

Here corrected Item to total correlation value had taken which were >.2 as Everett, B.S. (2002)has taken in his study. Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted were also measured and found there is no item when dropped increases reliability.

4.2 Reliability

Joppe (2000) defines reliability as the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable. Although the term ‘Reliability’ is a concept used for testing or evaluating quantitative Research, the idea is most often used in all kinds of research. If we see the idea of testing as a way of information elicitation then the most important test of any qualitative study is its quality.

Reliability is the consistency of all the measurement, or the degree to which instrument measures the same way each time it is used the same condition with the same subject factors in the questionnaires were checked through item to total correlation. Under this correlation of every item with total was measured and the computed value was compared with standard value (0.112815 for150 respondents). The factors having item to total correlation lower than the critical value, were declared as inconsistent and dropped from the questionnaire.

To measure reliability of the four variables Cronbach, s alpha reliability is calculated using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).It is commonly used as a measure of the internal consistency or reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of examines. It was name as alpha by Lee Cronbach in 1951.The table below shows reliability of the variables.

Table 4.4 Showing Reliability Values

S.No. / Variables / Number of Items / Cronbach’s alpha reliability
1 / HRD Practices / 13 / 0.644
2. / Technological Changes / 8 / 0.745
3 / Working Environment / 28 / 0.731

The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of all the four variables are very high. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient normally ranges between o and 1. However, there is actually no lower limit to the coefficient. The closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0 the greater the internal consistency of the items scale.

4.3 Validity

Validity is the extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. Validity is an element of social science research which addresses the issue of whether the research is actually measuring. The question of validity is raised in the context of the three points made above, the form of the test, the purpose of the test and the population for whom it is intended. We can divide the types of validity into logical and empirical.

Content Validity

When we want to find out if the entire content of the behavior/construct/area is represented in the test we compare the test task with the content of the behavior. This is a logical method, not an empirical one. Example, if we want to test knowledge on American Geography it is not fair to have most questions limited to the geography of New England.

Face Validity

Basically face validity refers to the degree to which a test appears to measure what it purports to measure.

Criterion-Oriented or Predictive Validity

When you are expecting a future performance based on the scores obtained currently by the measure, correlate the scores obtained with the performance. The later performance is called the criterion and the current score is the prediction. This is an empirical check on the value of the test – a criterion-oriented or predictive validation.

Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity is the degree to which the scores on a test are related to the scores on another, already established, test administered at the same time, or to some other valid criterion available at the same time. Example, a new simple test is to be used in place of an old cumbersome one, which is considered useful; measurements are obtained on both at the same time. Logically, predictive and concurrent validation are the same, the term concurrent validation is used to indicate that no time elapsed between measures.

Construct Validity

Construct validity is the degree to which a test measures an intended hypothetical construct. Many times psychologists assess/measure abstract attributes or constructs. The process of validating the interpretations about that construct as indicated by the test score is construct validation. This can be done experimentally, e.g., if we want to validate a measure of anxiety. We have a hypothesis that anxiety increases when subjects are under the threat of an electric shock, then the threat of an electric shock should increase anxiety scores (note: not all construct validation is this dramatic!) To ensure techniques, in this study both item to total co-relation and factor analysis were used.

4.4 Factor Analysis

Factor analysisis astatisticalmethod used to describevariabilityamong observed, correlatedvariablesin terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables called factors. Factor analysis is related toprincipal component analysis(PCA), but the two are not identical.Latent variable models, including factor analysis, use regression modeling techniques to test hypotheses producing error terms, while PCA is a descriptive statistical technique.There has been significant controversy in the field over the equivalence or otherwise of the two techniques (seeexploratory factor analysis versus principal components analysis). The varimax rotation with Kaiser- Meyer Olkin test for sampling adequacy and Barlett’s test of spehericity was applied on all items of three questionnaires where Eigen values explained the amount of variance explained by factors. The rotated component matrix was used to find out loading of items to particular factors. The loading is similar to correlation the values are expressed between 0 and 1. Higher the value of loading more the items is correlated to the factors.

Factor Analysis of Human Resource Development Practices

All items of HRD practices 13 items were subjected to factor analysis to find out the factors that contribute towards ‘HRD practices in Telecom Sector”. After factor analysis six factors were identified. In which 5 items were under first factor Employees Development, 2 items were coverage under second factor Career Expection. In third factor 2 items were there Job redesigning, Self appraisal was forth factor in which 2 items were there, Flexibility was fifth factor in which 1 item was there, in last but not least six factor is Adequacy including 1 item only.

The KMO Index and Bartlett,s test of sphercity was calculated and values were 0.505 and Chi- Square value of 920.731 at p value 0.000. The values indicate that it is suitable to apply factor analysis.

Table 4.5 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. / .505
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity / Approx. Chi-Square / 920.731
Df / 78
Sig. / .000

KMO measures of sampling adequacy values is close to 1 ( in table 4.5) which indicates patterns of correlations are relatively packed in and therefore factors analysis will give distinct and reliable factor Field (2005). The cut off value considered in the study was 0.5 Kaiser(1961) recommended that a value less than 0.5 is barely acceptable , while values ranging 0.5-0.6 can be considered acceptable, our value carry between 0.5-0.6 which is acceptable.

Table 4.6Factor for Human Resource Development Practices

Factor name / Eigen value / Variable convergence / Loading value
Total / % of Variance
Employees Development / 2.359 / 18.143
1. Training on firm specific knowledge / 0.765
4. To know your hidden talent / 0.745
2. Increase your technical skill / 0.717
3. Aware of training policy / 0.500
13. Transfer satisfying needs / 0.401
Career Expectation / 1.773 / 13.637 / 11. Promotion helps in boosting moral / 0.915
10. Transpher help to avoid boredom / 0.783
Job Redesigning / 1.460 / 11.234 / 12 Promotion based on merit level / 0.819
5. Job rotation for development / 0.817
Self Appraisal / 1.438 / 11.061 / 6. Appraisal is development / 0.775
8. Satisfaction with Appraisal / 0.575
Flexibility / 1.284 / 9.876 / 9. Frank discussion for both / 0.825
Adequacy / 1.145 / 8.804 / 7. Criteria adopted appraisal / 0.881

Description of Factors of HRD Practices

1. Employees Development – This came out first factor of HRD Practices. It is having total of 2.359& percentage of variance is18.143. In this factor total six item converged. Which are includes Firm specific knowledge, knowing hidden talent, increased skill, awareness of training policy, & transfer fulfilled need of employees & employees. Cannell.M(2004) also include to acquire new or advanced skills, knowledge, and view points, by providinglearning and trainingfacilities, and avenues where such new ideas can be applied”.

This measurement framework has been used to develop Employees. Human Resource Development, develop their employees through specific training, knowledge & learning.

2. Career Expectation - This is the second important factor HRD practices with total variance of 1.773& % of variance is 13.637. These factors include 2 items which is promotion help & Transpher need. It include self inspiration & self motivated through promotion of employees.

3.Job Redesigning -This factor of HRD practicesincludes the Job rotation promotion based on merit level with total variance of is 1.460 at %of variance is 11.234. Murphy (1986) in their study find main objective of conducting job redesigning is to place the right person at the right job and get the maximum output while increasing their level of satisfaction.

4. Self Appraisal- This is the second important factor HRD practices with total variance of 1.438 & % of variance is 11.061. This factor of HRD includes performance appraisal helps in growth and effective learning. During the research I found that self appraisal helps in increasing performance on job.

5. Flexibity- These factors have emerged as the most important determinant of HRD practices with total variance of 1.284 & % of variance is 9.876. It includes frank discussion among employer & employees. Goold, 1986; suggest that inmanagement flexibility which allow both supervisors and employees to accomplish their goals,

Cooper (2001) suggested that flexibility were best suited for developmental rather than evaluative purposes, and improves operating efficiency, take care of personal needs, and adapt to the changing needs.

6. Adequacy - This factor of HRDincludes the Considerable importance of criteria adopted for appraising with total variance of1.145 & % of variance is 8.804. Ittner et.al.(1997) define that employees must give importance for criteria adopting for appraisal their performance.

Figure 4.1 showing Factor Model of HRD Practices

Factors Analysis of Impact of Technological Changes on HRD Practices

All items of Technological Changes 8 items were subjected to factor analysis to find out the factors that contribute towards ‘HRD practices in Telecom Sector”. After factor analysis three factors were identified. In which 3 items were under first factor Strategic HRD, 3 items were coverage under second factor Global mindset Training. In third factor 2 items were there which is Cross culture Training.

The KMO Index and Bartlett,s test of sphercity was calculated and values were 0.641 and Chi- Square value of 660.692 at p value 0.000. The values indicate that it is suitable to apply factor analysis.

Table 4.7 KMO and Bartlett's Test for Impact of Technological Changes on HRD Practices

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. / .641
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity / Approx. Chi-Square / 660.692
df / 28
Sig. / .000

A KMO measures of sampling adequacy values is close to 1 ( in table 4.7) which indicates patterns of correlations are relatively packed in and therefore factors is analysis will give distinct and reliable factor Field (2005). The cut off value considered in the study was 0.5 Kaiser(1961) recommended that a value less than 0.5 is barely acceptable , while values ranging 0.5-0.6 can be considered acceptable, our value carry between 0.6-0.7 which acceptable.

Table 4.8 Factors of Impact of Technological Changes in HRD Practices

Factor name / Eigen value / Variable convergence / Loading
Value
Total / %variencevvarieeeeeee Variance
1.Strategic HRM / 1.872 / 23.404 / 7 External agencies / 0.891
8.Adventure Training / 0.742
6 In-house Training / 0.627
2.Golal mindset Training / 1.868 / 23.346 / 5. Technical Training / 0.827
4.Frequency Training / 0.764
2Outsource Technology / 0.513
3.Crossculture Training / 1.673 / 20.907 / 3. Outsource Human Resource / 0.915
1. Hiring Development Force / 0.794

Description of Factors of Impact of Technological Changes in HRD Practices

1. Strategic HRM - This factor has emerged as the most important determinant of Technological changes in HRD Practices with total of 1.872 at % of variance is 23.404. It includes External training , adventure training and In-house training.; Nag, R.; Hambrick, D. C.; Chen, M.-J (2007) talks about involves the formulation and implementation of the major goals and initiatives taken by a company's top management on behalf of owners.The determination of the basic long-term goals of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals

2. Global mindset Training - This is the second important factor of Technological changes in HRD Practices with total variance of 1.868 at % of variance is 23.346. This factor of HRD Practices included Technical Training, Satisfaction with frequency of training & outsource of technology. RaoP.Subba (2008) suggested that global mind set training is a compressive act. It includes globalization of business, globalization of culture & globalization of technology.

3.Cross Culture Training -This factor of determinant of Technological changes in HRD Practices includes the Outsource HR& Hiring development force with total variance of 1.673 at % of variance is 20.907. Murphy (1986) describe that it is most significant & critical one among the area of global training. Cross culture Training depends up on org. strategies, structure, culture, power & politics.

Figure 4.2 Showing Factor Model of Impact of Technological Changes on HRD Practices

Factor Analysis Impact of Working Environment on HRD Practices

All items of HRD practices 28 items were subjected to factor analysis to find out the factors that contribute towards ‘HRD practices in Telecom Sector”. After factor analysis nine factors were identified. In which 6 items were under first factor Organization Programme & policy, again 6 items were coverage under second factor which is Work Culture. In third factor 4 items were there Rewards & recognition. Psychological contract was forth factor in which 3 items were there, Employees Motivation was fifth factor in which 2 item was there, the six factor was Mission in which 2 items was there, the next factor was Versatile got 2 items., eight factor was QWL which including 2 items, in last nine factor is Job Loyalty was having only 1 item was there.

The KMO Index and Bartlett,s test of sphercity was calculated and values were 0.732 and Chi- Square value of 3.067 at p value 0.000. The values indicate that it is suitable to apply factor analysis.