CHAPTER 4 HR AUDIT PRACTICES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/89352/7... · 2016-05-10 · CHAPTER 4 . HR AUDIT PRACTICES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF

154

CHAPTER 4

HR AUDIT PRACTICES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF

EMPLOYEES IN IT FIRMS - AN ANALYSIS

The present chapter analyses with data analysis and results discussion in

accordance with the socio economic conditions prevailing in the sample area and by

referring and comparing with the review of literature. The present chapter is

presented in two parts. Part-I deals with the descriptive statistical analysis and Part-

II deals with the inferential statistical analysis. The detailed analysis along with the

appropriate tables and figures are presented in the following pages.

4.1 DATA ANALYSIS USING PERCENTAGE METHOD

The Results of the descriptive statistical table 4.1 shows that 57.9 percent

of the respondents in the sample are male and the remaining 42.1 percent are female

indicates that the IT firms are providing equal opportunities to the young talents in

the industry. This is very high percentage of women employees working, when

compared to many other sectors in the sample area. The physical observation notes

that, in some of the IT firms women are more when compared to men in the sample

area. The IT firms located in the City and near to the Residential places, women

work force is deployed more. It indicates that the IT firms plan the employee

allocation, basis of requirements and also by considering the security and other

parameters while deploying employees to different projects. Majority of these firms

provided travel logistics from residence to office and back to home. It indicates that

the IT firms are employee oriented and task orientated.

155

Table 4.1 Distribution of sample on the basis of Gender

Gender Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%) Valid Percentage-(%)

Male 256 57.9 57.9

Female 186 42.1 42.1

Total 442 100.0 100.0

Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire

Chart 4.1 Distribution of sample on the basis of Gender

Series1, Male, 256

Series1, Female, 186

FREQ

UEN

CY

GENDER

GENDER WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE

156

Table 4.2 Distribution of sample on the basis of Age Group in years

Age in years Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%) Valid Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Upto 20 62 14.0 14.0 14.0

21-30 181 41.0 41.0 55.0

31-40 62 14.0 14.0 69.0

41-50 64 14.5 14.5 83.5

Above 50 73 16.5 16.5 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


Table 4.2 represents the age group of 442 employees working in IT sector

and participated in the HRA survey in the sample. Age lays a major role in learning,

skill development and performance at work. The composition of employees in IT

sector represents that, 14 percent are below or equivalent to 20 years, 41 percent is

from 21-30 years age group, 14 percent represents 31-40 years age group, 14.5

percent represents 41-50 years age group and 16.5 percent represents the above 50

years age group. This clearly indicates that the IT firms focus on recruiting and

engaging young and high productive group of employees in its activities. This may

be due to the industry and client requirements. In addition, It requires both domestic

and off-shore requirements and hence, willingness to travel and work at onsite

projects is also a parameter to consider the young employees.

Chart 4.2 Distribution of sample on the basis of Age Group in years

Series1, Upto 20, 62

Series1, 21-30, 181

Series1, 31-40, 62 Series1, 41-50, 64

Series1, Above 50, 73

FREQ

UEN

CY

AGE IN YEARS

AGE WISE COMPOSITION OF SAMPLE

157

Table 4.3 Distribution of sample on the basis of Educational stream

Educational

Stream Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

UG-Technical 111 25.1 25.1 25.1

UG-Nontechnical 62 14.0 14.0 39.1

PG-Technical 81 18.3 18.3 57.5

PG-Nontechnical 34 7.7 7.7 65.2

Professional 154 34.8 34.8 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is noted from the table 4.3, that the education stream of the employees

working in the IT firms in the sample represents that 25.1 percent (1/4th ) is from

undergraduate technical stream, 14 percent is from undergraduate non-technical

stream, 18.3 percent is from postgraduate technical stream, 7.7 percent is from

postgraduate non-technical stream, and 34.8 percent are from professional stream of

education. It is obvious that IT firms require technical and professional back ground

employees when compared to non technical and there by the relevance of education

and the employment is very well found in the sample. Hence, it is inferred that IT

firms in the sample area are adhered the basic recruitment aspects like relevance of

education and the nature of employment. It is always good to have such combination

for competing with the market and to satisfy the client requirements from time to

time through innovative and cutting edge technology products.

Chart 4.3 Distribution of sample on the basis of Educational stream

Series1, UG-Technical, 111

Series1, UG-Nontechnical, 62

Series1, PG-Technical, 81

Series1, PG-Nontechnical, 34

Series1, Professional, 154

FREQ

UEN

CY

EDUCATIONAL STREAM

EDUCATIONAL STREAM WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE

158

Table 4.4 Distribution of sample on the basis of Department of working

Frequency-(N) Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Planning & Control 77 17.4 17.4 17.4

Establishment 74 16.7 16.7 34.2

HR & Training 55 12.4 12.4 46.6

Accounting & Taxation 53 12.0 12.0 58.6

Product Development 183 41.4 41.4 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


Table 4.4 observes that the employee’s composition at different

departments in IT firms in the sample area. It is found that 41.4 percent of the

employees engaged in product design and development department, 12 percent are

from accounting and taxation department, 12.4 percent is fro HR and Training

department, 16.7 percent is from establishment and asset management department

and 17.4 percent is from planning and control department indicating the real and

logical composition of the employees composition in the sample firms. It indicates

that the IT firms plan the HR function very meticulously when compared to other

sectors due to its sensitivity in terms of foreign client requirements and cost to the

company.

Chart 4.4 Distribution of sample on the basis of Department of working

Series1, Planning & Control, 77

Series1, Establishment, 74 Series1, HR &

Training, 55 Series1, Accounting

& Taxation, 53

Series1, Product Development, 183

FREQ

UEN

CY

DEPARTMENTS

WORKING DEPARTMENT WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE

159

Table 4.5 Distribution of sample on the basis of employee working Level of

management

Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%)

Valid Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Top level 73 16.5 16.5 16.5

Middle level 170 38.5 38.5 55.0

Floor level 199 45.0 45.0 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is observed from the table 4.5, that, the composition of employees

working in the IT firms in the sample represents 45 percent at shop floor level as

designers and developers, 38.5 percent at middle level as supervisors and quality

control professional, and 16.5 percent at top level as planning, control and business

consistency strategists. The span of control observed at various levels of

management is customized as per the requirements of the firms from time to time.

This can help in building good and effective guidance, supervision and control. This

organizational factor is vital in performance improvement and to deliver quality

products and services.

Chart 4.5 Distribution of sample on the basis of employee working Level of

management

Series1, Top level, 73

Series1, Middle level, 170

Series1, Floor level, 199

FREQ

UEN

CY

LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT

DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE ON THE BASIS OF LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT

160

Table 4.6 Distribution of sample on the basis of Experience in years

Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%)

Valid Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Below 5 155 35.1 35.1 35.1

5-10 122 27.6 27.6 62.7

10-15 41 9.3 9.3 71.9

15-20 47 10.6 10.6 82.6

Above 20 77 17.4 17.4 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


Table 4.6 represents the employee’s composition in the sample on the

basis of experience in the industry. The sample represents that, 35.1 percent of the

employees belong to freshers with less than 5 years of experience, 27.6 percent are

from 5-10 years experience in It industry, 9.3 percent are belongs to 10-15 years

experience,10.6 percent are from 15-20 years of experience and 17.4 percent is from

above 20 years experience in IT industry indicates that the strong planning and

business strategy development and effective implementation teams and good and

effective co-ordinating middle level management is embedded in the IT firms in the

sample area.

Chart 4.6 Distribution of sample on the basis of Experience in years

Series1, Below 5, 155

Series1, 10-May, 122

Series1, 15-Oct, 41

Series1, 15-20, 47

Series1, Above 20, 77

FREQ

UEN

CY

EXPERIENCE IN YEARS

EXPERIENCE WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE

161

Table 4.7 Distribution of sample on the basis of Awareness on Human

Resources Audit (HRA)

Frequency-(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Highly aware 36 8.1 8.1 8.1

Aware 159 36.0 36.0 44.1

Somewhat aware 129 29.2 29.2 73.3

Not aware 96 21.7 21.7 95.0

Not at all 22 5.0 5.0 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is noted from the table 4.7, that the awareness on human resources audit

among the employees is found at 8.1 percent of the employees are highly aware of

the concept, 36 percent of the employees in the sample are aware of the HR audit

concept, 29.2 percent of the employee are somewhat aware of the HR audit, 21.7

percent are not aware of it and finally 5 percent of the employees are not at all aware

of the concept of HR audit among the sample. It indicates that the average level of

awareness on the concept of the Human resources audit is found among the

employees working in IT firms. Hence, it is advisable to create awareness of the

concept among the employees during the training sessions and do the follow up on

the same can helps in improving the level of awareness.

Chart 4.7 Distribution of sample on the basis of Awareness on Human

Resources Audit (HRA)

Series1, Highly aware, 36, 8%

Series1, Aware, 159, 36%

Series1, Somewhat aware, 129, 29%

Series1, Not aware, 96, 22%

Series1, Not at all, 22, 5%

DEGREE OF AWARENESS ON HR AUDIT AMONG THE EMPLOYEES

Highly aware

Aware

Somewhat aware

Not aware

Not at all

162

Table 4.8 Distribution of sample on the basis of Sources of awareness on HRA

Sources of Awareness Frequency-(N) Percentage-

(%)

Valid Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Offer letter & Training sessions 104 23.5 23.5 23.5

Discussion with HR 32 7.2 7.2 30.8

Performance appraisal form 74 16.7 16.7 47.5

Colleagues/Friends 152 34.4 34.4 81.9

Old company used to practice 80 18.1 18.1 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


The results of the table 4.8 indicates that the source of awareness of the

concept of human resources audit among the employees in IT sector are revealed as

23.5 percent through offer letter and during training sessions, 7.2 percent got an idea

while discussing with Human resources department, 16.7 percent through

performance appraisal form, 34.4 percent through friends and colleagues and 18.1

percent from the experience of previous company. It clearly indicates that training

sessions and learning from peers is the highly influencing channels of learning and

getting information among the youth and employees working in IT firms. It indicates

that informal sources of learning are highly effective in IT firms when compared to

other sources. Hence, frequent group discussions with cross domain teams and cross

functional teams may help to get more information on organizational policies, hr

practices and performance enablers and others among the employees in IT firms.

Chart 4.8 Distribution of sample on the basis of Sources of awareness on HRA

Series1, Offer letter & Training

sessions, 104, 24%

Series1, Discussion with

HR, 32, 7% Series1, Performance

appraisal form, 74, 17%

Series1, Colleagues/Friend

s, 152, 34%

Series1, Old company used to practice, 80, 18%

SOURCES OF AWARENESS ON HR AUDIT

Offer letter & Training sessions

Discussion with HR

Performance appraisal form

Colleagues/Friends

Old company used to practice

163

Table 4.9 Distribution of sample on the basis of practicing status of HRA

Practicing Status

of HRA

Frequency-

(N) Percentage- (%)

Valid Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Yes 291 65.8 65.8 65.8

No 151 34.2 34.2 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is found from the analysis of table 4.9, that 65.8 percent (approximately

2/3rd

) of the It firms in the sample are practicing the HR audit and the 34.2 percent

of the firms are not practicing the HR audit. The reasons could be size,

compatibility, requirement and the other constraints like lack of infrastructure, no

demand from the clients etc. However, a strict and commendable control on the

performance of the employees is observed among these firms. Hence, it is advisable

to introduce formally and creating awareness among the employees may help in

standardizing the systems and procedures for the future.

Chart 4.9 Distribution of sample on the basis of practicing status of HRA

Series1, Yes, 291, 66%

Series1, No, 151, 34%

PRACTICE STATUS OF HR AUDIT AMONG THE SAMPLE IT FIRMS

Yes

No

164

Table 4.10 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Degree of

practice of HRA

Degree of Practice of

HRA Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Always 137 31.0 31.0 31.0

Most of the times 150 33.9 33.9 64.9

Half of the times 71 16.1 16.1 81.0

Some times 31 7.0 7.0 88.0

Rarely 53 12.0 12.0 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


Table 4.10 represents the results on the degree of practice of HR audit

among the sample companies in Chennai. The results indicated that, 31 percent of

the firms always performs the HR audit, 33.9 percent of the firms in the sample most

of the times performs the HR audit, 16.1 percent performs the HR audit at half of the

times, 7 percent of the firms performs some times and 12 percent of the companies

performs HR audit rarely. It indicates that there is no strict regulation on the

adoption and practice of HR audit among the IT firms. It is voluntary affair to the

individual firms and based on the convenience and the requirements of the firm,

companies are adopting and implementing. All the firms can adopt and practice the

same for the mutual benefit of the employees, firm and the stakeholders at large.

Chart 4.10 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Degree of

practice of HRA

Series1, Always, 137, 31%

Series1, Most of the times, 150, 34%

Series1, Half of the times,

71, 16%

Series1, Some times, 31, 7%

Series1, Rarely, 53,

12%

DEGREE OF PRACTICE OF HR AUDIT AMONG THE SAMPLE

Always

Most of the times

Half of the times

Some times

Rarely

165

Table 4.11 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perception on HRA impact

on individual performance

Perception on HRA impact on

individual performance Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%)

Valid Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Strongly agree 70 15.8 15.8 15.8

Agree 210 47.5 47.5 63.3

Somewhat agree 61 13.8 13.8 77.1

Not agree 31 7.0 7.0 84.2

Not at all agree 70 15.8 15.8 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is inferred from the table 4.11, that 15.8 percent of the employees in the

sample survey perceived that the human resources audit influences the performance

of the employees is strongly agreed, 47.5 percent are agreed for the same, 13.8

percent are somewhat agreed on the perception, 7 percent of the employees are not

agreed the impact of HR audit on individual performance and 15.8 percent of the

employees are not at all agreed for the perception of influence of HR audit on the

individual performance among the employees in IT forms in the sample. It indicate

that majority of the employees agreed that the Human resources audit influences the

individual performance in the IT firms. The disagreement of others may be due to

lack of awareness and myth of loss of job and other individual attitude issues.

Chart 4.11 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perception on HRA impact


Series1, Strongly agree , 70, 16%

Series1, Agree, 210, 47%

Series1, Somewhat agree, 61, 14%

Series1, Not agree, 31,

7%

Series1, Not at all agree, 70, 16%

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT ON THE HR AUDIT IMPACT ON THE PERFORMANCE

Strongly agree

Agree

Somewhat agree

Not agree

Not at all agree

166

Table 4.12 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perception on HRA impact

on firm performance

Impact of the HRA

Practice on the performance of

the firm

Frequency-

(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Excellent 65 14.7 14.7 14.7

Very good 192 43.4 43.4 58.1

Fair 86 19.5 19.5 77.6

Moderate 39 8.8 8.8 86.4

No impact 60 13.6 13.6 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


The perception on the impact of HR audit practices on the performance of

the firm is indicated as excellent impact by 67 respondents (14.7%) of the sample,

43.4 percent indicate very good impact, 19.5 percent perceived that a fair impact, 8.8

percent of the employees represent moderate level of impact and 13.6 percent

perceived that no impact of the HRA practices on the performance of the firm. IT

indicates that it is agreed that the Human resources audit is a motivating and control

tool to improve the performance of the employees and the firm.

Chart 4.12 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perception on HRA impact

on firm performance

Series1, Excellent, 65,

15%

Series1, Very good, 192, 43%

Series1, Fair, 86, 19%

Series1, Moderate, 39,

9%

Series1, No impact, 60,

14%

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT ON THE IMPACT OF HR AUDIT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FIRM

Excellent

Very good

Fair

Moderate

No impact

167

Table 4.13 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Rating of

HRA practice

Perceptions on Rating of HRA

practice Frequency-(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

The Best and on par with standard 62 14.0 14.0 14.0

Very good and suitable to all 199 45.0 45.0 59.0

Good and customized to this company 83 18.8 18.8 77.8

Not so good like competitors 35 7.9 7.9 85.7

To be improved a lot and no way comparable

63 14.3 14.3 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is understood from the table 4.13, that out of 442 sample respondents,

62 (14%) of them perceived that the practices of HR audit in their firm as The best

and on par with the industry standard, 199 respondents felt that very good and

suitable HR audit practice as their opinion, 83 respondents felt that the HR audit

practice adopted in the company is good and customized to the requirements, 35

respondents perceived that as not so good like other competitors, and finally 63

respondents in the sample reveals that the need for improvement in the HR audit

practices and no way comparable with the industry standards. It indicates a mixed

opinion on the HR audit practices of the IT firms in the sample area and each

company can think ahead and set a standard to reach the industry standard over a

period of time. This can help in getting the best results from the practice of HR audit

practice.

Chart 4.13 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Rating of

HRA practice

Series1, The Best and on par with standard,

62, 14%

Series1, Very good and

suitable to all, 199, 45%

Series1, Good and customized to this company, 83, 19%

Series1, Not so good like

competitors, 35, 8%

Series1, To be improved a lot and

no way comparable, 63, 14%

RATING OF HR AUDIT PRACTICES ADOPTED AMONG SAMPLE

The Best and on par with standard

Very good and suitable to all

Good and customized to this company

Not so good like competitors

To be improved a lot and no waycomparable

168

Table 4.14 Distribution of sample on the basis of Prime Factor influencing

HRA practice

Prime Factor influencing HRA

practice Frequency-(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Individual/Personal Factors 71 16.1 16.1 16.1

Organizational Factors 212 48.0 48.0 64.0

Environmental Factors 66 14.9 14.9 79.0

Managerial Factors 40 9.0 9.0 88.0

Regulatory Factors 53 12.0 12.0 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is noted from the table 4.14, that the prime factors influencing the

adoption and practice of HR audit practices among the It firms in the sample area,

indicated as 16.1 percent of the sample represents individual factors, 48 percent of

the sample represents organizational factors, 14.9 percent of the sample represents

environmental factors, 9 percent of the sample represents managerial reasons and 12

percent of the sample perceived as regulatory factors. Hence, it is concluded that

organizational factors are the prime factors influencing the adoption and practice of

HR audit practices among the IT firms in the sample area.

Chart 4.14 Distribution of sample on the basis of Prime Factor influencing

HRA practice

Series1, Individual/Personal

Factors, 71, 16%

Series1, Organizational

Factors, 212, 48%

Series1, Environmental

Factors, 66, 15%

Series1, Managerial Factors, 40, 9%

Series1, Regulatory Factors, 53,

12%

PRIME FACTOR INFLUENCING HR AUDIT PRACTICE AMONG IT FIRMS

Individual/Personal Factors

Organizational Factors

Environmental Factors

Managerial Factors

Regulatory Factors

169

Table 4.15 Distribution of sample on the basis of Frequency of performing

HRA

Frequency of performing

HRA Frequency-(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Yearly 85 19.2 19.2 19.2

Half yearly 211 47.7 47.7 67.0

Quarterly 85 19.2 19.2 86.2

Before new Project starts 61 13.8 13.8 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is observed from the results of the table 4.15, that the frequency of

conducting HR audit among the IT firms in the sample area. It is noted that 85

respondents(19.2 percent of the sample) mentioned as yearly, 211 respondents(47.7

percent of the sample) agreed as half yearly, 85 respondents mentioned as quarterly,

and finally 61 respondents indicated as before new project starts. Hence, it is

inferred that majority of the IT firms in the sample area conducts HR audit at a

frequency of half yearly.

Chart 4.15 Distribution of sample on the basis of Frequency of performing

HRA

Series1, Yearly, 85, 19%

Series1, Half yearly, 211, 48%

Series1, Quarterly, 85, 19%

Series1, Before

new Project

starts, 61, 14%

FREQUENCY OF PERFORMING HR AUDIT AMONG IT FIRMS

Yearly

Half yearly

Quarterly

Before new Project starts

170

Table 4.16 Distribution of sample on the basis of Frequency of measures

taken on HRA report

Frequency of measures

taken on HRA report

Frequency-

(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Always 115 26.0 26.0 26.0

Most of the times 163 36.9 36.9 62.9

Some times 72 16.3 16.3 79.2

Rarely 66 14.9 14.9 94.1

Never 26 5.9 5.9 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


Table 4.16 represents the perceptions on the frequency of measures taken

on the basis of HR audit reports in IT firms indicated as, 26 percent of the sample

with the response of always, 36.9 percent of the sample with the response of most of

the times, 16.3 percent of the sample with the response of some times, 14.9 percent

of the sample with the response of rarely and 5.9 percent of the respondents with the

response of never. It is inferred from the above as the fair level of measures are

taking on the basis of HR audit report indicates a good control and efficient use of

the technique for the betterment of the performance of the employees in the sample

firms.

Chart 4.16 Distribution of sample on the basis of Frequency of measures

taken on HRA report



Series1, Some times,

72, 16%

Series1, Rarely,

66, 15%

Series1, Never, 26, 6%

FREQUENCY OF MEASURES TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF HR AUDIT REPORT

Always

Most of the times

Some times

Rarely

Never

171

Table 4.17 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Motive to

focus on HRA

Motive to focus on HRA Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%) Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

To have self evaluation 45 10.2 10.2 10.2

To satisfy clients 136 30.8 30.8 41.0

To assess future preparedness 63 14.3 14.3 55.2

To eliminate the unskilled staff 50 11.3 11.3 66.5

To improve standards in quality of work 148 33.5 33.5 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is noted from the table 4.17, that the primary motive to focus on Human

resources audit is perceived as to have self evaluation by 10.2 percent of the sample,

to satisfy clients requirements by the 30.8 percent of the sample, to assess future

preparedness by 14.3 percent, to eliminate the unskilled staff by 11.3 percent and to

improve the standards in quality of work by 33.5 percent of the employees in the

sample working in IT firms in Chennai. IT indicates that HR audit is used as a tool

to planning a controlling the performance of the employees and the performance of

the firm in IT sector.

Chart 4.17 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Motive to

focus on HRA

Series1, To have self evaluation, 45, 10%

Series1, To satisfy

clients , 136, 31%

Series1, To assess future preparedness,

63, 14%

Series1, To eliminate the unskilled staff, 50,

11%

Series1, To improve

standards in quality of

work, 148, 34%

MOTIVES TO FOCUS ON HR AUDIT

To have self evaluation

To satisfy clients

To assess future preparedness

To eliminate the unskilled staff

To improve standards in quality of work

172

Table 4.18 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Individual

preference for HRA

Perceptions on

Individual preference for

HRA

Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%) Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Always 100 22.6 22.6 22.6

Most of the times 186 42.1 42.1 64.7

Some times 82 18.6 18.6 83.3

Rarely 60 13.6 13.6 96.8

Never 14 3.2 3.2 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is noted from the table 4.18, that 22.6 percent of the sample respondents

working in IT firms in the sample area always would like to have HR audit, 42.1

percent would like to have most of the time, 18.6 percent would like to have some

times, 13.6 percent would like to have rarely and 3.2 percent of them never prefers

to have HR audit at work place. IT is inferred that Majority of the Employees feel

that HR audit as a useful tool for self development and for the development of the

firms.

Chart 4.18 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Individual

preference for HRA



Series1, Some times, 82, 18%

Series1, Rarely, 60, 14%

Series1, Never, 14, 3%

FREQUENCY OF EMPLOYEE PREFERENCE TOWARDS HR AUDIT

Always

Most of the times

Some times

Rarely

Never

173

Table 4.19 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Reason for

preferring HRA by Employees

Perceptions on Reason for

Preferring HRA the employees

Frequency-

(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

It helps to identify our SWOT 76 17.2 17.2 17.2

Helps to grow in career ladder 223 50.5 50.5 67.6

Bench mark for performance 75 17.0 17.0 84.6

Grade points of pay scale goes up 11 2.5 2.5 87.1

Helps to shift to some other opportunity 57 12.9 12.9 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


The reasons for preferring HR audit by the employees working in IT firms

in the sample are quoted in the table 4.19 that, 76 respondents (17.2 percent of the

sample) as it helps to identify strengths and weaknesses of the individual employee,

223 respondents(50.5 percent of the sample) perceives that HR audit reports helps to

grow in the career ladder, 75 respondents (17 percent of the sample) perceived as

HR audit is a bench mark for performance, 2.5 percent of the sample respondents

perceived as grade points and pay scale goes up with the audit rank, and finally 12.9

percent of the sample respondents felt that HR audit helps to shift to better career

opportunity. Hence, it is noted that HR audit serves many purposes of the employees

working in IT firms and it is all in the hands of the employees, how they want to use

the HR audit tool to improve them in career growth and development.

Chart 4.19 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Reason for

preferring HRA by Employees

Series1, It helps to

identify our SWOT, 76,

17%

Series1, Helps to grow in career

ladder, 223, 50%

Series1, Bench mark for performance, 75,

17%

Series1, Grade points of pay scale goes up,

11, 3%

Series1, Helps to shift to some other

opportunity, 57, 13%

REASONS FOR MHR AUDIT PREFERENCE BY EMPLOYEES

It helps to identify our SWOT

Helps to grow in career ladder

Bench mark for performance

Grade points of pay scale goes up

Helps to shift to some other opportunity

174

Table 4.20 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on HRA

conducts by experts

Perceptions on HRA

conducts by experts Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Always 65 14.7 14.7 14.7

Most of the times 174 39.4 39.4 54.1

Some times 72 16.3 16.3 70.4

Rarely 33 7.5 7.5 77.8

Never 98 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is observed from the sample responses represented in the table 4.20,

that weather the HR audit performed by the experts or not in the IT firms indicates

as 14.7 percent represent as HR audit is performed by experts at all point s of time,

39.4 percent represents that as most of the time, 16.3 percent of the sample

represents as some times, 7.5 percent of the sample represents as rarely, and 22.2

percent represents as never indicates that the HR audit practices are conducted

seriously by the experts only at an average of less than 50 percent of the firms. Most

of the firms conduct audit by deploying the employees from other departments by

exchanging interdepartmental deputations. This may not help in identifying the gaps

in HR availability and the future requirements and to suggest the measures to be

taken. Hence, firms need to focus on identifying and deploying the experts from the

HR domain can improve the quality of work.

Chart 4.20 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on HRA

conducts by experts

Series1, Always, 65,

15%

Series1, Most of the times, 174,

39% Series1, Some times, 72, 16%

Series1, Rarely, 33, 8%

Series1, Never, 98,

22%

FREQUENCY OF HR AUDIT CONDUSTED NY EXPERTS

Always

Most of the times

Some times

Rarely

Never

175

Table 4.21 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on

Management attitude towards HRA

Perceptions on Management

attitude towards HRA Frequency-(N) Percentage- (%)

Valid

Percentage-(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Professional tool to build good teams 98 22.2 22.2 22.2

Performance control measure 191 43.2 43.2 65.4

Talent retention measure 84 19.0 19.0 84.4

Motivational tool 45 10.2 10.2 94.6

Practice of custom 24 5.4 5.4 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


Table 4.21 represents the results of the data analysis pertaining to

management attitude towards HR audit among the IT firms in the sample. It is noted

that 22.2 percent of the sample perceived that management observed HR audit as a

professional tool to build good teams, 43.2 percent of the sample represents as a

performance control measure, 19 percent represents as a talent retention measure,

10.2 percent of the sample represents as a motivational tool, and 5.4 percent of the

sample represents as a practice of custom. It is inferred from the analysis that HR

audit tool is used with a good intention to build and retain talented employees for the

benefit of the firm and to protect the stake holders interests at large.

Chart 4.21 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on


Series1, Professional tool

to build good teams, 98, 22%

Series1, Performance

control measure, 191, 43%

Series1, Talent retention

measure, 84, 19%

Series1, Motivational tool, 45, 10%

Series1, Practice of custom, 24, 6%

MANAGEMENT APPROACH TOWARDS HR AUDIT

Professional tool to build good teams

Performance control measure

Talent retention measure

Motivational tool

Practice of custom

176

Table 4.22 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Focused

area of HRA function

Perceptions on Focused area of HRA

function Frequency-(N)

Percentage-

(%)

Valid

Percentage-

(%)

Cumulative

Percentage-(%)

Recruitment 78 17.6 17.6 17.6

Compensation and benefits 115 26.0 26.0 43.7

Performance evaluation 140 31.7 31.7 75.3

Termination 39 8.8 8.8 84.2

Exit interviews 70 15.8 15.8 100.0

Total 442 100.0 100.0


It is noted from the table 4.22, that the focused area of HR audit among

the IT firms in Chennai indicated as recruitment by the 78 respondents,

compensation and benefits to employees by the 115 respondents, performance

evaluation of employees by 140 respondents, tool for termination of employees by

39 employees and exit interview technique by 70 employees in the sample. It

indicates that HR audit is widely used to measure the performance and to

compensate the employees performing better in work. It is appreciable and advised

to extent to other possible areas in the firm and use for the benefit of the employees

and to the benefit of the stake holders at large.

Chart 4.22 Distribution of sample on the basis of Perceptions on Focused

area of HRA function

Series1, Recruitment, 78,

17%

Series1, Compensation and benefits,

115, 26% Series1, Performance

evaluation, 140, 32%

Series1, Termination, 39, 9%

Series1, Exit interviews, 70,

16%

FOCUSED FUNCTIONAL AREA OF HR AUDIT

Recruitment

Compensation and benefits

Performance evaluation

Termination

Exit interviews

177

Table 4.23 Descriptive Statistics of Factors influencing HRA Practices in IT

sector (Turdy Brunot-1992)

Factors influencing HRA Practices in

IT sector N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Cost and legislation/ Employee

involvement and participation 442 1 5 3.51 1.407

Expertise/ Attitude and work culture of the employees

442 1 5 3.41 1.418

Executive Leadership/ leadership co-

operation(middle level ) 442 1 5 3.84 1.327

Employee Engagement and

preparedness 442 1 5 3.90 1.245

Technology and company culture 442 1 5 4.03 1.199

Competitiveness and future planning

attitude of management 442 1 5 4.04 1.183

Productivity of the employees and

service quality 442 1 5 4.11 1.216

Sustainability of business growth and

development 442 1 5 3.68 1.350

Profitability of the business and

business consistency 442 1 5 3.73 1.279

Economic/ financial irregularities-

scams 442 1 5 3.97 1.218

Political interference and involvement 442 1 5 3.81 1.215

Social factors and media pressure on

the HRA 442 1 5 3.82 1.292

Stakeholder initiatives- transparency 442 1 5 3.81 1.262

Statutory and regulatory pressures 442 1 5 3.73 1.369

Material risks 442 1 5 3.68 1.309

Valid N (listwise) 442

Table 4.23 represents the factors influencing HR audit practices among

the IT firms in Chennai. The factors are classified in to two groups’ namely primary

factors and secondary factors. The primary factors are identified with the higher

level of agreement score of above 75 percent and represented with the mean score

value of above 3.8 and below mean score of 3.8 are classified as secondary factors.

On te basis of the above decision criteria, primary and secondary factors along with

the mean score and standard deviation values are presented below.

178

The primary factors influencing the HR audit practices among the IT

firms in Chennai are Executive Leadership/ leadership co-operation(middle level )

with the mean score of 3.84 and standard deviation of 1.327, Employee Engagement

and preparedness with the mean score of 3.90 and standard deviation of 1.249,

Technology and company culture with the mean score of 4.03 and standard

deviation of 1.199, Competitiveness and future planning attitude of management

with the mean score of 4.04 and standard deviation of 1.183, Productivity of the

employees and service quality with the mean score of 4.11 and standard deviation of

1.216, Economic/ financial irregularities-scams with the mean score of 3.97 and

standard deviation of 1.218, Political interference and involvement with the mean

score of 3.81 and standard deviation of 1.215, Social factors and media pressure on

the HRA with the mean score of 3.82 and standard deviation of 1.292, Stakeholder

initiatives- transparency with the mean score of 3.81 and standard deviation of

1.262. Indicates the influence of organization control variables like leadership,

attitude of the management, stakeholders’ protection policy and practice etc. Hence,

it is inferred that organizational factors are the prime factors influencing the HR

audit practices among the IT firms in the sample area.

The secondary factors influencing the HR audit practices among the It

firms in the sample are identified are Cost and legislation/ Employee involvement

and participation with the mean score of 3.51 and standard deviation of 1.407,

Expertise/ Attitude and work culture of the employees with the mean score of 3.41

and standard deviation of 1.418, Sustainability of business growth and development

with the mean score of 3.68 and standard deviation of 1.350, Profitability of the

business and business consistency with the mean score of 3.73 and standard

deviation of 1.279, Statutory and regulatory pressures with the mean score of 3.73

and standard deviation of 1.369, Material risks with the mean score of 3.68 and

standard deviation of 1.309, indicates the preparedness of the employees and

organization in terms of attitude and financial stability of the firm. Hence, at

secondary influencing factors are related to ability to take up and willingness to

accept are important aspects of HR audit in It firms.

179

Table 4.24 Descriptive Statistics of HRA Practices impact on the various

dimensions of individual performance

Dimensions of Impact of HRA Practices on

the performance of employees N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Self evaluation and change in attitude towards

organization and its importance among the

employees

442 1 5 3.98 1.239

Learning and equipping the self for future

challenges 442 1 5 3.72 1.332

Practicing the skill development exercises 442 1 5 3.90 1.262

Improvement in the efficiency through

Training and development 442 1 5 3.86 1.238

Developing communication skills 442 1 5 3.99 1.197

Focus on interpersonal skills and team

building 442 1 5 3.84 1.249

Focus on target completion and work culture

and ethics 442 1 5 3.83 1.301

Performance in terms of quality of work

completed/service quality 442 1 5 3.81 1.289

Innovation and creativity at work is improved

and client satisfaction 442 1 5 3.60 1.384

Overall job satisfaction is improved 442 1 5 3.87 1.257


Table 4.24 represents the impact of HR audit on various dimensions of

performance of employees working in IT sector. The impact of HR audit on the

performance of the employees is grouped into two degrees, namely highly

influencing dimensions and moderately influencing dimensions. The highly

influencing dimensions are noted with the mean score of above 3.8 and the

moderately influencing dimensions are notified with less than 3.8 mean score in the

sample. On the basis of the same highly influencing dimensions with the mean score

value and standard deviation is presented below.

With the practice of HR audit, highly influencing dimensions of

performance of the employees are Self evaluation and change in attitude towards

organization and its importance among the employees with the mean score of 3.98

and standard deviation of 1.239, Practicing the skill development exercises with the

mean score of 3.90 and standard deviation of 1.262,Improvement in the efficiency

through Training and development with the mean score of 3.86 and standard

180

deviation of 1.238,Developing communication skills with the mean score of 3.99

and standard deviation of 1.197,Focus on interpersonal skills and team building with

the mean score of 3.84 and standard deviation of 1.249,Focus on target completion

and work culture and ethics with the mean score of 3.83 and standard deviation of

1.301,Performance in terms of quality of work completed/service quality with the

mean score of 3.81 and standard deviation of 1.289,Overall job satisfaction is

improved with the mean score of 3.87 and standard deviation of 1.257, indicates

that, overall personality development of the individuals along with improvement in

skill set and productivity is a positive note.

Moderately influencing dimensions of employee performance by the HR

audit among the sample firms are Learning and equipping the self for future

challenges with the mean score of 3.72 and standard deviation of 1.332, Innovation

and creativity at work is improved and client satisfaction with the mean score of

3.60 and standard deviation of 1.384 indicates that individual involvement and

personal interest related aspects of learning and development.

Table 4.25 Descriptive Statistics of HRA Practices dimensions of impact on Performance of a

company

Dimensions of Impact of HRA Practices

on the performance of the firm N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Improved quality of planning and

development towards protection of stake

holders interest

442 1 5 3.49 1.389

Development of physical and intellectual

infrastructure 442 1 5 3.76 1.321

Facilities for training and development 442 1 5 3.78 1.291

Sustainability and consistency in business

growth and development in terms of profits 442 1 5 3.88 1.278

Improved level of competitiveness and

growth in turnover 442 1 5 3.86 1.223

Venturing into new business and verticals 442 1 5 3.92 1.245

Geographical Expansion of business

through scattering the resources 442 1 5 3.81 1.242

Risk management and control in business 442 1 5 3.81 1.296

Attitude of the top management towards

organizational and human capital

development

442 1 5 3.86 1.222

Preparedness for the future challenges 442 1 5 3.98 1.197


181

Table 4.25 represents the impact of HR audit practices on the

performance of the firms in IT sector is broadly classified into two types , namely,

business consistency and stability dimension and the growth and development

dimension.

Impact of HR audit on the performance of the firms is impacted on the

dimensions of stability and consistency of business growth indicated with the mean

score of 3.88, improved level of competitiveness with the mean score of 3.86,

venturing into new domains with the mean score of 3.92, venturing into new

locations with the mean score of 3.81, risk management and control with the means

core of 3.81, management attitude towards human capital development with the

mean score of 3.86 and preparedness for the future with the mean score of 3.98

among the sample.

Similarly, growth dimension of impact of HR audit practice among the IT

firms in the sample area is represented with Improved quality of planning and

development towards protection of stake holders interest with the means score of

3.49, Development of physical and intellectual infrastructure with the mean score of

3.76 and Facilities for training and development with the mean score of 3.78

indicating the focus on infrastructure planning for future in terms of intellectual and

physical. Hence, HR audit is a dual core system helps to grow individuals along with

the growth and development of the firm. Hence, adoption and practice of HR audit is

need of the hour and it can benefit many ways to the employees and to the

stakeholders at large.

182

Table 4.26 Descriptive Statistics of barriers in conducting HRA in IT firms

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

High cost/Too expensive 442 1 5 3.81 1.278

Not much of requirement and

management attitude 442 1 5 3.97 1.217

No custom in the industry as well as no

compulsion 442 1 5 3.74 1.279

Impossible to interrupt projects and

divert activities 442 1 5 3.85 1.277

Staff not willing to participate in audit 442 1 5 3.73 1.333

HR experts are not trained in audit 442 1 5 3.78 1.334

Risk of poaching after training and

audit 442 1 5 3.74 1.314

Difficult to identify suitable training

providers of HR audit 442 1 5 3.74 1.321

Difficult to access training on HR audit 442 1 5 3.79 1.303

Effectiveness of audit is doubtful 442 1 5 3.67 1.352


Barriers to adopt and perform HR audit among the IT firms are

represented in the table 4.26 indicates that the primary barriers are cost aspects with

the mean score of 3.81, lack of requirement and management attitude towards HR

audit with the mean score of 3.97 and lack of possibility to interrupt the on going

projects with the mean score of 3.85. These are related to planning and

organizational. Management co-operation and attitude are the prime issues in

conducting HR audit meticulously for the mutual benefit of the firms and the society

at large.

183

Table 4.27 Descriptive Statistics of benefits in conducting HRA in IT firms

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Recognition of strengths in terms of

human capital 442 1 5 3.83 1.300

Reveal problem areas of business and

intellectual capital 442 1 5 3.81 1.282

Confirms compliance with latest

regulations 442 1 5 3.81 1.301

Ensures effective HR policies and

motivation 442 1 5 3.67 1.339

Builds confidence in HR function 442 1 5 3.87 1.285

Work culture and ethics adoption and

inculcation 442 1 5 3.90 1.205

Transparency in talent recognition and

rewards 442 1 5 3.87 1.291

Team building and communication

effectiveness across the verticals 442 1 5 3.89 1.267

Protection of stake holders interests 442 1 5 3.71 1.330

Overall development of the

organization 442 1 5 3.73 1.307

Valid N (List wise) 442

Table 4.27 indicates the perceived benefits of HR audit among the IT

firms in the sample area. The primary benefits perceived from the HR audit is

represented in the sample survey are Recognition of strengths in terms of human

capital with the mean score of 3.83 and standard deviation of 1.300, Reveal problem

areas of business and intellectual capital with the mean score of 3.81 and standard

deviation of 1.282, Confirms compliance with latest regulations with the mean score

of 3.81 and standard deviation of 1.301,Builds confidence in HR function with the

mean score of 3.87 and standard deviation of 1.285,Work culture and ethics

adoption and inculcation with the mean score of 3.90 and standard deviation of

1.205,Transparency in talent recognition and rewards with the mean score of 3.87

and standard deviation of 1.291,Team building and communication effectiveness

across the verticals with the mean score of 3.89 and standard deviation of 1.267

184

indicates the important human aspects of work like work culture, recognition,

transparency, motivation, team building and confidence at work. Hence, it is quoted

that, without human capital there is no IT firms and without HR audit, there is no

sustainable IT firms.

Table 4.28 Descriptive Statistics of suggestions to improve the HRA

practices in IT firms

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

Establishment of Professional and

specialized training institutes 442 1 5 3.79 1.321

Standardization and benchmarking of

training programmes 442 1 5 3.93 1.217

Encouraging Professional training

associations 442 1 5 3.87 1.282

Encouraging voluntary membership in

training institutes 442 1 5 3.86 1.280

Design and development of training

programmes 442 1 5 3.73 1.311

Training progammes audit and up gradation 442 1 5 3.60 1.348

Establishment of quality accreditation

certifications 442 1 5 3.78 1.294

Designing and development of training

methods in vernacular language and

imparting

442 1 5 3.79 1.297

Systematic training programmes schedule

preparation and implementation 442 1 5 3.81 1.257

Regular assessment of training needs 442 1 5 4.06 1.139

Building team spirit and career counseling 442 1 5 3.82 1.248

Encouraging to participate training

programmes 442 1 5 3.84 1.290

Government initiatives to build capacity in

professional training institutes 442 1 5 3.85 1.243

Frequent revision of training manuals based

on the market changes 442 1 5 3.83 1.303

Autonomous and Apex body promotion,

supervision and regulation of hotel industry

training programmes.

442 1 5 3.69 1.331

Valid N (list wise) 442

185

Table 4.28, indicates the list of suggestions for effective implementation

of HR audit adoption and practice among the IT firms in the sample area for the

benefit of the employees and the stake holders at large. The highly approved

suggestions along with the mean scores are Standardization and benchmarking of

training programmes with the mean score of 3.93 and standard deviation of 1.217,

Encouraging Professional training associations with the mean score of 3.87 and

standard deviation of 1.282,Encouraging voluntary membership in training institutes

with the mean score of 3.86 and standard deviation of 1.280,Systematic training

programmes schedule preparation and implementation with the mean score of 3.81

and standard deviation of 1.257,Regular assessment of training needs with the mean

score of 4.06 and standard deviation of 1.139,Building team spirit and career

counseling with the mean score of 3.82 and standard deviation of 1.248,Encouraging

to participate training programmes with the mean score of 3.84 and standard

deviation of 1.290,Government initiatives to build capacity in professional training

institutes with the mean score of 3.85 and standard deviation of 1.243,Frequent

revision of training manuals based on the market changes with the mean score of

3.83 and standard deviation of 1.303. These indicate that the IT firms need to focus

on standardizing the training modules for the employees at frequent intervals during

the tenure of the career. This can help in building intellectual capital for the future

needs along with effective implementation of HR audit practices among the IT firms

in Chennai.

Table 4.29 Descriptive Statistics of overall scores of Dimensions of HR audit

practices on the performance of the employees in the IT firms

Dimensions of the study N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

HRA Practices in IT sector 442 38 71 57.07 5.254

Individual Performance 442 23 49 37.60 5.925

Organizational Performance 442 24 48 37.45 5.667

Barriers in conducting 442 18 50 36.40 7.113

Benefits in conducting 442 23 48 37.30 5.955

Suggestions to improve the HRA

practices 442 40 73 56.40 6.615

Valid N (list wise) 442

186

It is noted from the table 4.29, that the overall descriptive statistics related

to dimensions of HR audit and its impact on the performance of employees and the

IT firms in the sample area are indicated as Overall HRA Practices in IT sector with

the mean score of 57.07 and standard deviation of 5.254, Overall Individual

Performance with the mean score of 37.60 and standard deviation of 5.925,Overall

Organizational Performance with the mean score of 37.45 and standard deviation of

5.667,Overall Barriers in conducting with the mean score of 36.40 and standard

deviation of 7.113,Overall Benefits in conducting with the mean score of 37.30 and

standard deviation of 5.995,Overall Suggestions to improve the HRA practices with

the mean score of 56.40 and standard deviation of 6.615.

4.2 DATA ANALYSIS USING T-TEST & ANOVA

1. Perceptions of male and female on relationship between the HR audit

and the Performance

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the

male and female with regard to impact of HR audit on the performance of the

individuals and the firm.

Table 4.30 Group Statistics of Perceptions on HRA impact on Individual

and Firm performance in IT Sector along with t-test results

Performance of IT firms Gender N Mean Std. Deviation T value P value

Individual Performance Male 256 38.42 5.497 3.476 0.000**

Female 186 36.46 6.308

Organizational Performance Male 256 38.29 5.095 3.714 0.000**

Female 186 36.29 6.200

Note: ** indicates highly significant at 1% level;

* indicates significant at 5% level, NS indicates not significant at 5% level.

It is noted from the table 4.30, p value is recorded at 0.000 (less than

0.01), hence, the null hypothesis, There is no significant difference between the

perceptions of the male and female with regard to impact of HR audit on the

performance of the individuals and the firm is rejected at 1% level of significance.

Hence, it is inferred that, there is a highly significant difference between the

187

perceptions of the male and female with regard to impact of HR audit on the

performance of the individuals and the firm. Based on the mean value, it is noted

that, the perceptions of the male respondent’s are highly endorsed the fact that HR

Audit practices improves and has considerable impact on the individual performance

and the firm performance when compared to female respondents in the sample.

2. Perceptions of male and female on relationship between the HR audit and the

Performance


male and female with regard to factors influencing HR audit, barriers and benefits

on the performance of the individuals and the firm in IT sector.

Table 4.31 Group Statistics of Perceptions on factors influencing HR Audit,

barriers and benefits on the performance of firms in IT Sector

Gender N Mean

Std.

Deviation T value P value

Factors influencing HRA

Practices in IT

sector

Male

256 57.86 4.858 3.730 0.000**

Female 186 55.99 5.590

Barriers in

conducting

Male 256 36.98 6.704 2.034 0.043*

Female 186 35.59 7.586

Benefits in

conducting

Male 256 38.27 5.640 4.102 0.000**

Female 186 35.96 6.129

It is found from the table 4.31, that the p value is 0.000 indicating as less

than the 0.01, hence, the null hypothesis, there is no significant difference between

the perceptions of the male and female with regard to factors influencing HR audit,

and benefits on the performance of the individuals and the firm in IT sector is

rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a significant

difference between the perceptions of the male and female with regard to factors

influencing HR audit, barriers and benefits on the performance of the individuals

188

and the firm in IT sector. Based on the mean value, male respondents are highly

endorsed the relationship between the factors influencing HR audit and benefits of

HR audit in the company.

On the other hand, p value for the perceptions on barriers in conducting

HR audit and the performance of the firm is rejected at 5% level of significance. The

p value recorded for the dimension is 0.043 (less than 0.05). Hence, it is concluded

that, there is a significant difference between the perceptions of the male and female

with regard to barriers and the performance of the individuals and the firm in IT

sector. Based on the mean value, the dimension of the relationship between the

barriers in conducting HR audit and performance is strongly endorsed by the male

respondents when compared to female respondents in the sample.

4. Perceptions of HRA Practicing companies and Non Practicing

Companies on relationship between the HR audit and the Performance


HRA Practicing companies and Non Practicing Companies with regard to impact of

HR audit on the performance of the individuals and the firm.

Table 4.32 Group Statistics of Perceptions on HRA impact on Individual

and Firm performance in IT Sector along with t-test results

Practicing status of HRA

Yes No t-value P value

Mean SD Mean SD

Individual

Performance 38.19 5.59 36.45 6.38 2.957 0.003**

Organizational

Performance 38.00 5.39 36.39 6.05 2.848 0.005**

It is noted from the table 4.32, the p value is recorded at 0.003 and 0.005

indicates less than 0.01and rejected the null hypothesis, There is no significant

difference between the perceptions of the HRA Practicing companies and Non

Practicing Companies with regard to impact of HR audit on the performance of the

individuals and the firm at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there

189

is a highly significant difference between the perceptions of the HRA Practicing

companies and Non Practicing Companies with regard to impact of HR audit on the

performance of the individuals and the firm. Based on the mean value, it is found

that, the companies practicing HR audit are having better performance when

compared to others in the sample. It indicates that, HR audit practices can help in

improving the individual and firm performance over a period of time. It can bring

the positive attitude, image and work culture among the employees. This can help in

improving the productivity of the employees and performance of the firm in terms of

production, co-ordination, quality of the products designed and the client support

services. This can pave a long road to improve the firm by attracting many clients

and having bundle of projects in hand.

5. Perceptions of male and female on relationship between the HR audit

and the Performance



on the performance of the individuals and the firm in IT sector.

Table 4.33 Group Statistics of Perceptions on factors influencing HR Audit,

barriers and benefits on the performance of firms in IT Sector


Yes No t-value P value

Mean SD Mean SD


Practices in IT sector 57.52 4.78 56.22 5.99 2.476 0.0040*

Barriers in conducting 37.27 6.51 34.70 7.91 3.657 0.000**

Benefits in conducting 37.92 5.68 36.09 6.30 3.091 0.002**

Since p value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis, There is no significant

difference between the perceptions of the male and female with regard to factors

influencing HR audit, barriers and benefits on the performance of the individuals

and the firm in IT sector is rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is

concluded that, there is a highly significant difference between the perceptions of the

190


on the performance of the individuals and the firm in IT sector. Based on the mean

value, it is noted that, companies practicing HR audit are indicated high level of

positiveness towards HR audit and the factors influencing, benefits of HR audit

when compared to other sin the sample. Hence, it is inferred that, HR audit has some

positive impact on the performance of the individuals and the firm.

DATA ANALYSIS USING ONE WAY ANOVA:

1. Relationship between the Age and the Perceptions on the HRA

impact dimensions on the performance of the employees, firm and

other dimensions.

Null Hypothesis: There is no Relationship between the Age and the Perceptions on

Factors influencing HRA practices, impact of HRA on the performance of the

employees, firm, barriers, and benefits among the sample.

Table 4.34 Relationship between the Age and the Perceptions on the HRA

impact dimensions on the performance of the employees, firm

and other dimensions

Dimensions of the study Age Group in years F

value P value

Upto 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Above 50

Factors

influencing

HRA Practices in

IT sector

Mean 53.39 56.90 57.81 58.22 59.01 12.397 0.000**

SD (6.55) (4.66) (3.76) (4.12) (5.86)

Individual

Performance

Mean 34.66 37.05 38.58 37.94 40.32 9.141 0.000**

SD (6.88) (5.48) (4.33) (5.50) (6.40)

Organizational

Performance

Mean 34.24 36.90 38.98 38.03 39.73 10.479 0.000**

SD (6.73) (5.23) (4.01) (5.10) (6.04)

Barriers in

conducting

Mean 33.31 35.96 37.23 37.06 38.82 5.815 0.000**

SD (9.26) (6.94) (4.63) (6.38) (6.89)

Benefits in

conducting Mean 35.16 36.66 38.15 38.17 39.19 5.205 0.000**

SD (7.31) (5.90) (4.33) (4.52) (6.42)

191

Since p value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis, There is no

Relationship between the Age and the Perceptions on Factors influencing HRA

practices; impact of HRA on the performance of the employees, firm, barriers, and

benefits among the sample is rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is

concluded that, there is no Relationship between the Age and the Perceptions on

Factors influencing HRA practices, impact of HRA on the performance of the

employees, firm, barriers, and benefits among the sample. Based on the mean value,

it is noted that, the employees belongs to above 50 years age group are highly agreed

for the fact that, HR audit practices improves the performance of the employees and

the firm. In addition, it is perceived that HR audit can also help the firm and

employees in many other ways to improve and to help the firm to improve its overall

performance. The other dimensions of improvement may be improved level of

employees positive attitude towards a work, organization, communication, co-

ordination, quality of work, design and development innovations in the product

design, time frame for the projects, success rate of the products designed and

developed, service quality of the clients and the networking of people and processes.

This is the real intellectual capital asset, which can be appreciating along with time

and experience. Hence, HR audit can be a tool to improve the employees and the

firm.

2. Relationship between the Educational Qualification and the

Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact

dimensions on the performance of the employees, firm and other

dimensions among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no Relationship between educational Qualification and

the Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on the

performance of the employees, firm and other dimensions among the sample.

192

Table 4.35 Relationship between the Educational Qualification and the

Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact

dimensions on the performance of the employees, firm and other

dimensions among the sample

Dimensions of HRA

Educational stream F

value P value

UG-

Technical

UG-

Nontechnical

PG-

Technical

PG-

Nontechnical Professional

Factors

influencing

HRA Practices

in IT sector

Mean

57.42 53.87 57.22 56.06 58.25

8.730 0.000**

SD (3.68) (7.52) (4.16) (4.56) (5.28)

Individual

Performance

Mean 38.41 33.81 37.33 37.65 38.66

8.730 0.000**

SD (4.72) (7.15) (4.97) (4.75) (6.29)

Organizational

Performance

Mean 37.78 34.29 38.04 38.03 38.04 5.887 0.000**

SD (4.70) (7.11) (4.74) (5.43) (5.81)

Barriers in

conducting

Mean 37.16 32.31 36.44 36.24 37.50 6.708 0.000**

SD (6.06) (9.13) (5.71) (7.05) (7.07)

Benefits in

conducting

Mean 37.68 33.98 37.04 36.79 38.60

7.253 0.000**

SD (4.51) (8.03) (4.83) (5.14) (6.13)


Relationship between educational Qualification and the Perceptions on the factors

influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on the performance of the

employees, firm and other dimensions among the sample is rejected at 1% level of

significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a highly Relationship between

educational Qualification and the Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA

practices, impact dimensions on the performance of the employees, firm and other

dimensions among the sample. Based on the mean value, it is noted that,

respondents with professional qualification are highly agreed that fact that HRA

practices can help and have impact on the performance of the employees and the

overall performance of the firm in IT sector. Hence, it can be viewed as a positive

note and can insist on adoption and practice of HRA practice for the mutual benefit

193

of the employees and firm and the stake holders at large. Any practice which creates

value to the company in terms of physical or intellectual value should be encouraged

and the ripped benefits can be shared among the contributors. The practice of

sharing and caring can go a long way to improve further and sustainable in the

markets.

3. Relationship between the Department of working and the Perceptions

on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on the

performance of the employees, firm and other dimensions among the

sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between department of working and the

perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on the

performance of the employees, firm and other dimensions among the sample.

Table 4.36 Relationship between department of working and the Perceptions

on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on

the performance of the employees, firm and other dimensions

among the sample

Dimensions of HRA

Department of working F

value P value

Planning

&

Control

Establish

ment

HR &

Training

Accounting

&

Taxation

Product

Development

Factors

influencing HRA

Practices in IT

sector

Mean

56.17 56.59 60.51 56.06 56.91 7.573 0.000**

SD (4.49) (5.15) (6.73) (4.13) (5.02)

Individual

Performance

Mean 36.62 36.26 41.15 38.13 37.33

6.958 0.000**

SD (5.91) (5.67) (6.86) (5.55) (5.46)

Organizational

Performance

Mean 36.66 36.27 40.93 37.15 37.30

6.758 0.000**

SD (5.89) (5.98) (6.12) (4.89) (5.15)

Barriers in

conducting

Mean 36.04 35.92 40.49 34.70 36.00 5.830 0.000**

SD (7.01) (7.76) (7.06) (6.57) (6.68)

Benefits in

conducting

Mean 36.45 36.47 40.91 36.34 37.17

6.456 0.000**

SD (5.85) (5.76) (6.31) (5.70) (5.69)

194

The results of the table 4.36, shows that the p value is less than 0.01, for

the hypothesis, There is no Relationship between department of working and the

Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on the

performance of the employees, firm and other dimensions among the sample. Hence,

the hypothesis, There is no Relationship between department of working and the

Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on the

performance of the employees, firm and other dimensions among the sample is

rejected at 1% level of significance. Based on the mean value, it is noted that, the

employees working in the human resources department are highly agreed the

benefits of HR audit practices in the company when compared to others in the

sample. It may be due to better level of knowledge on the various dimensions of the

HR audit and its implications linked with the individual and firm performance. The

human resources department can take initiatives to create awareness on the human

resources audit and its relevance to improve the performance of the employees and

the firm. This can help in getting the better support from the employees and to adopt

and implement in a better manner in all the departments in an effective way. This

can spur the benefits to all over a period of time.

4. Relationship between the Level of Management and the Perceptions

on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions on the

performance of the employees, firm and other dimensions among the

sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no Relationship between level of Management and the

Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact of HRA on the

performance of employees, firm, barriers and benefits of HR audit among the

sample.

195

Table 4.37 Relationship between level of management and the Perceptions

on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact of HRA on the

performance of employees, firm, barriers and benefits of HR

audit among the sample

Perceptions on various dimensions of

impact of HRA on the employees and

the firm

Level of management

F value P value Top level

Middle

level Floor level


Practices in IT sector

Mean 59.40 57.45 55.90 13.235 0.000**

SD (5.85) (4.22) (5.51)

Impact of HRA Individual

Performance

Mean 40.37 37.91 36.31

13.660 0.000**

SD (6.09) (5.11) (6.15)

Impact of HRA on

Organizational Performance

Mean 39.88 37.20 36.77

4.267 0.000**

SD (5.97) (5.02) (5.86)

Barriers in conducting HRA Mean 38.56 36.19 35.78 12.465 0.014*

SD (7.21) (6.35) (7.57)

Benefits in conducting HRA Mean 39.96 37.61 36.06 12.465 0.000**

SD (6.41) (5.16) (6.09)


Relationship between level of management and the Perceptions on the factors

influencing HRA practices; impact of HRA on the performance of employees, firm,

barriers and benefits of HR audit among the sample is rejected at 1% level of

significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a highly Relationship between level

of management and the Perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices,

impact of HRA on the performance of employees, firm, barriers and benefits of HR

audit among the sample. Based on the mean value, it is noted that the employees

working in top level management are highly favored the impact of HRA practices on

the performance of employees and the firm when compared to others in the sample.

This may be due to better levels of awareness on the roleand impact of HRA on the

individual development and its role in organizational performance. The experienced

employees can view the impact at a broader sense in terms of career development of

the employees, learning value, skill development etc, rather than the economic value

196

of the firm in terms of sales and revenue. Hence, adoption and inculcation of the

customized patterns of HR audit can play a vital role in the development of the

employees and the firm.

5. Relationship between the Experience and the Perceptions on the

factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions of HRA on the

performance of the employees, firm, barriers and benefits among the

sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between educational qualification and the

perceptions on the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions of HRA on

the performance of the employees, firm, barriers and benefits among the sample.

Table 4.38 Relationship between the Experience and the Perceptions on the

factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions of HRA on

the performance of the employees, firm, barriers and benefits

among the sample

Experience in years F value P value

Below 5 5-10 10-15 15-20 Above 20

HRA Practices in

IT sector Mean 55.82 56.89 56.54 58.53 59.29 7.039 0.000**

SD (5.89) (3.89) (4.04) (4.00) (6.14)

Individual

Performance

Mean 37.01 37.59 37.07 37.09 39.38 2.308 0.057*

SD (6.59) (4.90) (4.77) (4.93) (6.83)

Organizational

Performance

Mean 36.41 37.06 37.56 37.47 40.08 5.833 0.000**

SD (6.23) (4.85) (4.64) (5.38) (5.65)

Barriers in

conducting

Mean 34.70 37.05 36.63 37.64 37.90 3.788 0.005**

SD (7.64) (6.10) (6.16) (6.53) (7.78)

Benefits in

conducting

Mean 36.40 36.89 37.80 37.81 39.16 3.115 .015*

SD (6.34) (5.34) (4.88) (4.96) (6.76)

197

It is observed from the table 4.38, that, the p value is less than 0.01, for

the hypothesis, there is no Relationship between experience and the Perceptions on

the factors influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions of HRA on the

performance of the firm, and barriers among the sample. Hence, the hull hypothesis,

, there is no Relationship between experience and the Perceptions on the factors

influencing HRA practices, impact dimensions of HRA on the performance of the

firm, and barriers among the sample is rejected at 1% level of significance. Based on

the mean value, it is noted that, the employees with above 20 years of experience are

highly agreed the fact that, HR audit can help in improving the performance of the

employees and the firm. In addition, the impact of more in the long run when

compared to the current period. The role of human resources department is keen in

improving the level of awareness and involvement of the employees in the HR audit

process. The reason behind the high level of favour revealed by the employees with

rich experience is the past experience and the observed learning practices of the HR

audit. The same needs to be spread among the other employees and to improve the

involvement in the process. This can help in improving the degree of impact in the

best possible manner and with in no time. Involvement of the employees is more

important for the success of the HR audit and its benefits to the firm and the stake

holders at large.

4.3 DATA ANALYSIS USING CHI – SQUARE:

1. Association between Gender and Perception on HRA impact on

individual performance among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between Gender and Perception on HRA

impact on individual performance among the sample.

198

Table 4.39 Association between gender and the perception on HRA impact


Gender

Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance Total

Chi-

square

value

P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Male

Count 39 114 41 20 42 256

4.117

0.390NS

% within

Gender 15.2% 44.5% 16.0% 7.8% 16.4% 100.0%

% within Perception on

HRA impact

on individual

performance

55.7% 54.3% 67.2% 64.5% 60.0% 57.9%

Female

Count 31 96 20 11 28 186

% within

Gender 16.7% 51.6% 10.8% 5.9% 15.1% 100.0%

% within

Perception on HRA impact

on individual

performance

44.3% 45.7% 32.8% 35.5% 40.0% 42.1%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within

Gender 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%


HRA impact

on individual

performance

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: SA-Strongly agree; A-Agree; SWA-Somewhat agree; NA-Not Agree; NAA-Not at all Agree

NS-indicates Not significant at 5% level of significance.

Since p value is 0.390, which is greater than 0.05, hence, the null

hypothesis, There is no Association between Gender and Perception on HRA impact

on individual performance among the sample is accepted at 5 % level of

significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is no Association between Gender

and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample. Based

on the row and column percentage, it is noted that, 67.2 percent of the male

respondents are agreed for the fact that HR audit impact on the performance of the

employees and the firm is high when compared to others in the sample. Hence, it is

concluded that both male and female are agreed up on the impact of HR audit on the

performance of the firm and individual employees with the minor degree of

variation. Hence, it is inferred that the employees working in It firms are aware of

the impact of HR audit on the performance. The need of the hour is strict

199

implementation with the involvement of the employees for the common benefit of

the stake holders and for high level success.

2. Association between Age and Perception on HRA impact on

individual performance among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between Age and Perception on HRA


Table 4.40 Association between Age and the perception on HRA impact on

individual performance

Age group in years


performance Total

Chi

value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Upto 20 Count 6 29 10 7 10 62

% within Age Group in

years 9.7% 46.8% 16.1% 11.3% 16.1% 100.0%

% within Perception on HRA impact on


8.6% 13.8% 16.4% 22.6% 14.3% 14.0%

21-30

Count 33 80 26 9 33 181


years 18.2% 44.2% 14.4% 5.0% 18.2% 100.0%

% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance

47.1% 38.1% 42.6% 29.0% 47.1% 41.0%

31-40

Count 10 28 10 7 7 62


years 16.1% 45.2% 16.1% 11.3% 11.3% 100.0%

12.870 0.682NS


14.3% 13.3% 16.4% 22.6% 10.0% 14.0%

41-50

Count 9 32 7 4 12 64


years 14.1% 50.0% 10.9% 6.3% 18.8% 100.0%


12.9% 15.2% 11.5% 12.9% 17.1% 14.5%

Above 50

Count 12 41 8 4 8 73


years 16.4% 56.2% 11.0% 5.5% 11.0% 100.0%


17.1% 19.5% 13.1% 12.9% 11.4% 16.5%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


years 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

200

Since p value recorded (p=0.682) is greater than 0.05, hence, the null

hypothesis, There is no Association between Age and Perception on HRA impact on

individual performance among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance.

Based on the same, it is inferred that, there is no Association between Age and

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample. Based on

the row and column percentage , it is noted that, respondents belongs to 21-30 years

age group employees are strongly agreed and endorsed the impact of HRA on the

performance of the employees in the It sector when compared to others in the

sample. It indicates that the youth also realized the fact that professional HRA

practices has the influence on the performance and allocation of employees to right

positions and there by improved level of organizational performance. It is a positive

sign and helps the organizations to implement the same consistently and to realize

the benefits of the same.

3. Association between Educational stream and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between Educational stream and

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

201

Table 4.41 Association between Educational stream and the perception on

HRA impact on individual performance

Educational stream


individual performance Total Chi

value

P

value SA A SWA NA NAA

UG-Technical Count 18 53 15 5 20 111

% within Educational stream 16.2% 47.7% 13.5% 4.5% 18.0% 100.0% 12.964 0.675

% within Perception on HRA

impact


25.7% 25.2% 24.6% 16.1% 28.6% 25.1%

UG-Nontechnical Count 12 33 4 2 11 62

% within Educational stream 19.4% 53.2% 6.5% 3.2% 17.7% 100.0%


impact


17.1% 15.7% 6.6% 6.5% 15.7% 14.0%

PG-Technical

Count 13 33 17 7 11 81



impact


18.6% 15.7% 27.9% 22.6% 15.7% 18.3%

PG-Nontechnical

Count 6 15 4 4 5 34



impact


8.6% 7.1% 6.6% 12.9% 7.1% 7.7%

Professional

Count 21 76 21 13 23 154



impact


30.0% 36.2% 34.4% 41.9% 32.9% 34.8%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442



impact on


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

202

Since p value (p=0.675) is recorded at greater than 0.05, hence, the null

hypothesis, There is no Association between Educational stream and Perception on

HRA impact on individual performance among the sample is accepted at 5% level of

significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is no Association between Educational

stream and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the

sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted that, the employees

with professional and post graduate technical qualification are strongly endorsed the

impact of HRA on the performance of the individuals in IT sector when compared to

others in the sample. It is also noted that the employees with other qualification and

educational streams are not having the full degree of awareness on the HRA

practices and its influence on the performance of the employees. Once, if they

realized the same, it is easy to the firms to implement the same in full pledged

manner.

4. Association between department of working and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between department of working and


203

Table 4.42 Association between department of working and the perception

on HRA impact on individual performance

Department of working


performance Total Chi

value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Planning & Control

Count 14 42 8 4 9 77

% within


18.2% 54.5% 10.4% 5.2% 11.7% 100.0%


20.0% 20.0% 13.1% 12.9% 12.9% 17.4%

11.809 0.757

Establishment

Count 11 31 10 8 14 74

% within Department of working

14.9% 41.9% 13.5% 10.8% 18.9% 100.0%



15.7% 14.8% 16.4% 25.8% 20.0% 16.7%

HR & Training

Count 7 23 12 4 9 55

% within


12.7% 41.8% 21.8% 7.3% 16.4% 100.0%

% within Perception


10.0% 11.0% 19.7% 12.9% 12.9% 12.4%

Accounting

& Taxation

Count 9 24 6 2 12 53

% within


17.0% 45.3% 11.3% 3.8% 22.6% 100.0%

% within Perception


12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 6.5% 17.1% 12.0%

Product

Development

Count 29 90 25 13 26 183

% within


15.8% 49.2% 13.7% 7.1% 14.2% 100.0%

% within Perception


41.4% 42.9% 41.0% 41.9% 37.1% 41.4%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Department of working

15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%

% within Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

204

Since p value (Chi square value=11.809,p=0.757) is greater than 0.05, the

null hypothesis, There is no Association between department of working and

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample is accepted

at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is no Association

between department of working and Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted

that the employees working in the product design and development department are

strongly agreed that the role of human resources audit on the performance of the

employees in It sector when compared to others in the sample. It is evident that the

in software and IT services industry, the allocation of employees on the skill matrix

base to improve the reliability of the project and its quality of the product design and

development. Hence, product design and development department is strictly follows

the HRA practices and there by the employees working in the same department may

be having higher level of understanding on the HRA practices and its implications to

thr work performance of the employees.

5. Association between level of management and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between level of management and


205

Table 4.43 Association between level of management and the perception on


Level of management


performance Total

Chi

value p value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Top level Count 19 32 10 4 8 73

% within Level

of management 26.0% 43.8% 13.7% 5.5% 11.0% 100.0%


27.1% 15.2% 16.4% 12.9% 11.4% 16.5%

9.031 0.340

Middle level

Count 24 82 20 13 31 170

% within Level of management

14.1% 48.2% 11.8% 7.6% 18.2% 100.0%



34.3% 39.0% 32.8% 41.9% 44.3% 38.5%

Floor level Count 27 96 31 14 31 199


13.6% 48.2% 15.6% 7.0% 15.6% 100.0%



38.6% 45.7% 50.8% 45.2% 44.3% 45.0%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


null hypothesis, There is no Association between level of management and


at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is no Association

between level of management and Perception on HRA impact on individual


that the employees working in the top level management are strongly endorsed the

fact that the HRA has a key role in the productivity and performance of the

employees in IT sector when compared to others in the sample. Based on the same,

it is clear that the employees who have experienced the same can explain to others

and can influence them to participate and co-operate to the HRA practices.

206

6. Association between level of experience and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between level of experience and

perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

Table 4.44 Association between level of experience and the perception on


Experience in years


performance Total Chi value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Below 5

Count 29 69 28 8 21 155

% within Experience in years

18.7% 44.5% 18.1% 5.2% 13.5% 100.0%

% within Perception


41.4% 32.9% 45.9% 25.8% 30.0% 35.1% 17.824 0.334

5-10

Count 16 68 12 9 17 122


13.1% 55.7% 9.8% 7.4% 13.9% 100.0%

% within Perception


22.9% 32.4% 19.7% 29.0% 24.3% 27.6%

10-15

Count 6 15 5 7 8 41


14.6% 36.6% 12.2% 17.1% 19.5% 100.0%

% within Perception


8.6% 7.1% 8.2% 22.6% 11.4% 9.3%

15-20

Count 8 21 6 2 10 47


17.0% 44.7% 12.8% 4.3% 21.3% 100.0%


11.4% 10.0% 9.8% 6.5% 14.3% 10.6%

Above 20

Count 11 37 10 5 14 77


14.3% 48.1% 13.0% 6.5% 18.2% 100.0%


15.7% 17.6% 16.4% 16.1% 20.0% 17.4%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

207


null hypothesis, There is no Association between level of experience and Perception

on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample is accepted at 5%

level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is no Association between

level of experience and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance

among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is observed that, the

employees belongs to below 5 years experience and the above 20 years experience

are strongly endorsed the role of HRA on the performance of the individual

employees in the IT sector. Hence, it is confirmed that the impact of HRA on the

performance is spread across the employee groups. The level of experience has no

association with the perception on the role of HRA in the performance of the

employees.

7. Association between degree of awareness and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between degree of awareness and


208

Table 4.45 Association between degree of awareness and the perception on


Awareness on HRA Perception on HRA impact on individual performance

Total Chi value P value SA A SWA NA NAA

Highly

aware

Count 5 18 13 0 0 36

% within Awareness

on HRA 13.9% 50.0% 36.1% .0% .0% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

7.1% 8.6% 21.3% .0% .0% 8.1% 54.063 0.000**

Aware

Count 17 93 15 7 27 159

% within Awareness

on HRA 10.7% 58.5% 9.4% 4.4% 17.0% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

24.3% 44.3% 24.6% 22.6% 38.6% 36.0%

Some

what

aware

Count 25 54 13 13 24 129

% within Awareness

on HRA 19.4% 41.9% 10.1% 10.1% 18.6% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

35.7% 25.7% 21.3% 41.9% 34.3% 29.2%

Not aware

Count 18 39 12 11 16 96

% within Awareness

on HRA 18.8% 40.6% 12.5% 11.5% 16.7% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

25.7% 18.6% 19.7% 35.5% 22.9% 21.7%

Not at all

Count 5 6 8 0 3 22

% within Awareness

on HRA 22.7% 27.3% 36.4% .0% 13.6% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

7.1% 2.9% 13.1% .0% 4.3% 5.0%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Awareness

on HRA 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

209

Since p value (Chi square value=54.063,p=0.000) is less than 0.01, the

null hypothesis, There is no Association between degree of awareness and

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample is rejected

at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is a highly significant

Association between degree of awareness and Perception on HRA impact on

individual performance among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage

, it is found that, the degree of awareness has the close and highly significant

association with the level of agreement on the role of HRA on the performance of

the employees in the It sector. The level of awareness on the concept of HRA and its

implications and models and advantages can be explained to the employees across

the verticals for effective co-operation and implementation of HRA practices for the

common good in the years to come. The initiatives can be taken by the management

for the mutual benefit of the employees and the stake holders at large. The role of

management and ownership is key in this direction.

8. Association between sources of awareness and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between sources of awareness and


210

Table 4.46 Association between sources of awareness and the perception on


Sources of awareness



value

P


1 Count 14 49 15 7 19 104

% within Sources of awareness

13.5% 47.1% 14.4% 6.7% 18.3% 100%



20.0% 23.3% 24.6% 22.6% 27.1% 23.5% 22.745 0.121

2

Count 6 21 2 2 1 32

% within Sources of

awareness 18.8% 65.6% 6.3% 6.3% 3.1% 100%

% within Perception


8.6% 10.0% 3.3% 6.5% 1.4% 7.2%

3

Count 13 36 8 3 14 74


17.6% 48.6% 10.8% 4.1% 18.9% 100%



18.6% 17.1% 13.1% 9.7% 20.0% 16.7%

4

Count 22 64 30 9 27 152

% within Sources of

awareness 14.5% 42.1% 19.7% 5.9% 17.8% 100%

% within Perception


31.4% 30.5% 49.2% 29.0% 38.6% 34.4%

5

Count 15 40 6 10 9 80


18.8% 50.0% 7.5% 12.5% 11.3% 100%

% within Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance

21.4% 19.0% 9.8% 32.3% 12.9% 18.1%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Sources of

awareness 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100%

% within Perception


100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100%

Sources of awareness: 1- offer letter and training sessions; 2- Discussion with HR;

3- Performance appraisal form; 4- Collegues and friends, 5- old company is

practicing the HRA

211


null hypothesis, There is no Association between sources of awareness and



between sources of awareness and Perception on HRA impact on individual


that, the employees aware of the concept thorough discussion with HR department

and the employees who had a previous experience of practicing HRA in the previous

company are having the higher levels of agreement on the role of HRA on the

performance of the employees in the IT sector when compared to others in the

sample. Hence, the source of awareness has no association with the degree of

agreement on the role of HRA on the performance of employees in the It sector.

9. Association between practicing status of HRA and Perception on

HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between practicing status of HRA and


212

Table 4.47 Association between Practicing status of HRA and the

perception on HRA impact on individual performance




value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Yes

Count 49 137 35 25 45 291

% within Practicing

status of HRA 16.8% 47.1% 12.0% 8.6% 15.5% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on


70.0% 65.2% 57.4% 80.6% 64.3% 65.8% 5.611 0.230

No

Count 21 73 26 6 25 151

% within Practicing

status of HRA 13.9% 48.3% 17.2% 4.0% 16.6% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on


30.0% 34.8% 42.6% 19.4% 35.7% 34.2%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Practicing

status of HRA 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


null hypothesis, There is no Association between practicing status of HRA and



between practicing status of HRA and Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage , it is

noted that, the employees working in the companies practicing the HRA practices

age strongly agreed that the role of HRA is essential in the performance of the

employees in It sector. IT may be due to the level of awareness and personal

experience of the same over a period of time. Hence, the practicing status has no

direct relationship with the level of agreement on the role of HRA on the

performance of the employees in It sector.

213

10. Association between degree of practice of HRA and Perception on


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between degree of practice of HRA and


Table 4.48 Association between degree of practice of HRA and the


Degree of practice of HRA

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance

Total Chi value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Always

Count 24 59 36 2 16 137

% within Degree of practice of

HRA 17.5% 43.1% 26.3% 1.5% 11.7% 100.0%


impact on individual

performance

34.3% 28.1% 59.0% 6.5% 22.9% 31.0% 48.203 0.000**

Most of the

times

Count 24 80 12 16 18 150


HRA 16.0% 53.3% 8.0% 10.7% 12.0% 100.0%



performance

34.3% 38.1% 19.7% 51.6% 25.7% 33.9%

Half of the

times

Count 11 31 5 4 20 71


HRA 15.5% 43.7% 7.0% 5.6% 28.2% 100.0%



performance

15.7% 14.8% 8.2% 12.9% 28.6% 16.1%

Some times

Count 6 13 3 4 5 31


HRA 19.4% 41.9% 9.7% 12.9% 16.1% 100.0%



performance

8.6% 6.2% 4.9% 12.9% 7.1% 7.0%

Rarely

Count 5 27 5 5 11 53


HRA 9.4% 50.9% 9.4% 9.4% 20.8% 100.0%



performance

7.1% 12.9% 8.2% 16.1% 15.7% 12.0%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


HRA 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%



performance

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

214

Since p value (Chi square value=48.203,p=0.000) is less than 0.01, the

null hypothesis, There is no Association between degree of practice of HRA and

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample is rejected

at 1 % level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is a highly significant

Association between degree of practice of HRA and Perception on HRA impact on

individual performance among the sample. Based on the row and column

percentage, it is noted that the companies which are practicing HRA most of the

times and always are strongly agreed the fact the role of HRA on the performance of

individual employees in the It sector. IT indicates that the degree of practicing and

implementation of HRA has close and significant association with the degree of

performance of the employees in It sector. Hence, it is proved that the role of HRA

is indispensible in IT sector to improve the quality, productivity and performance of

the employees for the common benefit of the stake holders at large.

11. Association between perceptions on HRA impact on the firm

performance and Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between perceptions on HRA impact on

the firm performance and perception on HRA impact on individual performance

among the sample.

215

Table 4.49 Association between perceptions on HRA impact on the firm

performance and the perception on HRA impact on individual

performance


firm performance



value P Value

SA A SWA NA NAA

Excellent

Count 17 28 10 0 10 65

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

26.2% 43.1% 15.4% .0% 15.4% 100.0% 37.075 0.002**

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

24.3% 13.3% 16.4% .0% 14.3% 14.7%

Very good

Count 23 113 23 14 19 192

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance 12.0% 58.9% 12.0% 7.3% 9.9% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

32.9% 53.8% 37.7% 45.2% 27.1% 43.4%

Fair

Count 14 33 14 8 17 86

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

16.3% 38.4% 16.3% 9.3% 19.8% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

20.0% 15.7% 23.0% 25.8% 24.3% 19.5%

Moderate

Count 7 16 5 5 6 39

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

17.9% 41.0% 12.8% 12.8% 15.4% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

10.0% 7.6% 8.2% 16.1% 8.6% 8.8%

No impact

Count 9 20 9 4 18 60

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

15.0% 33.3% 15.0% 6.7% 30.0% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

12.9% 9.5% 14.8% 12.9% 25.7% 13.6%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

216

Since p value (Chi square value=37.075,p=0.002) is less than 0.01,

hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between perceptions on HRA

impact on the firm performance and Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance among the sample is rejected at 1 % level of significance. Hence, it is

concluded that, there is a highly significant Association between perceptions on

HRA impact on the firm performance and Perception on HRA impact on individual


that the employees who perceived excellent and very good impact of HRA on the

performance of the employees are strongly agreed the fact that the role of HRA in

the performance of the employees in IT sector when compared to others in the

sample. This may be due to personal experience and the higher degree and

dimensions of awareness on the HRA among the respondents.

12. Association between rating of HRA practice and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between rating of HRA practice and


217

Table 4.50 Association between rating of HRA practice and the perception


Rating of HRA practice



value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

1

Count 23 22 6 4 7 62

% within Rating of HRA practice

37.1% 35.5% 9.7% 6.5% 11.3% 100.0%


32.9% 10.5% 9.8% 12.9% 10.0% 14.0% 89.880 0.000**

2

Count 23 117 21 14 24 199


11.6% 58.8% 10.6% 7.0% 12.1% 100.0%


32.9% 55.7% 34.4% 45.2% 34.3% 45.0%

3

Count 7 39 20 1 16 83


8.4% 47.0% 24.1% 1.2% 19.3% 100.0%


10.0% 18.6% 32.8% 3.2% 22.9% 18.8%

4

Count 5 10 3 11 6 35


14.3% 28.6% 8.6% 31.4% 17.1% 100.0%


7.1% 4.8% 4.9% 35.5% 8.6% 7.9%

5

Count 12 22 11 1 17 63

% within Rating of HRA practice 19.0% 34.9% 17.5% 1.6% 27.0% 100.0%



17.1% 10.5% 18.0% 3.2% 24.3% 14.3%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Rating of HRA

practice 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%



100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

218


hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between rating of HRA practice

and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample is

rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is a highly

significant Association between rating of HRA practice and Perception on HRA

impact on individual performance among the sample. Based on the row and column

percentage, it is noted that the employees who have rated the practicing status as

very good are strongly agreed that the role of HRA on the performance of the

individual employees in IT sector. Hence, it agreed that the quality of adoption,

implementation and follow up has close association with the success of the HRA

practices and its impact on the performance of the employees in It sector. Hence, it

is necessary to have a good and dedicated team to implement the HRA practices

from time to time with lot of care and concern.

13. Association between Factors influencing HRA Practice and

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the

sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between factors influencing HRA Practice

and perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

219

Table 4.51 Association between Factors influencing HRA Practice and the


Factor influencing HRA

practice



value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

1 Count 7 31 9 5 19 71

% within Factor

influencing HRA practice

9.9% 43.7% 12.7% 7.0% 26.8% 100.0%


10.0% 14.8% 14.8% 16.1% 27.1% 16.1% 33.512 0.006**

2

Count 43 88 36 16 29 212

% within Factor


20.3% 41.5% 17.0% 7.5% 13.7% 100.0%



61.4% 41.9% 59.0% 51.6% 41.4% 48.0%

3 Count 14 35 4 6 7 66

% within Factor


21.2% 53.0% 6.1% 9.1% 10.6% 100.0%



20.0% 16.7% 6.6% 19.4% 10.0% 14.9%

4 Count 5 26 3 1 5 40

% within Factor


12.5% 65.0% 7.5% 2.5% 12.5% 100.0%


7.1% 12.4% 4.9% 3.2% 7.1% 9.0%

5 Count 1 30 9 3 10 53

% within Factor


1.9% 56.6% 17.0% 5.7% 18.9% 100.0%


1.4% 14.3% 14.8% 9.7% 14.3% 12.0%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Factor influencing HRA practice

15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

220


hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between Factors influencing

HRA Practice and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the

sample is rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a

highly significant Association between Factors influencing HRA Practice and

Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample. Based on

the row and column percentage, it is noted that, environmental factors are playing

the strong role in the practicing of HRA practices in It sector when compared to

other factors quoted. Similarly, they feel that the role of HRA on the performance of

the individual performance e is average. Hence, it is concluded that the role of HRA

on the performance of the individuals is indispensible however the environmental

factors too important to extract the full potential of the employees in terms of work

performance and quality of work. Hence, environmental factors and HRA practices

combine can deliver effective results in terms of good performance from the

employees.

14. Association between Frequency of performing HRA and Perception

on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between frequency of performing HRA


221

Table 4.52 Association between Frequency of performing HRA and the


Frequency of performing HRA


performance Total

Chi

value

P

Value SA A SWA NA NAA

Yearly

Count 10 40 12 5 18 85

% within Frequency

of performing HRA 11.8% 47.1% 14.1% 5.9% 21.2% 100.0%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

14.3% 19.0% 19.7% 16.1% 25.7% 19.2% 10.875 0.540

Half yearly

Count 33 104 29 16 29 211

% within Frequency


% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

47.1% 49.5% 47.5% 51.6% 41.4% 47.7%

Quarterly

Count 16 44 12 4 9 85

% within Frequency


% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

22.9% 21.0% 19.7% 12.9% 12.9% 19.2%

Before new

Project

starts

Count 11 22 8 6 14 61

% within Frequency


% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

15.7% 10.5% 13.1% 19.4% 20.0% 13.8%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Frequency


% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

100 100 100 100 100 100

222


null hypothesis, There is no Association between Frequency of performing HRA and



between Frequency of performing HRA and Perception on HRA impact on


percentage, it is noted that, the companies performing HRA on quarterly basis are

agreed the fact that the role of HRA on the performance of the individual employees

in IT sector when compared to others in the sample. Hence, it is noted that frequency

of conducting the HRA has no influence of the performance of the employees in IT

sector.

15. Association between Frequencies of measures taken based on HRA

report and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance

among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between frequency of measures taken

based on HRA report and perception on HRA impact on individual performance

among the sample.

223

Table 4.53 Association between Frequencies of measures taken based on

HRA report and the perception on HRA impact on individual

performance

Frequency of measures taken on

HRA report



value

P


Always

Count 19 52 20 6 18 115

% within Frequency of

measures taken on HRA report

16.5% 45.2% 17.4% 5.2% 15.7% 100.0%



27.1% 24.8% 32.8% 19.4% 25.7% 26.0% 13.696 0.622

Most of the times

Count 25 79 21 13 25 163



15.3% 48.5% 12.9% 8.0% 15.3% 100.0%



35.7% 37.6% 34.4% 41.9% 35.7% 36.9%

Some

times

Count 12 33 10 5 12 72



16.7% 45.8% 13.9% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%



17.1% 15.7% 16.4% 16.1% 17.1% 16.3%

Rarely

Count 6 36 10 4 10 66



9.1% 54.5% 15.2% 6.1% 15.2% 100.0%



8.6% 17.1% 16.4% 12.9% 14.3% 14.9%

Never

Count 8 10 0 3 5 26


measures taken on HRA report 30.8% 38.5% .0% 11.5% 19.2% 100.0%



11.4% 4.8% .0% 9.7% 7.1% 5.9%

Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Frequency of measures taken on HRA

report

15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100.0%



100 100 100 100 100 100

224


null hypothesis, There is no Association between Frequency of measures taken

based on HRA report and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance

among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded

that, there is no Association between Frequency of measures taken based on HRA

report and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

Based on row and column percentage, it is noted that, the companies taking action

on the basis of HRA report agreed that the role of HRA on the performance of the

individual employees in the IT sector. In addition, it is noted that HRA report based

actions are rare in some cases based on the need. However the corrective measures

and remedial measures are initiated at the end of every HR audit and imparting to

the employees to correct themselves in future. The suggestions can be given as a

moral suasion and to proceed further. This can work as a mutually agreed and co-

operative and carrot approach to settle the issue in amicable manner. This can help

in building the mutual understanding between the employees and supervisors and

HR team.

16. Association between Motive to focus on HRA and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between motive to focus on HRA and


225

Table 4.54 Association between Motive to focus on HRA and the perception


Motive to focus on HRA



value

P


1

Count 10 21 6 2 6 45

% within Motive to focus on HRA

22.2% 46.7% 13.3% 4.4% 13.3% 100%


14.3% 10.0% 9.8% 6.5% 8.6% 10.2% 19.408 0.248

2

Count 20 62 16 11 27 136


14.7% 45.6% 11.8% 8.1% 19.9% 100%


28.6% 29.5% 26.2% 35.5% 38.6% 30.8%

3

Count 11 33 5 3 11 63


17.5% 52.4% 7.9% 4.8% 17.5% 100%


15.7% 15.7% 8.2% 9.7% 15.7% 14.3%

4

Count 8 23 3 5 11 50


16.0% 46.0% 6.0% 10.0% 22.0% 100%


11.4% 11.0% 4.9% 16.1% 15.7% 11.3%

5

Count 21 71 31 10 15 148


14.2% 48.0% 20.9% 6.8% 10.1% 100%


30.0% 33.8% 50.8% 32.3% 21.4% 33.5%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

226


null hypothesis, There is no Association between Motive to focus on HRA and



between Motive to focus on HRA and Perception on HRA impact on individual

performance among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is

found that, the employees viewed the HRA as an activity to assess the future

preparedness is agree the role of HRA on the performance of the individuals in IT

sector. However, it is used as a control measure and client requirement measure in

many IT firms in the sample. The ultimate objective is to improve the quality of

work and to satisfy the clients for sustainable development. In rare occasions, it can

be used as a stick to eliminate the poor performed employees in the IT firms.

17. Association between Individual preference for HRA and Perception

on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between individual preference for HRA


227

Table 4.55 Association between Individual preference for HRA and the perception on HRA impact on individual performance

Individual preference for HRA



value

P


Always

Count 16 50 15 6 13 100

% within Individual

preference for HRA 16.0% 50.0% 15.0% 6.0% 13.0% 100%


HRA impact on


22.9% 23.8% 24.6% 19.4% 18.6% 22.6% 10.506 0.839

Most of

the times

Count 28 89 23 17 29 186

% within Individual



HRA impact on


40.0% 42.4% 37.7% 54.8% 41.4% 42.1%

Some

times

Count 12 39 8 6 17 82

% within Individual




17.1% 18.6% 13.1% 19.4% 24.3% 18.6%

Rarely

Count 11 27 12 1 9 60

% within Individual




15.7% 12.9% 19.7% 3.2% 12.9% 13.6%

Never

Count 3 5 3 1 2 14

% within Individual



HRA impact on


4.3% 2.4% 4.9% 3.2% 2.9% 3.2%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Individual



HRA impact on


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

228


null hypothesis, There is no Association between Individual preference for HRA and



between Individual preference for HRA and Perception on HRA impact on


percentage, it is noted that, individuals are preferred to have HRA most of the times

and simultaneously the role of HRA on the performance of the individuals is not

agreed. This indicates that the work performance of the individual employees is

nominally influenced by the HRA practices among the sample companies. The

reasons for the same may be environmental factors and the ineffective practice of

HRA practices. This can be avoided through effective and co-ordinate

implementation with the employee participation. The success of any programme

depends on the degree of participation of the stake holders. Hence, management

should plan to involve the employees in all the programmes.

18. Association between reasons for preferring HRA and Perception on


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between reasons for preferring HRA and


229

Table 4.56 Association between reasons for preferring HRA and the


Reason for preferring

HRA


individual performance Total

Chi

value P value

SA A SWA NA NAA

1

Count 27 19 10 7 13 76

% within Reason for

preferring HRA 35.5% 25.0% 13.2% 9.2% 17.1% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

38.6% 9.0% 16.4% 22.6% 18.6% 17.2% 134.127 0.000**

2

Count 25 136 26 11 25 223

% within Reason for

preferring HRA 11.2% 61.0% 11.7% 4.9% 11.2% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

35.7% 64.8% 42.6% 35.5% 35.7% 50.5%

3

Count 9 31 20 5 10 75

% within Reason for

preferring HRA 12.0% 41.3% 26.7% 6.7% 13.3% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on


12.9% 14.8% 32.8% 16.1% 14.3% 17.0%

4

Count 2 1 1 7 0 11

% within Reason for

preferring HRA 18.2% 9.1% 9.1% 63.6% .0% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

2.9% .5% 1.6% 22.6% .0% 2.5%

5

Count 7 23 4 1 22 57

% within Reason for

preferring HRA 12.3% 40.4% 7.0% 1.8% 38.6% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

individual

performance

10.0% 11.0% 6.6% 3.2% 31.4% 12.9%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442

% within Reason for

preferring HRA 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on individual

performance

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Reasons to prefer HRA: 1-It helps to identify our SWOT; 2- Helps to grow in

career ladder; 3- Bench mark for performance; 4- Grade points of pay scale goes up;

5- Helps to shift to some other opportunity

230

Since p value (Chi square value=134.127,p=0.000) is greater than 0.05,

the null hypothesis, There is no Association between reasons for preferring HRA


accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a highly

significant Association between reasons for preferring HRA and Perception on HRA


percentage, it is noted that, the employees preferred HRA viewing as a tool to grow

in career ladder and bench mark for performance are strongly agreed the role of

HRA in the performance of employees when compared to others in the sample. It

indicates that the need for involving the employees in the HRA process can help in

getting better results in the years to come.

19. Association between Frequency of conducting HRA by experts and


sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between Frequency of conducting HRA

by experts and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the

sample.

231

Table 4.57 Association between Frequency of conducting HRA by experts

and the perception on HRA impact on individual performance

HRA conducts by experts



value

P


Always

Count 9 35 8 2 11 65

% within HRA conducts by experts

13.8% 53.8% 12.3% 3.1% 16.9% 100%


12.9% 16.7% 13.1% 6.5% 15.7% 14.7% 17.785 0.337

Most of the times

Count 30 75 26 12 31 174


17.2% 43.1% 14.9% 6.9% 17.8% 100%


42.9% 35.7% 42.6% 38.7% 44.3% 39.4%

Some times

Count 14 36 5 5 12 72


19.4% 50.0% 6.9% 6.9% 16.7% 100%


20.0% 17.1% 8.2% 16.1% 17.1% 16.3%

Rarely

Count 2 19 2 4 6 33


6.1% 57.6% 6.1% 12.1% 18.2% 100%


2.9% 9.0% 3.3% 12.9% 8.6% 7.5%

Never

Count 15 45 20 8 10 98


15.3% 45.9% 20.4% 8.2% 10.2% 100%


21.4% 21.4% 32.8% 25.8% 14.3% 22.2%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


null hypothesis, There is no Association between Frequency of conducting HRA by

experts and Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the

sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is

no Association between Frequency of conducting HRA by experts and Perception on

HRA impact on individual performance among the sample. Based on the row and

column percentage, it is noted that, irrespective of frequency of conducting HR

audit, the employees agreed the role of HRA on the performance of the individual

employees in the sample. Hence, it is inferred that, the role of HRA is keen in

improving the performance of the employees in It sector.

232

20. Association between management attitude towards HRA and


sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between management attitude towards

HRA and perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.

Table 4.58 Association between management attitude towards HRA and the





value

P


1 Count 16 46 13 6 17 98

% within Management attitude

towards HRA 16.3% 46.9% 13.3% 6.1% 17.3% 100%


impact on individual performance 22.9% 21.9% 21.3% 19.4% 24.3% 22.2% 9.982 0.887

2

Count 32 88 28 14 29 191


towards HRA 16.8% 46.1% 14.7% 7.3% 15.2% 100%


45.7% 41.9% 45.9% 45.2% 41.4% 43.2%

3

Count 13 44 10 6 11 84

% within Management attitude towards HRA

15.5% 52.4% 11.9% 7.1% 13.1% 100%


18.6% 21.0% 16.4% 19.4% 15.7% 19.0%

4

Count 4 23 5 2 11 45

% within Management attitude towards HRA

8.9% 51.1% 11.1% 4.4% 24.4% 100%


5.7% 11.0% 8.2% 6.5% 15.7% 10.2%

5

Count 5 9 5 3 2 24


towards HRA 20.8% 37.5% 20.8% 12.5% 8.3% 100%


impact on individual performance 7.1% 4.3% 8.2% 9.7% 2.9% 5.4%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


towards HRA 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100%


impact on individual performance 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Management view of HRA: 1- Professional tool to build good teams; 2-

Performance control measure; 3- Talent retention measure; 4- Motivational tool; 5-

Practice of custom.

233

Since p value (Chi square value=9.982, p=0.887) is greater than 0.05, the

null hypothesis, There is no Association between management attitude towards HRA


accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is no

Association between management attitude towards HRA and Perception on HRA


percentage, it is noted that, Employees viewed HRA as professional tool to build

teams, performance control measure and talent retention measure are strongly agreed

the role of HRA on the performance of the individual employees when compared to

others in the sample. This indicates that the HRA is viewed in different angles by the

employees. The role of awareness and removal of myths are important in

understanding the same in the right sense. Creation of awareness is important to

view the HRA in right sense.

21. Association between Focused area of HR function and Perception on


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between focused area of HR function and


234

Table 4.59 Association between Focused area of HR function and the


Focused area of HRA function



value

P


1

Count 11 42 5 5 15 78

% within Focused area of

HRA function 14.1% 53.8% 6.4% 6.4% 19.2% 100%


HRA impact on


15.7% 20.0% 8.2% 16.1% 21.4% 17.6% 20.147 0.214

2

Count 17 58 19 9 12 115


HRA function 14.8% 50.4% 16.5% 7.8% 10.4% 100%



24.3% 27.6% 31.1% 29.0% 17.1% 26.0%

3

Count 24 55 23 12 26 140


HRA function 17.1% 39.3% 16.4% 8.6% 18.6% 100%


individual performance 34.3% 26.2% 37.7% 38.7% 37.1% 31.7%

4

Count 5 25 3 3 3 39


HRA function 12.8% 64.1% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 100%


HRA impact on


7.1% 11.9% 4.9% 9.7% 4.3% 8.8%

5

Count 13 30 11 2 14 70


HRA function 18.6% 42.9% 15.7% 2.9% 20.0% 100%


HRA impact on


18.6% 14.3% 18.0% 6.5% 20.0% 15.8%

Total

Count 70 210 61 31 70 442


HRA function 15.8% 47.5% 13.8% 7.0% 15.8% 100%



100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Recruitment-1, Compensation and benefits-2, Performance evaluation-3,

Termination-4, Exit interviews-5.

Since p value (Chi square value=20.147, p=0.214) is greater than 0.05, the

null hypothesis, There is no Association between Focused area of HR function and

235

perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample is accepted


between Focused area of HR function and Perception on HRA impact on individual


that, the employees from the companies, focused HRA for compensation and

benefits, performance evaluation are agreed the role of HRA on the performance of

the employees in IT sector. It indicates that, HRA is used as a controlling weapon

for performance evaluation. In addition all the myths associated with the same is

spread among the employees. This needs to be removed by way of conducting the

open forums on HRA and its objectives of implementation in IT sector. This can

help in reaching out in the real sense and to get the benefits in the form of effective

participation and co-operation of the employees in the process.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND

PERCEPTIONS ON HRA IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE OF THE FIRM

1. Association between Gender and Perception on HRA impact on the

performance of a firm among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between Gender and Perception on the

impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.

Table 4.60 Association between gender and the Perception on HRA impact

on the performance of a firm among the sample

Gender

Perception on HRA impact on firm performance Total

Excellent Very

good Fair Moderate No impact

Male

Count 37 106 59 23 31 256

% within Gender 14.5% 41.4% 23.0% 9.0% 12.1% 100%



Female

Count 28 86 27 16 29 186

% within Gender 15.1% 46.2% 14.5% 8.6% 15.6% 100%



Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442

% within Gender 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100%


firm performance 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

236

Chi-Square Tests

Particulars Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.614(a) 4 .230

Likelihood Ratio 5.733 4 .220

Linear-by-Linear Association .002 1 .963

N of Valid Cases 442


null hypothesis, There is no Association between Gender and Perception on the

impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample is accepted at 5%

level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is no Association between

Gender and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among

the sample. Based on the row and column percentages, it is noted that, male

employees agreed the fair level of impact of HRA on the performance of the firm in

IT sector. It indicates that the level of awareness and its implication on the level of

performance if highly aware among the male when compared to female in the

sample. It is due to the number of male respondents involving in the audit is

observed as high when compared to females.

2. Association between age and Perception on HRA impact on the

performance of a firm among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between age and perception on the impact

of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.

237

Table 4.61 Cross table Association between age and the Perception on HRA

impact on the performance of a firm among the sample

Age Group in years


Excellent Very


Upto 20

Count 13 28 10 9 2 62

% within Age Group in years 21.0% 45.2% 16.1% 14.5% 3.2% 100%

% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance

20.0% 14.6% 11.6% 23.1% 3.3% 14.0%

21-30

Count 27 72 34 9 39 181


% within Perception on HRA impact

on firm performance 41.5% 37.5% 39.5% 23.1% 65.0% 41.0%

31-40

Count 6 27 15 12 2 62



9.2% 14.1% 17.4% 30.8% 3.3% 14.0%

41-50

Count 11 27 9 4 13 64



16.9% 14.1% 10.5% 10.3% 21.7% 14.5%

Above 50

Count 8 38 18 5 4 73



12.3% 19.8% 20.9% 12.8% 6.7% 16.5%

Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442



100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Chi-Square Test

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 46.480(a) 16 0.000**




Since p value (Chi square value=46.480,p=0.000) is less than 0.01,the

null hypothesis, There is no Association between age and Perception on the impact

of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample is rejected at 1% level of

significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a highly significant Association

between age and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted that, the

238

employees belongs to 21-30 years age group are highly agreed and endorsed the

nominal role of HRA on the performance of the firm in IT sector.

3. Association between Educational stream and Perception on HRA

impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between educational stream and

perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.

Table 4.62 Cross table Association between Educational stream and the

Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among

the sample

Educational stream

Perception on HRA impact on firm performance

Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

UG-Technical

Count 14 55 19 5 18 111

% within Educational stream

12.6% 49.5% 17.1% 4.5% 16.2% 100%


21.5% 28.6% 22.1% 12.8% 30.0% 25.1%

UG-Nontechnical

Count 12 34 8 3 5 62

% within Educational

stream 19.4% 54.8% 12.9% 4.8% 8.1% 100%


18.5% 17.7% 9.3% 7.7% 8.3% 14.0%

PG-Technical

Count 11 31 16 11 12 81


stream 13.6% 38.3% 19.8% 13.6% 14.8% 100%


16.9% 16.1% 18.6% 28.2% 20.0% 18.3%

PG-Nontechnical

Count 4 9 13 2 6 34


stream 11.8% 26.5% 38.2% 5.9% 17.6% 100%


6.2% 4.7% 15.1% 5.1% 10.0% 7.7%

Professional

Count 24 63 30 18 19 154


stream 15.6% 40.9% 19.5% 11.7% 12.3% 100%


36.9% 32.8% 34.9% 46.2% 31.7% 34.8%

Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


stream 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

239

Chi-Square Test


Pearson Chi-Square 25.170(a) 16 .067NS




Since p value (Chi square value=25.170,p=0.067) is greater than

0.05,hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between Educational

stream and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among

the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is

no Association between Educational stream and Perception on the impact of HRA

on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and column

percentages, it is found that, the employees with professional qualification is agreed

the role of HRA in the performance of the firm in IT sector. It indicates that, the

employees with professional qualification and experience are having better levels of

awareness on the role of HRA to improve the performance of the firm.

4. Association between Department of working and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between department of working and


240

Table 4.63 Cross table Association between Department of working and the


the sample



Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Planning &

Control

Count 10 31 15 6 15 77

% within Department

of working 13.0% 40.3% 19.5% 7.8% 19.5% 100%


firm performance

15.4% 16.1% 17.4% 15.4% 25.0% 17.4%

Establishment

Count 11 34 13 6 10 74

% within Department

of working 14.9% 45.9% 17.6% 8.1% 13.5% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

16.9% 17.7% 15.1% 15.4% 16.7% 16.7%

HR & Training

Count 5 27 11 5 7 55

% within Department

of working 9.1% 49.1% 20.0% 9.1% 12.7% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

7.7% 14.1% 12.8% 12.8% 11.7% 12.4%

Accounting &

Taxation

Count 7 18 14 4 10 53

% within Department

of working 13.2% 34.0% 26.4% 7.5% 18.9% 100%


firm performance

10.8% 9.4% 16.3% 10.3% 16.7% 12.0%

Product

Development

Count 32 82 33 18 18 183

% within Department

of working 17.5% 44.8% 18.0% 9.8% 9.8% 100%


firm performance

49.2% 42.7% 38.4% 46.2% 30.0% 41.4%

Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442

% within Department

of working 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100%

% within Perception

on HRA impact on

firm performance

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

241

Chi-Square Test result




Linear-by-Linear Association 2.297 1 .130


Since p value (Chi square value=11.334, p=0.788) is greater than 0.05,

hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between Department of working

and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the


no Association between Department of working and Perception on the impact of

HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and

column percentage, it is found that the employees working in planning and control,

HR and training and Product design and development are strongly endorsed the fact

that the role of HRA is keen in improving the level of performance among the firms.

5. Association between level of management and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between level of management and


242

Table 4.64 Cross table Association between level of management and the


the sample

Level of management

Perception on HRA impact on firm

performance Total

Excellent Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Top level

Count 9 30 15 10 9 73

% within Level of management 12.3% 41.1% 20.5% 13.7% 12.3% 100%


impact on firm performance 13.8% 15.6% 17.4% 25.6% 15.0% 16.5%

Middle

level

Count 26 68 39 9 28 170




Floor level

Count 30 94 32 20 23 199




Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442



impact on firm performance 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Chi-Square Test results







hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between level of management



no Association between level of management and Perception on the impact of HRA

243


percentage, it is noted that, the bottom and middle level employees are agreed the

impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the IT firms in the sample. It

indicates that, It firms performance is influenced by the HRA practices to an extent

in the sample area.

6. Association between experience and Perception on HRA impact on

the performance of a firm among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between experience and perception on the

impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.

Table 4.65 Cross table Association between experience and the Perception

on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample

Experience in years


Excellent Very


Below 5

Count 22 63 33 18 19 155

% within Experience in years 14.2% 40.6% 21.3% 11.6% 12.3% 100.0%


33.8% 32.8% 38.4% 46.2% 31.7% 35.1%

5-10

Count 16 49 28 7 22 122




10-15

Count 3 22 5 5 6 41




15-20

Count 8 24 7 5 3 47



12.3% 12.5% 8.1% 12.8% 5.0% 10.6%

Above 20

Count 16 34 13 4 10 77



24.6% 17.7% 15.1% 10.3% 16.7% 17.4%

Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442




244








0.05,hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between experience and

Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample

is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is no

Association between experience and Perception on the impact of HRA on the

performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and column

percentage, it is noted that, both employees with less than 5 years experience and

above 20 years experience are agreed the fact that the role of HRA in improving the

level of performance of the firm and its dynamics in the IT sector. Hence, the role

and impact of HRA practices in the performance of It firms is indispensible.

7. Association between awareness on HRA and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between awareness on HRA and


245

Table 4.66 Cross table Association between awareness on HRA and the


the sample

Awareness on HRA


Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Highly aware

Count 10 18 3 2 3 36

% within Awareness on HRA 27.8% 50.0% 8.3% 5.6% 8.3% 100%


15.4% 9.4% 3.5% 5.1% 5.0% 8.1%

Aware

Count 18 82 26 10 23 159



27.7% 42.7% 30.2% 25.6% 38.3% 36.0%

Somewhat

aware

Count 21 43 37 13 15 129




Not aware

Count 10 42 17 10 17 96




Not at all

Count 6 7 3 4 2 22



9.2% 3.6% 3.5% 10.3% 3.3% 5.0%

Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442



100% 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100%

Chi-Square Tests


Pearson Chi-Square 31.952(a) 16 .010*




246

Since p value (Chi square value=31.952,p=0.010) is less than 0.05,hence,

the null hypothesis, There is no Association between awareness on HRA and


is rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a

significant Association between awareness on HRA and Perception on the impact of


column percentage, it is noted that, employees with excellent and high level of

awareness on HRA practices are strongly perceived that the role and impact of HRA

on the performance of the firm in IT sector. This indicates the level of impact of the

HRA on the performance of the firms in It sector in the sample area. Hence, HRA

practices needs to be taken further and fix the bench marks to the performance

standards along with the quality of work and client satisfaction index.

8. Association between sources of awareness and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between sources of awareness and


247

Table 4.67 Cross table Association between sources of awareness and the


the sample

Sources of awareness


performance Total

Excellent Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

1

Count 15 41 20 11 17 104

% within Sources of awareness 14.4% 39.4% 19.2% 10.6% 16.3% 100%



2

Count 3 16 4 4 5 32




3

Count 18 31 16 5 4 74




4

Count 18 70 32 10 22 152




5

Count 11 34 14 9 12 80




Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442




1. Offer letter & training sessions, 2. Discussion with HR, 3. Performance appraisal form,

4. Colleagues/Friends, 5. Old company used to practice.

Chi-Square Test Result






248

Since p value (Chi square value=15.659, p=0.477) is greater than

0.05,hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between sources of

awareness and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is noted that,

there is no Association between sources of awareness and Perception on the impact

of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and

column percentages, it is inferred that the employees aware on the concept through

offer letter and training sessions and the friends and colleagues are strongly

endorsed the impact of HRA practices on the performance of the firm among the

sample. This indicates that, there is a need for reach out the concept through peers

and regular training sessions for the mutual benefit of the employees, firms and the

stakeholders at large.

9. Association between practicing status of HRA and Perception on

HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between practicing status of HRA and


Table 4.68 Cross table Association between practicing status of HRA and

the Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm

among the sample



Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Yes

Count 43 127 57 26 38 291

% within Practicing status of HRA 14.8% 43.6% 19.6% 8.9% 13.1% 100%



No

Count 22 65 29 13 22 151




Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442



on firm performance 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

249

Chi-Square Test

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)


Likelihood Ratio .196 4 .996




hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between practicing status of

HRA and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among

the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there

is no Association between practicing status of HRA and Perception on the impact of


column percentage, it is found that the employees working with the companies

practicing HRA are strongly endorsed the fact that the impact of HRA on the

performance of the It firms in the sample. It indicates that the companies practicing

HRA are highly aware of the role and impact of the HRA when compared to others

in the sample.

10. Association between degree of practice of HRA and Perception on


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between degree of practice of HRA and


250

Table 4.69 Cross table Association between degree of practice of HRA and


among the sample

Degree of practice of HRA


Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Always

Count 24 55 27 13 18 137

% within Degree of practice

of HRA 17.5% 40.1% 19.7% 9.5% 13.1% 100.0%



Most of the times

Count 19 59 32 10 30 150

% within Degree of practice of HRA 12.7% 39.3% 21.3% 6.7% 20.0% 100.0%



Half of the times

Count 5 39 13 7 7 71


of HRA 7.0% 54.9% 18.3% 9.9% 9.9% 100.0%



Some times

Count 6 12 5 5 3 31


of HRA 19.4% 38.7% 16.1% 16.1% 9.7% 100.0%



Rarely

Count 11 27 9 4 2 53

% within Degree of practice of HRA

20.8% 50.9% 17.0% 7.5% 3.8% 100.0%


16.9% 14.1% 10.5% 10.3% 3.3% 12.0%

Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442

% within Degree of practice of HRA

14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Test






251


0.05,hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between degree of practice

of HRA and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the sample. Hence, it is concluded that, there is no Association between

degree of practice of HRA and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance

of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted

that the employees from the regular practice of HRA strongly endorsed the impact of

HRA on the performance of the firm when compared to others in the sample. This

may be due to higher levels of awareness and personal experience in observed

results of the past.

11. Association between rating of HRA Practice and Perception on HRA


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between rating of HRA practice and


252

Table 4.70 Cross table Association between rating of HRA practice and the


the sample

Rating of HRA practice


Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

1 Count 9 31 12 3 7 62


14.5% 50.0% 19.4% 4.8% 11.3% 100.0%


13.8% 16.1% 14.0% 7.7% 11.7% 14.0%

2

Count 40 77 45 19 18 199


20.1% 38.7% 22.6% 9.5% 9.0% 100.0%


61.5% 40.1% 52.3% 48.7% 30.0% 45.0%

3

Count 9 37 13 9 15 83


10.8% 44.6% 15.7% 10.8% 18.1% 100.0%


13.8% 19.3% 15.1% 23.1% 25.0% 18.8%

4

Count 2 16 6 3 8 35


5.7% 45.7% 17.1% 8.6% 22.9% 100.0%


3.1% 8.3% 7.0% 7.7% 13.3% 7.9%

5

Count 5 31 10 5 12 63


7.9% 49.2% 15.9% 7.9% 19.0% 100.0%


7.7% 16.1% 11.6% 12.8% 20.0% 14.3%

Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The Best and on par with standard – 1, Very good and suitable to all - 2, Good and customized to this

company - 3, Not so good like competitors - 4, To be improved a lot and no way comparable - 5.







253


hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between rating of HRA practice


sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is no

Association between rating of HRA practice and Perception on the impact of HRA


percentage, the employees from the regular and most of the times practicing HRA

are strongly endorsed the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm, when

compared to others in the sample. Based on the same, it is noted that, Regular

practice of HRA can influence the performance and level of awareness among the

employees to a greater extent.

12. Association between factors influencing HRA Practice and Perception

on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between factors influencing HRA practice

and perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the

sample.

254

Table 4.71 Cross table Association between factors influencing HRA

practice and the Perception on HRA impact on the performance

of a firm among the sample

Factor influencing HRA practice


Total

Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

1 Count 8 34 14 7 8 71


11.3% 47.9% 19.7% 9.9% 11.3% 100.0%


12.3% 17.7% 16.3% 17.9% 13.3% 16.1%

2 Count 39 77 40 20 36 212


18.4% 36.3% 18.9% 9.4% 17.0% 100.0%


60.0% 40.1% 46.5% 51.3% 60.0% 48.0%

3 Count 8 26 11 9 12 66


12.1% 39.4% 16.7% 13.6% 18.2% 100.0%


12.3% 13.5% 12.8% 23.1% 20.0% 14.9%

4 Count 2 25 8 2 3 40


5.0% 62.5% 20.0% 5.0% 7.5% 100.0%


3.1% 13.0% 9.3% 5.1% 5.0% 9.0%

5 Count 8 30 13 1 1 53


15.1% 56.6% 24.5% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0%


12.3% 15.6% 15.1% 2.6% 1.7% 12.0%

Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Particulars Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 29.923(a) 16 .018*




255

Since p value (Chi square value=29.923,p=0.018) isles than 0.05, hence,

the null hypothesis, There is no Association between factors influencing HRA

practice and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the sample is rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that,

there is a significant Association between factors influencing HRA practice and


Based on the row and column percentage, it is found that, managerial and

organizational factors are key in the implementation of HRA practices among the IT

firms. The employees felt the role of environmental factors are strongly supported

the role of HRA on the performance of the firm when compared to others in the

sample.

13. Association between frequency of performing HRA and Perception


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between frequency of performing HRA


sample.

256

Table 4.72 Cross table Association between frequency of performing HRA

and the Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm

among the sample

Frequency of performing HRA


Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Yearly

Count 15 35 20 3 12 85


performing HRA 17.6% 41.2% 23.5% 3.5% 14.1% 100.0%

% within Perception on HRA impact on firm

performance

23.1% 18.2% 23.3% 7.7% 20.0% 19.2%

Half yearly

Count 30 98 40 21 22 211


performing HRA 14.2% 46.4% 19.0% 10.0% 10.4% 100.0%


HRA impact on firm

performance

46.2% 51.0% 46.5% 53.8% 36.7% 47.7%

Quarterly

Count 12 37 14 7 15 85


performing HRA 14.1% 43.5% 16.5% 8.2% 17.6% 100.0%


HRA impact on firm

performance

18.5% 19.3% 16.3% 17.9% 25.0% 19.2%

Before

new

Project

starts

Count 8 22 12 8 11 61


performing HRA 13.1% 36.1% 19.7% 13.1% 18.0% 100.0%


performance

12.3% 11.5% 14.0% 20.5% 18.3% 13.8%

Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


performing HRA 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%


performance

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%







257


hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between frequency of performing


the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is noted that, there is no

Association between frequency of performing HRA and Perception on the impact of


column percentage, it is inferred that, companies performing half yearly basis are

strongly endorsed the fact that the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm.

This indicates that the frequency of conducting HRAs has moderate level of

influence on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm in It sector.

14. Association between frequency of measures taken based on HRA

report and Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm

among the sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between frequency of measures taken

based on HRA report and perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of

the firm among the sample.

258

Table 4.73 Cross table Association between frequency of measures taken

based on HRA report and the Perception on HRA impact on the

performance of a firm among the sample

Frequency of measures taken on HRA

report


Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Always

Count 17 51 19 12 16 115

% within Frequency of measures taken on HRA report

14.8% 44.3% 16.5% 10.4% 13.9% 100.%


26.2% 26.6% 22.1% 30.8% 26.7% 26.0%

Most of the times

Count 21 75 34 7 26 163


12.9% 46.0% 20.9% 4.3% 16.0% 100.%


32.3% 39.1% 39.5% 17.9% 43.3% 36.9%

Some time

Count 10 34 14 8 6 72


13.9% 47.2% 19.4% 11.1% 8.3% 100.%


15.4% 17.7% 16.3% 20.5% 10.0% 16.3%

Rarely

Count 14 23 14 6 9 66


21.2% 34.8% 21.2% 9.1% 13.6% 100.%



Never

Count 3 9 5 6 3 26


11.5% 34.6% 19.2% 23.1% 11.5% 100.%



Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442

% within Frequency of measures

taken on HRA report 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%








0.05,hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between frequency of

measures taken based on HRA report and Perception on the impact of HRA on the

259

performance of the firm among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance.

Based on the same, it is concluded that, there is no Association between frequency

of measures taken based on HRA report and Perception on the impact of HRA on

the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and column

percentage, it is inferred that,

15. Association between motive to focus on HRA and Perception on


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between motive to focus on HRA and


Table 4.74 Cross table Association between motive to focus on HRA and the


the sample

Motive to focus on HRA


Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

1

Count 6 20 5 3 11 45


13.3% 44.4% 11.1% 6.7% 24.4% 100.0%



2

Count 18 58 31 11 18 136


13.2% 42.6% 22.8% 8.1% 13.2% 100.0%


27.7% 30.2% 36.0% 28.2% 30.0% 30.8%

3 Count 12 30 13 4 4 63

% within Motive to focus on

HRA 19.0% 47.6% 20.6% 6.3% 6.3% 100.0%


18.5% 15.6% 15.1% 10.3% 6.7% 14.3%

4

Count 8 20 8 7 7 50

% within Motive to focus on

HRA 16.0% 40.0% 16.0% 14.0% 14.0% 100.0%


12.3% 10.4% 9.3% 17.9% 11.7% 11.3%

5

Count 21 64 29 14 20 148


14.2% 43.2% 19.6% 9.5% 13.5% 100.0%


32.3% 33.3% 33.7% 35.9% 33.3% 33.5%

Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100%

260








hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between motive to focus on



no Association between motive to focus on HRA and Perception on the impact of


column percentage, it is observed and inferred that, the employees HRA as a tool to

satisfy clients and as a tool to improve quality of work are strongly endorsed the

impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the It firms in the sample.

261

16. Association between individual preference for HRA and Perception


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between individual preference for HRA


sample.

Table 4.75 Cross table Association between individual preference for HRA


among the sample

Individual preference for HRA


Excellent Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Always

Count 14 44 19 8 15 100

% within Individual

preference for HRA 14.0% 44.0% 19.0% 8.0% 15.0% 100.0%



Most of the

times

Count 31 80 37 16 22 186

% within Individual




Some times

Count 9 38 19 7 9 82

% within Individual




Rarely

Count 9 23 10 7 11 60

% within Individual




Never

Count 2 7 1 1 3 14

% within Individual




Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442

% within Individual




262







Since p value (Chi square value = 7.218, p=0.969) is greater than 0.05,

hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between individual preference

for HRA and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that,

there is no Association between individual preference for HRA and Perception on

the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the

row and column percentage, it is noted that, individuals preferred to have HRA most

of the times are strongly endorsed the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the It firms in the sample. This indicates that, individual employees who

prefer to have HRA are aware of the benefits of the same for the self and for the firm

at large.

17. Association between reasons for preferring HRA and Perception on


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between reasons for preferring HRA and


263

Table 4.76 Cross table Association between reasons for preferring HRA and


among the sample

Reason for preferring

HRA


Excellent Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

1 Count 13 32 15 5 11 76

% within Reason for preferring

HRA 17.1% 42.1% 19.7% 6.6% 14.5% 100.0%



2 Count 30 107 45 15 26 223


HRA 13.5% 48.0% 20.2% 6.7% 11.7% 100.0%



3 Count 14 24 17 8 12 75


HRA 18.7% 32.0% 22.7% 10.7% 16.0% 100.0%



4 Count 0 4 1 3 3 11


HRA .0% 36.4% 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 100.0%


impact on firm performance .0% 2.1% 1.2% 7.7% 5.0% 2.5%

5 Count 8 25 8 8 8 57


HRA 14.0% 43.9% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 100.0%



Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


HRA 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%



264







Since p value (Chi square value = 18.713, p=0.284) is greater than 0.05,

hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between reasons for preferring



no Association between reasons for preferring HRA and Perception on the impact of

HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on row and column

percentage, it is noted that, the respondents preferred HRA with a view to grow in

the career ladder are strongly endorsed the impact of HRA on the performance of the

firm among the IT firms in the sample. Hence, it is advisable to encourage the

employees to adopt the HRA practices for the mutual growth and development of

the firm in the ensuing years with sustainability.

18. Association between frequency of HRA conducting by experts and

Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the

sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between frequency of HRA conducting by

experts and perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among

the sample.

265

Table 4.77 Cross table Association between frequency of HRA conducting

by experts and the Perception on HRA impact on the

performance of a firm among the sample

HRA conducts by experts


Excellent Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

Always

Count 11 30 9 3 12 65

% within HRA conducts by

experts 16.9% 46.2% 13.8% 4.6% 18.5% 100%



Most

of the

times

Count 30 64 43 13 24 174


experts 17.2% 36.8% 24.7% 7.5% 13.8% 100%



Some

times

Count 9 40 11 6 6 72


experts 12.5% 55.6% 15.3% 8.3% 8.3% 100%



Rarely

Count 5 15 5 4 4 33


experts 15.2% 45.5% 15.2% 12.1% 12.1% 100%



Never

Count 10 43 18 13 14 98


experts 10.2% 43.9% 18.4% 13.3% 14.3% 100%



Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


experts 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100%



266








hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between frequency of HRA

conducting by experts and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of

the firm among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is

concluded that, there is no Association between frequency of HRA conducting by

experts and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among

the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted that the companies

conducting HRA with the experts in most of the times are endorsed the impact of

HRA on the performance of the firms in It sector. It indicates that, the role of HRA

has some influence on the performance both directly and indirectly.

19. Association between management attitude towards HRA and

Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the

sample.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between management attitude towards

HRA and perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among

the sample.

267

Table 4.78 Cross table Association between management attitude towards

HRA and the Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a

firm among the sample



Total Excellent

Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

1

Count 16 47 13 10 12 98

% within Management

attitude towards HRA 16.3% 48.0% 13.3% 10.2% 12.2% 100%



2

Count 27 82 37 18 27 191

% within Management




3

Count 8 41 19 5 11 84

% within Management




4

Count 11 14 11 3 6 45

% within Management




5

Count 3 8 6 3 4 24

% within Management




Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442

% within Management




268








hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between management attitude

towards HRA and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded

that, there is no Association between management attitude towards HRA and

Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.

Based on the row and column percentage, it is observed that the employees working

in the firms where management views HRA as a performance control measure felt

HRA has the impact on the performance of the firm among the sample. Hence, HRA

is more perceived as a performance control tool rather than effective HR technique

to be used to improve the effectiveness and quality of work in a professional way.

20. Association between focused area of HRA function and Perception on


Null Hypothesis: There is no association between focused area of HRA function


sample.

269

Table 4.79 Cross table Association between focused area of HRA function


among the sample.

Focused area of HRA function


performance Total

Excellent Very

good Fair Moderate

No

impact

1

Count 10 34 15 9 10 78

% within Focused area of HRA

function 12.8% 43.6% 19.2% 11.5% 12.8% 100.0%



2

Count 18 54 20 8 15 115


function 15.7% 47.0% 17.4% 7.0% 13.0% 100.0%



3

Count 23 56 34 8 19 140


function 16.4% 40.0% 24.3% 5.7% 13.6% 100.0%



4

Count 6 16 7 7 3 39


function 15.4% 41.0% 17.9% 17.9% 7.7% 100.0%



5

Count 8 32 10 7 13 70


function 11.4% 45.7% 14.3% 10.0% 18.6% 100.0%



Total

Count 65 192 86 39 60 442


function 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%



270







Since p value (Chi square value=13.034, p=0.627) is greater than 0.05,

hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between focused area of HRA

function and Perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm

among the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that,

there is no Association between focused area of HRA function and Perception on the

impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row

and column percentage, it is noted that, the employees working in the firms, where

HRA is focused on compensation and benefits, and performance evaluation areas are

strongly endorsed the impact of HRA role on the performance of the firm among the

It firms in the sample.

4.4 DATA ANALYSIS USING FACTOR ANALYSIS

Grouping the variables gives more clarity on the subject and also on the

decision mechanism design. In view of this researcher grouped the items in to

groups using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax and Kaiser

Normalization. In this part of the analysis, the scholar is trying to group the variables

influencing the HRA practices in IT firms quoted as items in the questionnaire into

factors. The results of the analysis are presented below.

4.4.1 Factors influencing the Adoption and implementation of HRA

practices among IT firms

The Factors influencing the Adoption and implementation of HRA

practices among IT firms consist of 15 variables therefore the data reduction is

done through the application of factor analysis by principal component method and

the following results are obtained

271

Table 4.80 KMO and Bartlett's Test for sample adequacy

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .583

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 374.585

df 105

Sig. .000

From the above table it is found that KMO measure of sampling adequacy

is .583, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity with approximate chi squire value 374.585,

P= .000 are statistically significant at 5% level this implies the sample size is

adequate to ascertain the Factors influencing the Adoption and implementation

of HRA practices among IT firms this leads to the variance verification for all 15

variables

Table 4.81 Initial Communalities showing the factors influencing HRA

practices among the IT firms

Factors influencing HRA Practices in IT firms Initial Extraction

Cost and legislation/ Employee involvement and participation 1.000 .619

Expertise/ Attitude and work culture of the employees 1.000 .654

Executive Leadership/ leadership co-operation(middle level ) 1.000 .515

Employee Engagement and preparedness 1.000 .566

Technology and company culture 1.000 .451

Competitiveness and future planning attitude of management 1.000 .594

Productivity of the employees and service quality 1.000 .632

Sustainability of business growth and development 1.000 .462

Profitability of the business and business consistency 1.000 .746

Economic/ financial irregularities-scams 1.000 .518

Political interference and involvement 1.000 .553

Social factors and media pressure on the HRA 1.000 .673

Stakeholder initiatives- transparency 1.000 .673

Statutory and regulatory pressures 1.000 .631

Material risks 1.000 .729

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

272

From the above table it is found that the 15 variables exhibit the variables

from .462 to .746. This implies the range of variations defined between 46% to

74.6%, this is adequate for factor segmentation from the variables. This leads to the

factor formation as stated in the table below:

Table 4.82 Total Variance Explained for the Factors influencing the

Adoption and implementation of HRA practices among IT firms

Com

pon

en

t

Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 1.712 11.415 11.415 1.712 11.415 11.415 1.530 10.203 10.203

2 1.424 9.491 20.906 1.424 9.491 20.906 1.350 9.000 19.203

3 1.410 9.400 30.305 1.410 9.400 30.305 1.308 8.722 27.925

4 1.208 8.054 38.359 1.208 8.054 38.359 1.277 8.516 36.442

5 1.134 7.563 45.922 1.134 7.563 45.922 1.245 8.297 44.739

6 1.096 7.307 53.229 1.096 7.307 53.229 1.160 7.734 52.473

7 1.031 6.872 60.102 1.031 6.872 60.102 1.144 7.629 60.102

8 .967 6.448 66.549

9 .955 6.364 72.914

10 .811 5.406 78.319

11 .795 5.301 83.620

12 .740 4.935 88.555

13 .702 4.678 93.233

14 .533 3.551 96.784

15 .482 3.216 100.000


From the above table it is found that the 15 variables are reduced in to 7

predominant factors. It is also found that the 15 variables exhibit the total variance

of 60.102%. It is also ascertained that the 7 factors individually posses the variances

10.203%, 9.0% and 8.72%, 8.51%,8.29%,7.73% and 7.62 %. This leads to the

variable loadings for each factors of motivation. The first factor consists of 3

273

variables .695, .665, .556, (values) for the variables 11, 10, and 12, “therefore the

factors are known as external factors”.

Table 4.83 Rotated Component Matrix along with the factor loadings and

factors emerged

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q23.11 -.695

External Factors( uncontrollable & Sytematic) Q23.10 .665

Q23.12 .556

Q23.5 .112 .642

Technology and market factors Q23.6 .171 -.593

Q23.8 .123 -.565

Q23.9 -.164 -.027 .846 Consistency factor

Q23.14 -.142 -.057 .098 -.721 Administrative Factors

Q23.13 -.372 .053 .133 .682

Q23.15 .054 .040 -.087 .005 .814 Material Factors

Q23.4 -.091 -.047 .092 .019 .646

Q23.3 -.016 .199 -.034 -.127 -.063 .666

Managerial Factors Q23.7 .099 .364 .472 .064 -.044 -.500

Q23.2 .181 -.203 .176 .305 -.050 .486

Q23.1 .003 .001 -.016 -.130 .016 -.122 .766

Cost and Commitment

Factor

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with

Kaiser Normalization.

a Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

On the basis of the variables and loadings, the following factors are

emerged on the basis of nature of data spread across the variables and grouping.

There are seven factors emerged. They are external factors, technology factors,

consistency factors, administrative factors, material factors, managerial factors and

cost and commitment factors.

274

External Factors: Under this factor, three variables are grouped. They are Political

interference and involvement with the factor loading score of 0.695, Economic/

financial irregularities-scams with the factor loading score of 0.665 and Social

factors and media pressure on the HRA with the factor loading score of 0.556.

Technology and Market factors: Under this three variables are grouped. The

variables are Technology and company culture with the factor loading score of

0.642, Competitiveness and future planning attitude of management with the factor

loading score of 0.593 and Sustainability of business growth and development factor

loading score of 0.565.

Consistency Factor: Under this only one variable is loaded, Profitability of the

business and business consistency with the loading score of 0.846.

Administrative Factors: Under this factor there are two variables are grouped

namely Statutory and regulatory pressures with the factor loading score of 0.721 and

Stakeholder initiatives- transparency with the factor loading score of 0.682.

Material Factors: under this factor, there are two variables are grouped, namely,

Material risks with the factor loading score of 0.814 and Employee Engagement and

preparedness with the factor loading score of 0.646.

Managerial Factors: Under this three variables are grouped and they are Executive

Leadership/ leadership co-operation(middle level) with the factor loading score of

0.666, Productivity of the employees and service quality with the loading score of

0.500 and Expertise/ Attitude and work culture of the employees with the factor

loading score of 0.486.

Cost and Commitment Factor: Only one variable is grouped under this as Cost

and legislation/ Employee involvement and participation with the factor loading

score of 0.766. hence, these seven factors are influencing the adoption and

implementation of Human resources audit practices among the information

technology firms in the sample area.

275

4.4.2 Factor Analysis-II: Impact of HRA on the Dimensions of individual

performance

The impact of HR audit on the performance of employees consist of 10 variables

therefore the data reduction is done through the application of factor analysis by

principal component method and the following results are obtained.

Table 4.84 KMO and Bartlett's Test indicating sample adequacy



df 45

Sig. .000**


is .543, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity with approximate chi squire value 255.803, P=

.000 are statistically significant at 5% level this implies the sample size is adequate

to ascertain the impact of HRA practices on the performance of employees this leads

to the variance verification for all 10 variables

Table 4.85 Communalities for Impact of HRA practices on the performance

of employees among IT firms

Impact of HRA practices on the performance of employees

among IT firms Initial Extraction

Self evaluation and change in attitude towards organization and

its importance among the employees 1.000 .179

Learning and equipping the self for future challenges 1.000 .479

Practicing the skill development exercises 1.000 .693

Improvement in the efficiency through Training and development 1.000 .687

Developing communication skills 1.000 .533

Focus on interpersonal skills and team building 1.000 .648

Focus on target completion and work culture and ethics 1.000 .631

Performance in terms of quality of work completed/service

quality 1.000 .431

Innovation and creativity at work is improved and client

satisfaction 1.000 .478

Overall job satisfaction is improved 1.000 .646


276


from .179 to .693. This implies the range of variations defined between 17% to 69%,

this is adequate for factor segmentation from the variables. This leads to the factor

formation as stated in the table below:

Table 4.86 Total Variance Explained for the Impact of HRA practices on the

performance of employees among IT firms

Com

pon

en

t

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of

Squared Loadings


Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 1.739 17.393 17.393 1.739 17.393 17.393 1.544 25.443 25.443

2 1.428 14.278 31.671 1.428 14.278 31.671 1.468 14.685 40.127

3 1.160 11.603 43.274 1.160 11.603 43.274 1.267 12.675 52.802

4 1.079 10.789 54.063 1.079 10.789 54.063 1.126 11.261 64.063

5 .990 9.898 63.961

6 .881 8.811 72.772

7 .808 8.076 80.848

8 .714 7.136 87.985

9 .669 6.686 94.671

10 .533 5.329 100.000





25.443%, 14.685%, 12.675 and 11.261%. This leads to the variable loadings for

each factors of impact of HR audit on the performance of individual employees. The

first factor consists of 3 variables .722, .655, and .654, (values) for the variables

quoted in the questionnaire Q24.7, Q24.6 and Q24.5 “therefore the factors are

known as Personality factors”.

277

Table 4.87 Rotated Component Matrix(a) along with factor loadings and the

factors emerged

Component

1 2 3 4

Q24.7 .722

Personality Factors Q24.6 -.655

Q24.5 .654

Q24.10 .094 .797

Work creativity and quality Factors Q24.9 .021 -.669

Q24.8 -.342 .555

Q24.4 -.181 -.128 .737 Skill updating Factors

Q24.2 .084 .154 .640

Q24.3 .005 -.110 -.028 .825 Self development Factors

Q24.1 .018 -.105 .288 .292

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with

Kaiser Normalization.

Personality Factors: under this factor three variables are loaded. The variables are

Focus on target completion and work culture and ethics with the factor loading score

of 0.722, Focus on interpersonal skills and team building with the factor loading

score of 0.655 and Developing communication skills with the factor loading score of

0.654. These are highly important to grow in the career.

Work creativity and Quality Factors: under this factor, three variables are

grouped and the variables are Performance in terms of quality of work

completed/service quality with the factor loading score of 0.797, Innovation and

creativity at work is improved and client satisfaction with the factor loading score of

0.669, and Overall job satisfaction is improved with the factor loading score of

0.555. Creativity at work can improve the quality and also optimizes the resources

utilization. Hence, the impact dimension is keen for the success of business in long

run.

278

Skill Factors: under this factor, two variables are grouped and the variables grouped

are Learning and equipping the self for future challenges with the factor group

loading score of 0.737 and Improvement in the efficiency through Training and

development with the loading score of 0.640.

Self development Factors: under this factor two variables are grouped and the

variables are Self evaluation and change in attitude towards organization and its

importance among the employees with the factor loading score of 0.825 and

practicing the skill development exercises with the factor loading score of 0.292.

4.4.3 Factor Analysis-III: Impact of HRA on the Dimensions of organizational

performance

The impact of HR audit on the performance of IT firms consist of 10

variables therefore the data reduction is done through the application of factor

analysis by principal component method and the following results are obtained

Table 4.88 KMO and Bartlett's Test



df 45

Sig. 0.000**




to ascertain the impact of HRA practices on the performance of the firm this leads to

the variance verification for all 10 variables.

279

Table 4.89 Communalities for Dimensions of impact of HR audit on the

performance of the IT firms in the sample

Dimensions of impact of HR audit on the performance of the

IT firms in the sample Initial Extraction

Improved quality of planning and development towards

protection of stake holders interest 1.000 .686

Development of physical and intellectual infrastructure 1.000 .669

Facilities for training and development 1.000 .736

Sustainability and consistency in business growth and

development in terms of profits 1.000 .759

Improved level of competitiveness and growth in turnover 1.000 .664

Venturing into new business and verticals 1.000 .685

Geographical Expansion of business through scattering the

resources 1.000 .486

Risk management and control in business 1.000 .443

Attitude of the top management towards organizational and

human capital development 1.000 .521

Preparedness for the future challenges 1.000 .378






280

Table 4.90 Total Variance Explained for Dimensions of impact of HR audit

on the performance of the IT firms in the sample

Com

pon

en

t

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings


Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 1.356 13.556 13.556 1.356 13.556 13.556 1.256 12.556 12.556

2 1.295 12.952 26.508 1.295 12.952 26.508 1.228 12.284 24.839

3 1.201 12.012 38.520 1.201 12.012 38.520 1.223 12.227 37.066

4 1.129 11.294 49.814 1.129 11.294 49.814 1.182 11.823 48.889

5 1.045 10.446 60.260 1.045 10.446 60.260 1.137 11.370 60.260

6 .937 9.366 69.626

7 .885 8.852 78.478

8 .842 8.423 86.901

9 .700 7.000 93.901

10 .610 6.099 100.000





12.556%, 12.284%, 12.227%, 11.823 and 11.370%. This leads to the variable

loadings for each factors of impact of HR audit on the performance of IT firms. The

first factor consists of 3 variables with the factor loading scores of .659, .657, and

.546, (values) for the variables quoted in the questionnaire Q25.7, Q25.3 and Q25.5

“therefore the factors are known as Growth and development factors”.

281

Table 4.91 Rotated Component Matrix along with factors emerged for

Dimensions of impact of HR audit on the performance of the IT

firms in the sample

Component

1 2 3 4 5

Geographical Expansion of business

through scattering the resources .659

Growth and development Factors Facilities for training and development .657

Improved level of competitiveness and

growth in turnover .546

Attitude of the top management towards

organizational and human capital

development

-.029 -.710

Risk management Factors

Risk management and control in business -.058 .644

Preparedness for the future challenges .032 .515

Improved quality of planning and

development towards protection of stake

holders interest

.140 .037 .751

Structural Factors

Development of physical and intellectual

infrastructure .192 .062 -.721

Sustainability and consistency in business

growth and development in terms of profits .058 .033 .038 .867 Sustainability Factors

Venturing into new business and verticals .163 -.054 .054 .078 .804

Expansion

Factors

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization.


Based on the rotated component matrix, the variables grouped into factors

are shown and on the basis of the nature of the variables, appropriate names are

given. The dimensions of impact of HR audit on the performance of the IT firms are

growth and development, improved level of risk management, structural changes,

and sustainability of business and expansion factors.

4.4.4 Factor Analysis-IV: Barriers in conducting HR audit among the IT

firms

Barriers in conducting the HR audit in IT firms consist of 10 variables

therefore the data reduction is done through the application of factor analysis by

principal component method and the following results are obtained

282




df 45

Sig. .000




to ascertain the barriers in conducting the HR audit among the IT firms in the sample

this leads to the variance verification for all 10 variables.

Table 4.93 Communalities for Barriers in conducting HR audit among the

IT firms

Barriers in conducting HR audit among the IT firms in the sample Initial Extraction

High cost/Too expensive 1.000 .451

Not much of requirement and management attitude 1.000 .563

No custom in the industry as well as no compulsion 1.000 .551

Impossible to interrupt projects and divert activities 1.000 .472

Staff not willing to participate in audit 1.000 .561

HR experts are not trained in audit 1.000 .656

Risk of poaching after training and audit 1.000 .538

Difficult to identify suitable training providers of HR audit 1.000 .550

Difficult to access training on HR audit 1.000 .672

Effectiveness of audit is doubtful 1.000 .595






283

Table 4.94 Total Variance Explained for Barriers in conducting HR audit

among the IT firms

Com

pon

en

t


Loadings


Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 1.653 16.525 16.525 1.653 16.525 16.525 1.526 15.263 15.263

2 1.525 15.250 31.775 1.525 15.250 31.775 1.387 13.872 29.135

3 1.265 12.646 44.421 1.265 12.646 44.421 1.359 13.593 42.728

4 1.166 11.663 56.085 1.166 11.663 56.085 1.336 13.357 56.085

5 .963 9.631 65.715

6 .890 8.900 74.616

7 .811 8.112 82.728

8 .713 7.128 89.856

9 .525 5.253 95.109

10 .489 4.891 100.000





15.263%, 13.872%, 13.593% and 13.357 %. This leads to the variable loadings for

each factors of barriers in conducting HR audit among the IT firms in the sample.

The first factor consists of 3 variables with the factor loading scores of .707, .690,

and .657, (values) for the variables quoted in the questionnaire Q26.2, Q26.3 and

Q2.1 “therefore the factors are known as Cost Factors”.

284

Table 4.95 Rotated Component Matrix(a) along with factors emerged

Variables grouped Component

1 2 3 4

Not much of requirement and management

attitude -.707

Cost Factors No custom in the industry as well as no

compulsion .690

High cost/Too expensive .657

Risk of poaching after training and audit .004 .720 Resistance Factors

Staff not willing to participate in audit .060 .705

Effectiveness of audit is doubtful -.036 .268 .709

Reliability Factors Difficult to identify suitable training providers

of HR audit .111 -.234 .689

HR experts are not trained in audit .118 -.312 .345 .653 Administrative

Factors Difficult to access training on HR audit .139 .308 -.400 .631

Impossible to interrupt projects and divert

activities -.258 -.093 .015 .629


Normalization.


Barriers in conducting HR audit among the It firms are grouped into four

factors and titled in appropriate manner. The prime factors affecting the adoption

and implementation of HR audit among the It firms are cost factors, resistance

factors, reliability factors, and administrative factors. Hence, the steps taken in this

dimension can help to improve the degree of practice and to grow in business.

4.4.5 Factor Analysis-V: Benefits of HR audit among the IT firms in the

sample

The benefits in conducting HR audit among the IT firms consist of 10

variables therefore the data reduction is done through the application of factor

analysis by principal component method and the following results are obtained

285




df 45

Sig. .000


is 0.524, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity with approximate chi squire value 165.346, P=


to ascertain the benefits of HR audit practices among the IT firms in the sample this

leads to the variance verification for all 10 variables

Table 4.97 Communalities for Benefits of HR audit among the IT firms in

the sample

Benefits of HR audit among the IT firms in the sample Initial Extraction

Recognition of strengths in terms of human capital 1.000 .521

Reveal problem areas of business and intellectual capital 1.000 .817

Confirms compliance with latest regulations 1.000 .639

Ensures effective HR policies and motivation 1.000 .499

Builds confidence in HR function 1.000 .651

Work culture and ethics adoption and inculcation 1.000 .765

Transparency in talent recognition and rewards 1.000 .535

Team building and communication effectiveness across the verticals 1.000 .564

Protection of stake holders interests 1.000 .526

Overall development of the organization 1.000 .601






286

Table 4.98 Total Variance Explained for Benefits of HR audit among the IT

firms in the sample

Com

pon

en

t

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings


Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 1.619 16.185 16.185 1.619 16.185 16.185 1.339 13.386 13.386

2 1.253 12.526 28.711 1.253 12.526 28.711 1.300 13.003 26.388

3 1.136 11.360 40.071 1.136 11.360 40.071 1.260 12.605 38.993

4 1.070 10.695 50.766 1.070 10.695 50.766 1.124 11.236 50.229

5 1.040 10.404 61.171 1.040 10.404 61.171 1.094 10.941 61.171

6 .901 9.011 70.182

7 .867 8.665 78.847

8 .793 7.932 86.779

9 .735 7.353 94.132

10 .587 5.868 100.000





13.386%, 13.003%, 12.605%, 11.236% and 10.941%. This leads to the variable

loadings for each factor benefits of HR audit among the IT firms in the sample. The

first factor consists of 2 variables with the factor loading scores of .740, and 0.615

(values) for the variables quoted in the questionnaire Q27.10, and Q27.9 “therefore

this factor is known as development factors”.

287

Table 4.99 Rotated Component Matrix(a) along with factors emerged

Variables grouped Component

1 2 3 4 5

Overall development of the organization .740 Development Factor

Protection of stake holders interests -.615

Work culture and ethics adoption and

inculcation -.025 .853

Work culture and ethical Factor Transparency in talent recognition and

rewards -.119 -.501

Builds confidence in HR function .038 -.117 .795

Compliance Factor Confirms compliance with latest

regulations -.136 .412 .563

Recognition of strengths in terms of human

capital -.065 .086 .044 .712

Talent retention

Factor

Ensures effective HR policies and

motivation .435 -.015 -.054 .536

Team building and communication

effectiveness across the verticals .431 .343 -.124 -.494

Reveal problem areas of business and

intellectual capital -.002 .092 -.037 .050 .897

Intellectual

Factor


Normalization.


The benefits of HR audit among the IT firms is grouped into five factors,

namely development factor, work culture and ethical factor, compliance factor,

talent retention factor and intellectual development factor. Hence, it is interesting

and useful to the employees and to the stake holders at large.

4.4.6 Factor Analysis: VI: Suggestions to improve the level of awareness

on HR audit and its benefits among the IT employees in the sample.

The suggestions to improve the HR audit practices among the IT forms in

the sample consist of 15 variables therefore the data reduction is done through the

application of factor analysis by principal component method and the following

results are obtained

288




df 105

Sig. .000


is .580, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity with approximate chi squire value 337.143,

P= .000 are statistically significant at 1% level this implies the sample size is

adequate to ascertain the suggestions to improve the HRA practices among the IT

firms in the sample this leads to the variance verification for all 15 variables

Table 4.101 Communalities for Suggestions to improve the level of awareness

on HR audit and its benefits among the IT employees in the

sample

Suggestions to improve the HR audit practices among the IT firms Initial Extraction

Establishment of Professional and specialized training institutes 1.000 .688

Standardization and benchmarking of training programmes 1.000 .624

Encouraging Professional training associations 1.000 .521

Encouraging voluntary membership in training institutes 1.000 .533

Design and development of training programmes 1.000 .441

Training progammes audit and up gradation 1.000 .466

Establishment of quality accreditation certifications 1.000 .801

Designing and development of training methods in vernacular language

and imparting 1.000 .501

Systematic training programmes schedule preparation and

implementation 1.000 .660

Regular assessment of training needs 1.000 .559

Building team spirit and career counseling 1.000 .696

Encouraging to participate training programmes 1.000 .644

Government initiatives to build capacity in professional training

institutes 1.000 .581

Frequent revision of training manuals based on the market changes 1.000 .599

Autonomous and Apex body promotion, supervision and regulation of

hotel industry training programmes. 1.000 .674


289





Table 4.102 Total Variance Explained for Suggestions to improve the level of

awareness on HR audit and its benefits among the IT employees

in the sample

Com

pon

e

nt


Loadings


Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 1.611 10.739 10.739 1.611 10.739 10.739 1.459 9.728 19.728

2 1.489 9.928 20.667 1.489 9.928 20.667 1.400 9.331 29.059

3 1.344 8.963 29.630 1.344 8.963 29.630 1.304 8.696 37.755

4 1.240 8.269 37.899 1.240 8.269 37.899 1.287 8.577 46.332

5 1.169 7.791 45.690 1.169 7.791 45.690 1.247 8.310 54.642

6 1.087 7.244 52.933 1.087 7.244 52.933 1.192 7.946 62.588

7 1.048 6.987 59.920 1.048 6.987 59.920 1.100 7.332 69.920

8 .950 6.333 66.253

9 .916 6.104 72.357

10 .863 5.752 78.109

11 .793 5.285 83.394

12 .738 4.922 88.316

13 .650 4.335 92.651

14 .577 3.850 96.501

15 .525 3.499 100.000





9.728%, 9.331%, 8.696%,8.577%,8.310%,7.946%, and 7.332%. This leads to the

variable loadings for each factors of suggestions to improve the degree of practice of

HR audit among the It firms in the sample. The first factor consists of 3 variables

.639, .531, and .425, (values) for the variables quoted in the questionnaire Q28.5,

Q28.3 and Q28.6 “therefore the factors are known as Training and development

factor”.

290

Table 4.103 Rotated Component Matrix (a) along with the factors emerged

Variables loaded as suggestions Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Design and development of training

programmes .639

Training and development Factor Encouraging Professional training

associations .531

Training progammes audit and up

gradation .425

Standardization and benchmarking of

training programmes .004 .691

Assessment Factors Regular assessment of training needs -.120 .674

Encouraging voluntary membership in

training institutes .220 .543

Autonomous and Apex body

promotion, supervision and regulation

of hotel industry training programmes

.074 .049 .801

Career development Factor

Frequent revision of training manuals

based on the market changes .178 .069 -.742

Establishment of Professional and

specialized training institutes .207 -.138 .042 .770

Training Assessment Factor

Designing and development of

training methods in vernacular

language and imparting

-.392 .082 .016 .524

Systematic training programmes

schedule preparation and

implementation

-.177 .072 -.021 .466

Encouraging to participate training

programmes .035 .119 .118 .012 .782

Encouragement Factor Government initiatives to build

capacity in professional training

institutes

.489 .125 .218 -.048 -.498

Building team spirit and career

counseling .142 -.016 .040 -.016 .016 .821

Team building

Factor

Establishment of quality accreditation

certifications .024 .008 .037 -.035 .021 -.008 .893

Quality

factor


Normalization.


291

The suggestions to improve the degree of practice of HR audit in It firms

are grouped into seven dimensions of factors. The suggestion factors to improve the

degree of practice of HR audit among the It firms are training and development

factor, assessment factor, career development factor, training assessment factor,

encouragement factor and quality factor. With these dimensions of suggestions a

company can improve the degree of adoption and practice of HR audit for the

benefit of the firm and to the society at large.

4.5 DATA ANALYSIS USING FRIEDMAN TEST

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between mean ranks of factors

influencing the HR audit practices in IT firms.

Table 4.104 Friedman test for significant difference between Mean Ranks of

the variables influencing the HR audit practices among the IT

firms

Variables influencing the HR audit practices among the I

T firms

Mean

Rank

Chi square

value P value

Cost and legislation/ Employee involvement and

participation 7.17

Expertise/ Attitude and work culture of the employees 6.76

Executive Leadership/ leadership co-operation(middle level ) 8.16

Employee Engagement and preparedness 8.25

Technology and company culture 8.72

Competitiveness and future planning attitude of management 8.67 132.264 0.000**

Productivity of the employees and service quality 9.08

Sustainability of business growth and development 7.61

Profitability of the business and business consistency 7.71

Economic/ financial irregularities-scams 8.54

Political interference and involvement 7.84

Social factors and media pressure on the HRA 8.13

Stakeholder initiatives- transparency 7.88

Statutory and regulatory pressures 7.90

Material risks 7.59


difference between mean ranks of factors influencing the HR audit practices in IT

firms is rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is a

highly significant difference between mean ranks of factors influencing the HR audit

292

practices in IT firms. Based on the mean ranks, it is noted that, Productivity of the

employees and service quality, Technology and company culture, Competitiveness

and future planning attitude of management, Employee Engagement and

preparedness and Executive Leadership/ leadership co-operation with the mean

ranks of 9.08, 8.72, 8.67, 8.25 and 8.16 are highly influencing the HR audit practices

among the IT firms in the sample respectively. The remaining variables recorded are

moderately influencing the HR audit practices of the It firms in the sample area.

Hence, role of employees, work environment, competition, technology and

management style are the important dimensions to be taken care for effective

adoption, customization and implementation of HR audit among the sample

companies.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between mean ranks of

dimensions of impact HR audit on the individual performance of the employees in

the sample.

Table 4.105 Mean Ranks of the variables of Dimensions of impact of HRA on


Dimensions of individual performance Mean

Rank

Chi square

value P value

Self evaluation and change in attitude towards organization

and its importance among the employees 5.81

Learning and equipping the self for future challenges 5.23

Practicing the skill development exercises 5.65

Improvement in the efficiency through Training and

development 5.52

Developing communication skills 5.76 26.474 0.002**

Focus on interpersonal skills and team building 5.49

Focus on target completion and work culture and ethics 5.50

Performance in terms of quality of work completed/service

quality 5.40

Innovation and creativity at work is improved and client

satisfaction 5.06

Overall job satisfaction is improved 5.58


difference between mean ranks of dimensions of impact HR audit on the individual

performance of the employees in the sample is rejected at 1% level of significance.

Hence, it is inferred that, there is a highly significant difference between mean ranks

293

of dimensions of impact HR audit on the individual performance of the employees in

the sample. Based on the mean ranks, it is noted that the key dimensions of the

individual performance on which HR audit influencing are Self evaluation and

change in attitude towards organization and its importance among the employees

with the mean rank of 5.81, developing communication skills with the mean rank of

5.76, Practicing the skill development exercises with the mean rank of 5.65, Overall

job satisfaction is improved with the mean rank of 5.58 and Improvement in the

efficiency through Training and development with the mean rank of 5.52

respectively. This indicates that, human resources audit practices are influencing the

performance of individual employees in many dimensions and helps to improve the

overall personality of the employees. This can be an intellectual asset for the

business.


dimensions of impact HR audit on the performance of the firms in the sample.

Table 4.106 Mean Ranks of the Dimensions of impact of HRA on the

performance of the firm

Dimensions of impact of HRA on the performance

of the firm

Mean

Rank

Chi square

value P value

Improved quality of planning and development towards

protection of stake holders interest 4.88

Development of physical and intellectual infrastructure 5.42

Facilities for training and development 5.43

Sustainability and consistency in business growth and

development in terms of profits 5.68

34.669 0.000**

Improved level of competitiveness and growth in turnover 5.51

Venturing into new business and verticals 5.76

Geographical Expansion of business through scattering the

resources 5.40

Risk management and control in business 5.55

Attitude of the top management towards organizational and

human capital development 5.53

Preparedness for the future challenges 5.84


difference between mean ranks of dimensions of impact HR audit on the

performance of the firms in the sample is rejected at 1% level of significance.

Hence, it is inferred that, there is a highly significant difference between mean ranks

294

of dimensions of impact HR audit on the performance of the firms in the sample.

Based on the mean ranks, it is noted that the dimensions of impact of HR audit on

the performance of the firm is indicated with the higher levels of mean ranks. The

dimensions of impact observed are Preparedness for the future challenges with the

mean rank of 5.84, Venturing into new business and verticals with the mean rank of

5.76, Sustainability and consistency in business growth and development in terms of

profits with the mean rank of 5.68, Risk management and control in business with

the mean rank of 5.55 and Attitude of the top management towards organizational

and human capital development with the mean rank of 5.53 respectively. Hence, the

impact of HR audit helps the firms to get prepared for the future and new

dimensions of business to a greater extent. Hence, the sustainability of the firm is

ensured.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between mean ranks of barriers

in conducting HR audit among the IT firms in the sample.

Table 4.107 Mean Ranks of barriers in conducting HRA among the IT firms

Barriers in conducting HR audit in IT firms Mean

Rank

Chi square

value P value

High cost/Too expensive 5.55

Not much of requirement and management attitude 5.88

No custom in the industry as well as no compulsion 5.39

Impossible to interrupt projects and divert activities 5.61 12.995 0.163NS

Staff not willing to participate in audit 5.42

HR experts are not trained in audit 5.51

Risk of poaching after training and audit 5.39

Difficult to identify suitable training providers of HR audit 5.43

Difficult to access training on HR audit 5.53

Effectiveness of audit is doubtful 5.29

Since p value is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis, There is no

significant difference between mean ranks of barriers in conducting HR audit among

the IT firms in the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is

concluded that, there is no significant difference between mean ranks of barriers in

conducting HR audit among the IT firms in the sample. Based on the mean ranks, it

295

is noted that the major barriers in conducting HR audit among the IT firms are not

much of requirement and management attitude with the mean rank of 5.88,

Impossible to interrupt projects and divert activities with the mean rank of 5.61,

High cost/Too expensive with the mean rank of 5.55, Difficult to access training on

HR audit with the mean rank of 5.53 and HR experts are not trained in audit with the

mean rank of 5.51 respectively. This indicates that, the HR audit adoption and

conducting in IT firms are depends on the attitude and affordability of the

management.


dimensions of benefits of HR audit to the IT firms in the sample.

Table 4.108 Mean Ranks of the variables of Dimensions of benefits of HR

audit among the IT firms

Benefits of HRA among the IT firms Mean

Rank

Chi square

value P value

Recognition of strengths in terms of human capital 5.60

Reveal problem areas of business and intellectual capital 5.48

Confirms compliance with latest regulations 5.50

Ensures effective HR policies and motivation 5.20

Builds confidence in HR function 5.59 13.121 0.157

Work culture and ethics adoption and inculcation 5.66

Transparency in talent recognition and rewards 5.65

Team building and communication effectiveness across the

verticals 5.66

Protection of stake holders interests 5.33

Overall development of the organization 5.34

Since p value is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis, There is no

significant difference between mean ranks of dimensions of benefits of HR audit to

the IT firms in the sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is

concluded that, There is no significant difference between mean ranks of dimensions

of benefits of HR audit to the IT firms in the sample. Based on the mean ranks, it is

noted that the kind of benefits to the It firms through HR audit recorded are

Recognition of strengths in terms of human capital with the mean rank of 5.60,

Builds confidence in HR function with the mean rank of 5.59, Work culture and

296

ethics adoption and inculcation with the mean rank of 5.66,Transparency in talent

recognition and rewards with the mean rank of 5.65,Team building and

communication effectiveness across the verticals with the mean rank of 5.66

respectively. This clearly indicates the route map and preparedness for the new

businesses and the competition in the markets. The success of technology firms

depends on the future preparedness of the intellectual capital. Hence, HR audit is

essential to the IT firms.

4.6 DATA ANALYSIS USING CORRELATIONS COEFFICIENTS

Table 4.109 Correlations between the various dimensions of HRA in the IT

firms

Dimensions of variables 1 2 3 4 5 6


Practices in IT sector

Pearson

Correlation 1

Sig.

(2-tailed) .

Impact of HR audit on

Individual Performance

Pearson

Correlation .529(**) 1

Sig.

(2-tailed) .000 .

Impact of HR audit on Organizational

Performance

Pearson

Correlation .560(**) .645(**) 1

Dimensions of variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sig.

(2-tailed) .000 .000 .

Barriers in conducting HR

audit among the IT firms

Pearson

Correlation .669(**) .522(**) .540(**) 1

Sig.

(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .

Benefits in conducting the HR audit among the IT

firms

Pearson

Correlation .611(**) .558(**) .499(**) .645(**) 1

Sig.

(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .

Suggestions to improve the HRA practices in IT

firms

Pearson

Correlation .492(**) .507(**) .465(**) .485(**) .542(**) 1

Sig.

(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .

N 442 442 442 442 442 442

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

297

The Correlation Coefficient between Factors influencing HRA Practices

in IT sector and Impact of HR audit on Individual Performance is 0.529 which

indicate 652.9 percentage positive relationship Factors influencing HRA Practices in

IT sector and Impact of HR audit on Individual Performance and is significant at 1%

level.

The Correlation Coefficient between Factors influencing HRA Practices

in IT sector and Impact of HR audit on Individual Performance is 0.560, indicating

56 percent of positive relationship and significant at 1% level. Similarly the

correlation between Impact of HR audit on Individual Performance and Impact of

HR audit on Organizational Performance is 0.645 indicates 64.5 percent direct and

positive and significant at 1% level.

The correlation co-efficient between Barriers in conducting HR audit

among the IT firms and Factors influencing HRA Practices in IT sector and Impact

of HR audit on Individual Performance and Impact of HR audit on Organizational

Performance is recorded at 0.669,0.522 and 0.540 indicating 67 percent , 52 percent

and 54 percent respectively and significant at 1% level of significance.

The Correlation Coefficient between Benefits in conducting the HR audit

among the IT firms and Factors influencing HRA Practices in IT sector and Impact

of HR audit on Individual Performance and Impact of HR audit on Organizational

Performance, barriers in conducting the HR audit among the IT firms is recorded at

0.611, 0.558, 0.499 and 0.645 respectively and all are significant at 1% level of

significance.

Finally, The Correlation Coefficient between Suggestions to improve the

HRA practices in IT firms and Factors influencing HRA Practices in IT sector and

Impact of HR audit on Individual Performance and Impact of HR audit on

Organizational Performance , barriers in conducting the HR audit among the IT

firms, benefits in conducting HR audit among the IT firms is recorded at 0.492,

0.507, 0.465, 0.485 and 0.542 respectively indicating 49 percent,50 percent,46

298

percent, 48 percent and 54 percent positive and direct and all the variables are

significant at 1% level of significance.

4.7 DATA ANALYSIS USING REGRESSION

Regression is the determination of statistical relationship between two or

more variables. In simple regression two variables are used. One variable

(independent) is the cause of the behaviour of another one (dependent). When there

are more than two independent variables the analysis concerning relationship is

known as multiple correlations and the equation describing such relationship is

called as the multiple regression equation.

Regression analysis is concerned with the derivation of an appropriate

mathematical expression is derived for finding values of a dependent variable on the

basis of independent variable. It is thus designed to examine the relationship of a

variable Y to a set of other variables X1, X2, X3………….Xn. the most commonly

used linear equation in Y=b1 X1 + b2 X2 +……+ bn Xn + b0

Here Y is the dependent variable, which is to be found. X1 , X2 ,… and Xn

are the known variables with which predictions are to be made and b1, b2 ,….bn are

coefficient of the variables.

In this study, the dependent variable is individual performance,

Independent variables are Benefits of HR audit (X1) ,Impact of HRA on the

performance of the Firm (X2), Factors influencing HRA practices in IT firms (X3)

and Barriers in conducting HR audit in IT firms (X4) and analysis are discussed as

follows:

Dependent variable: Individual performance (Y)

Independent variables :1. Benefits of HR audit (X1)

2. Impact of HRA on the performance of the Firm (X2)

3. Factors influencing HRA practices in IT firms (X3)

4. Barriers in conducting HR audit in IT firms (X4)

299

Table 4.110 Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed

1 Benefits in conducting , Organizational Performance,

HRA Practices in IT sector , Barriers in conducting(a) .

a All requested variables entered.

b Dependent Variable: Individual Performance

Table 4.111 Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .707(a) .500 .495 4.210

a Predictors: (Constant), Benefits in conducting , Organizational Performance, HRA Practices in IT sector , Barriers in conducting HR audit

Multiple R value : 0.707

R Square value : 0.500

F value : 109.117

P value : 0.000**

Table 4.112 ANOVA (b)

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 7735.449 4 1933.862 109.117 .000(a)

Residual 7744.868 437 17.723

Total 15480.317 441

a Predictors: (Constant), Benefits in conducting , Organizational Performance, HRA Practices in IT

sector , Barriers in conducting

b Dependent Variable: Individual Performance

Table 4.113 Coefficients (a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t- value P value

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 3.646 2.284 1.596 .111

HRA Practices in IT sector .103 .056 .091 1.832 .068

Organizational Performance .456 .045 .436 10.167 .000

Barriers in conducting .060 .042 .072 1.420 .156

Benefits in conducting .237 .047 .238 5.043 .000

a Dependent Variable: Individual Performance

300

The multiple correlation coefficient is 0.7070 measures the degree of

relationship between the actual values and the predicted values of the impact of the

HR audit on the individual performance. Because the predicted values are obtained

as a linear combination of Independent variables are Benefits of HR audit (X1)

,Impact of HRA on the performance of the Firm (X2), Factors influencing HRA

practices in IT firms (X3) and Barriers in conducting HR audit in IT firms (X4) the

coefficient value of 0.7070 indicates that the relationship between adjustment and

the two independent variables is quite strong and positive.

The Coefficient of Determination R-square measures the goodness-of-fit

of the estimated Sample Regression Plane (SRP) in terms of the proportion of the

variation in the dependent variables explained by the fitted sample regression

equation. Thus, the value of R square is 0.500 simply means that about 50% of the

variation in adjustment is explained by the estimated SRP that uses Benefits of HR

audit (X1) ,Impact of HRA on the performance of the Firm (X2), Factors influencing

HRA practices in IT firms (X3) and Barriers in conducting HR audit in IT firms (X4)

as the independent variables and R square value is significant at 1 % level.

The multiple regression equation is

Y= 3.646 +0.103X1+0.456X2+0.060X3+0.237X4

Here the coefficient of X1 is 0.103 represents the partial effect of factors

influencing HRA practices in IT firms on the performance of the individual

employees by holding all other variables as constant. The estimated positive sign

implies that such effect is positive that the performance of the individual employees

score would increase by 0.103 for every unit increase in factors influencing HRA

practices among the IT firms and this coefficient value is not significant at 5% level.

The coefficient of X2 is 0.456 represents the moderate level of effect of

organizational performance on the individual performance, holding all other

variables as constant. The estimated positive sign implies that such effect is positive

that the performance of the individual employees score would increase by 0.456 for

301

every unit increase in organizational performance and this coefficient value is highly

significant at 1% level.

The co efficient of X3 is 0.060 represents the nominal effect of influence

of barriers in conducting the HR audit among the IT firms on the performance of the

individual employees, by holding all other variables constant. The estimated positive

sign implies that, such effect is positive that the performance of the individual

employees score would increase by 0.060 for every unit increase in the barriers in

conducting the HR audit among the IT firms in sample and this coefficient value is

not significant at 5% level.

Finally, the co-efficient of X4 is 0.237 represents the moderate level of

effect of benefits in conducting HR audit among the IT firms on the performance of

individual employees by holding all other variables as constant. The estimated

positive sign implies that such effect is positive that the performance of the

individual employees score would increase by 0.237 for every unit increase in the

benefits in conducting the HR audit among the IT firms and this co efficient is

highly significant at 1% level.

Documents

CHAPTER 4 HR AUDIT PRACTICES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/89352/7... · 2016-05-10 · CHAPTER 4 . HR AUDIT PRACTICES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF