CHAPTER 4 HR AUDIT PRACTICES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF...
Transcript of 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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
on individual performance
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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, Always, 115, 26%
Series1, Most of the times, 163, 37%
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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, Always, 100, 23%
Series1, Most of the times, 186, 42%
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Management attitude towards HRA
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
Source: Primary Data / Questionnaire
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
Valid N (listwise) 442
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
Valid N (listwise) 442
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
Valid N (listwise) 442
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Table 4.33 Group Statistics of Perceptions on factors influencing HR Audit,
barriers and benefits on the performance of firms in IT Sector
Practicing status of HRA
Yes No t-value P value
Mean SD Mean SD
Factors influencing HRA
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
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. 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)
Since p value is less than 0.01, the 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 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
Factors influencing HRA
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)
Since p value is less than 0.01, the 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 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
on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
Table 4.40 Association between Age and the perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
Age group in years
Perception on HRA impact on individual
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
individual performance
8.6% 13.8% 16.4% 22.6% 14.3% 14.0%
21-30
Count 33 80 26 9 33 181
% within Age Group in
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
% within Age Group in
years 16.1% 45.2% 16.1% 11.3% 11.3% 100.0%
12.870 0.682NS
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
14.3% 13.3% 16.4% 22.6% 10.0% 14.0%
41-50
Count 9 32 7 4 12 64
% within Age Group in
years 14.1% 50.0% 10.9% 6.3% 18.8% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
12.9% 15.2% 11.5% 12.9% 17.1% 14.5%
Above 50
Count 12 41 8 4 8 73
% within Age Group in
years 16.4% 56.2% 11.0% 5.5% 11.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
17.1% 19.5% 13.1% 12.9% 11.4% 16.5%
Total
Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Age Group in
years 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%
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
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
Perception on HRA impact on
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
on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact
on individual performance
17.1% 15.7% 6.6% 6.5% 15.7% 14.0%
PG-Technical
Count 13 33 17 7 11 81
% within Educational stream 16.0% 40.7% 21.0% 8.6% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact
on individual performance
18.6% 15.7% 27.9% 22.6% 15.7% 18.3%
PG-Nontechnical
Count 6 15 4 4 5 34
% within Educational stream 17.6% 44.1% 11.8% 11.8% 14.7% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact
on individual performance
8.6% 7.1% 6.6% 12.9% 7.1% 7.7%
Professional
Count 21 76 21 13 23 154
% within Educational stream 13.6% 49.4% 13.6% 8.4% 14.9% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact
on individual performance
30.0% 36.2% 34.4% 41.9% 32.9% 34.8%
Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Educational stream 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%
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between department of working and
Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
203
Table 4.42 Association between department of working and the perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
Department of working
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
value P value
SA A SWA NA NAA
Planning & Control
Count 14 42 8 4 9 77
% within
Department of working
18.2% 54.5% 10.4% 5.2% 11.7% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
15.7% 14.8% 16.4% 25.8% 20.0% 16.7%
HR & Training
Count 7 23 12 4 9 55
% within
Department of working
12.7% 41.8% 21.8% 7.3% 16.4% 100.0%
% within Perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
10.0% 11.0% 19.7% 12.9% 12.9% 12.4%
Accounting
& Taxation
Count 9 24 6 2 12 53
% within
Department of working
17.0% 45.3% 11.3% 3.8% 22.6% 100.0%
% within Perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 6.5% 17.1% 12.0%
Product
Development
Count 29 90 25 13 26 183
% within
Department of working
15.8% 49.2% 13.7% 7.1% 14.2% 100.0%
% within Perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no Association between level of management and
Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
205
Table 4.43 Association between level of management and the perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
Level of management
Perception on HRA impact on individual
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
34.3% 39.0% 32.8% 41.9% 44.3% 38.5%
Floor level Count 27 96 31 14 31 199
% within Level of management
13.6% 48.2% 15.6% 7.0% 15.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
38.6% 45.7% 50.8% 45.2% 44.3% 45.0%
Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Level of management
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%
Since p value (Chi square value=9.031,p=0.340) is greater than 0.05, the
null hypothesis, There is no Association between level of management 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 management 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 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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
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
HRA impact on individual performance
Experience in years
Perception on HRA impact on individual
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
on HRA impact on individual performance
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
% within Experience in years
13.1% 55.7% 9.8% 7.4% 13.9% 100.0%
% within Perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
22.9% 32.4% 19.7% 29.0% 24.3% 27.6%
10-15
Count 6 15 5 7 8 41
% within Experience in years
14.6% 36.6% 12.2% 17.1% 19.5% 100.0%
% within Perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
8.6% 7.1% 8.2% 22.6% 11.4% 9.3%
15-20
Count 8 21 6 2 10 47
% within Experience in years
17.0% 44.7% 12.8% 4.3% 21.3% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
11.4% 10.0% 9.8% 6.5% 14.3% 10.6%
Above 20
Count 11 37 10 5 14 77
% within Experience in years
14.3% 48.1% 13.0% 6.5% 18.2% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
15.7% 17.6% 16.4% 16.1% 20.0% 17.4%
Total
Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Experience in years
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%
207
Since p value (Chi square value=17.824,p=0.334) is greater than 0.05, the
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between degree of awareness and
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
208
Table 4.45 Association between degree of awareness and the perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between sources of awareness and
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
210
Table 4.46 Association between sources of awareness and the perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
Sources of awareness
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
value
P
value SA A SWA NA NAA
1 Count 14 49 15 7 19 104
% within Sources of awareness
13.5% 47.1% 14.4% 6.7% 18.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
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
on HRA impact on individual performance
8.6% 10.0% 3.3% 6.5% 1.4% 7.2%
3
Count 13 36 8 3 14 74
% within Sources of awareness
17.6% 48.6% 10.8% 4.1% 18.9% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
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
on HRA impact on individual performance
31.4% 30.5% 49.2% 29.0% 38.6% 34.4%
5
Count 15 40 6 10 9 80
% within Sources of awareness
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
on HRA impact on individual performance
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
Since p value (Chi square value=22.745,p=0.121) is greater than 0.05, the
null hypothesis, There is no Association between sources of awareness 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 sources of awareness and Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted
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
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
212
Table 4.47 Association between Practicing status of HRA and the
perception on HRA impact on individual performance
Practicing status of HRA
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
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
individual performance
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
individual performance
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
individual performance
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Since p value (Chi square value=5.611,p=0.230) is greater than 0.05, the
null hypothesis, There is no Association between practicing status of HRA 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 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
HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between degree of practice of HRA and
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
Table 4.48 Association between degree of practice of HRA and the
perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA
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
% within Degree of practice of
HRA 16.0% 53.3% 8.0% 10.7% 12.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on individual
performance
34.3% 38.1% 19.7% 51.6% 25.7% 33.9%
Half of the
times
Count 11 31 5 4 20 71
% within Degree of practice of
HRA 15.5% 43.7% 7.0% 5.6% 28.2% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on individual
performance
15.7% 14.8% 8.2% 12.9% 28.6% 16.1%
Some times
Count 6 13 3 4 5 31
% within Degree of practice of
HRA 19.4% 41.9% 9.7% 12.9% 16.1% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on individual
performance
8.6% 6.2% 4.9% 12.9% 7.1% 7.0%
Rarely
Count 5 27 5 5 11 53
% within Degree of practice of
HRA 9.4% 50.9% 9.4% 9.4% 20.8% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on individual
performance
7.1% 12.9% 8.2% 16.1% 15.7% 12.0%
Total Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Degree of practice of
HRA 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%
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
Perception on HRA impact on
firm performance
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
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
performance among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between rating of HRA practice and
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
217
Table 4.50 Association between rating of HRA practice and the perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
Rating of HRA practice
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
32.9% 10.5% 9.8% 12.9% 10.0% 14.0% 89.880 0.000**
2
Count 23 117 21 14 24 199
% within Rating of HRA practice
11.6% 58.8% 10.6% 7.0% 12.1% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
32.9% 55.7% 34.4% 45.2% 34.3% 45.0%
3
Count 7 39 20 1 16 83
% within Rating of HRA practice
8.4% 47.0% 24.1% 1.2% 19.3% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
10.0% 18.6% 32.8% 3.2% 22.9% 18.8%
4
Count 5 10 3 11 6 35
% within Rating of HRA practice
14.3% 28.6% 8.6% 31.4% 17.1% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
218
Since p value (Chi square value=89.880,p=0.000) is less than 0.01,
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
perception on HRA impact on individual performance
Factor influencing HRA
practice
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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
influencing HRA practice
20.3% 41.5% 17.0% 7.5% 13.7% 100.0%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
61.4% 41.9% 59.0% 51.6% 41.4% 48.0%
3 Count 14 35 4 6 7 66
% within Factor
influencing HRA practice
21.2% 53.0% 6.1% 9.1% 10.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
20.0% 16.7% 6.6% 19.4% 10.0% 14.9%
4 Count 5 26 3 1 5 40
% within Factor
influencing HRA practice
12.5% 65.0% 7.5% 2.5% 12.5% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
7.1% 12.4% 4.9% 3.2% 7.1% 9.0%
5 Count 1 30 9 3 10 53
% within Factor
influencing HRA practice
1.9% 56.6% 17.0% 5.7% 18.9% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
220
Since p value (Chi square value=33.512,p=0.006) is less than 0.01,
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
and perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
221
Table 4.52 Association between Frequency of performing HRA and the
perception on HRA impact on individual performance
Frequency of performing HRA
Perception on HRA impact on individual
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
of performing HRA 15.6% 49.3% 13.7% 7.6% 13.7% 100.0%
% 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
of performing HRA 18.8% 51.8% 14.1% 4.7% 10.6% 100.0%
% 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
of performing HRA 18.0% 36.1% 13.1% 9.8% 23.0% 100.0%
% 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
of performing HRA 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
222
Since p value (Chi square value=10.875,p=0.540) is greater than 0.05, the
null hypothesis, There is no Association between Frequency of performing HRA 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 Frequency of performing 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 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
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
value
P
value SA A SWA NA NAA
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%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
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
% within Frequency of
measures taken on HRA report
15.3% 48.5% 12.9% 8.0% 15.3% 100.0%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
35.7% 37.6% 34.4% 41.9% 35.7% 36.9%
Some
times
Count 12 33 10 5 12 72
% within Frequency of
measures taken on HRA report
16.7% 45.8% 13.9% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
17.1% 15.7% 16.4% 16.1% 17.1% 16.3%
Rarely
Count 6 36 10 4 10 66
% within Frequency of
measures taken on HRA report
9.1% 54.5% 15.2% 6.1% 15.2% 100.0%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
8.6% 17.1% 16.4% 12.9% 14.3% 14.9%
Never
Count 8 10 0 3 5 26
% within Frequency of
measures taken on HRA report 30.8% 38.5% .0% 11.5% 19.2% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
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%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on individual performance
100 100 100 100 100 100
224
Since p value (Chi square value=13.696,p=0.622) is greater than 0.05, the
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
impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between motive to focus on HRA and
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
225
Table 4.54 Association between Motive to focus on HRA and the perception
on HRA impact on individual performance
Motive to focus on HRA
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
value
P
value SA A SWA NA NAA
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
14.3% 10.0% 9.8% 6.5% 8.6% 10.2% 19.408 0.248
2
Count 20 62 16 11 27 136
% within Motive to focus on HRA
14.7% 45.6% 11.8% 8.1% 19.9% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
28.6% 29.5% 26.2% 35.5% 38.6% 30.8%
3
Count 11 33 5 3 11 63
% within Motive to focus on HRA
17.5% 52.4% 7.9% 4.8% 17.5% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
15.7% 15.7% 8.2% 9.7% 15.7% 14.3%
4
Count 8 23 3 5 11 50
% within Motive to focus on HRA
16.0% 46.0% 6.0% 10.0% 22.0% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
11.4% 11.0% 4.9% 16.1% 15.7% 11.3%
5
Count 21 71 31 10 15 148
% within Motive to focus on HRA
14.2% 48.0% 20.9% 6.8% 10.1% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
30.0% 33.8% 50.8% 32.3% 21.4% 33.5%
Total
Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Motive to focus on 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%
226
Since p value (Chi square value=19.408,p=0.248) is greater than 0.05, the
null hypothesis, There is no Association between Motive to focus on HRA 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 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
and perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
227
Table 4.55 Association between Individual preference for HRA and the perception on HRA impact on individual performance
Individual preference for HRA
Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance Total Chi
value
P
value SA A SWA NA NAA
Always
Count 16 50 15 6 13 100
% within Individual
preference for HRA 16.0% 50.0% 15.0% 6.0% 13.0% 100%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on
individual performance
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
preference for HRA 15.1% 47.8% 12.4% 9.1% 15.6% 100%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on
individual performance
40.0% 42.4% 37.7% 54.8% 41.4% 42.1%
Some
times
Count 12 39 8 6 17 82
% within Individual
preference for HRA 14.6% 47.6% 9.8% 7.3% 20.7% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
17.1% 18.6% 13.1% 19.4% 24.3% 18.6%
Rarely
Count 11 27 12 1 9 60
% within Individual
preference for HRA 18.3% 45.0% 20.0% 1.7% 15.0% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
15.7% 12.9% 19.7% 3.2% 12.9% 13.6%
Never
Count 3 5 3 1 2 14
% within Individual
preference for HRA 21.4% 35.7% 21.4% 7.1% 14.3% 100%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on
individual performance
4.3% 2.4% 4.9% 3.2% 2.9% 3.2%
Total
Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Individual
preference for 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%
228
Since p value (Chi square value=10.506,p=0.839) is greater than 0.05, the
null hypothesis, There is no Association between Individual preference for HRA 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 Individual preference for HRA and Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance among the sample. Based on the row and column
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
HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between reasons for preferring HRA and
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
229
Table 4.56 Association between reasons for preferring HRA and the
perception on HRA impact on individual performance
Reason for preferring
HRA
Perception on HRA impact on
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
individual performance
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
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 a highly
significant Association between reasons for preferring 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 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
Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the
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
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
value
P
value SA A SWA NA NAA
Always
Count 9 35 8 2 11 65
% within HRA conducts by experts
13.8% 53.8% 12.3% 3.1% 16.9% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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
% within HRA conducts by experts
17.2% 43.1% 14.9% 6.9% 17.8% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
42.9% 35.7% 42.6% 38.7% 44.3% 39.4%
Some times
Count 14 36 5 5 12 72
% within HRA conducts by experts
19.4% 50.0% 6.9% 6.9% 16.7% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
20.0% 17.1% 8.2% 16.1% 17.1% 16.3%
Rarely
Count 2 19 2 4 6 33
% within HRA conducts by experts
6.1% 57.6% 6.1% 12.1% 18.2% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
2.9% 9.0% 3.3% 12.9% 8.6% 7.5%
Never
Count 15 45 20 8 10 98
% within HRA conducts by experts
15.3% 45.9% 20.4% 8.2% 10.2% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
21.4% 21.4% 32.8% 25.8% 14.3% 22.2%
Total
Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within HRA conducts by experts
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%
Since p value (Chi square value=17.785,p=0.337) is greater than 0.05, the
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
Perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the
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
perception on HRA impact on individual performance
Management attitude towards HRA
Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance Total Chi
value
P
value SA A SWA NA NAA
1 Count 16 46 13 6 17 98
% within Management attitude
towards HRA 16.3% 46.9% 13.3% 6.1% 17.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
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
% within Management attitude
towards HRA 16.8% 46.1% 14.7% 7.3% 15.2% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on individual performance
5.7% 11.0% 8.2% 6.5% 15.7% 10.2%
5
Count 5 9 5 3 2 24
% within Management attitude
towards HRA 20.8% 37.5% 20.8% 12.5% 8.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on individual performance 7.1% 4.3% 8.2% 9.7% 2.9% 5.4%
Total
Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Management attitude
towards 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%
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
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 management attitude towards HRA and Perception on HRA
impact on individual performance among the sample. Based on the row and column
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
HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between focused area of HR function and
perception on HRA impact on individual performance among the sample.
234
Table 4.59 Association between Focused area of HR function and the
perception on HRA impact on individual performance
Focused area of HRA function
Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance Total Chi
value
P
value SA A SWA NA NAA
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%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on
individual performance
15.7% 20.0% 8.2% 16.1% 21.4% 17.6% 20.147 0.214
2
Count 17 58 19 9 12 115
% within Focused area of
HRA function 14.8% 50.4% 16.5% 7.8% 10.4% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance
24.3% 27.6% 31.1% 29.0% 17.1% 26.0%
3
Count 24 55 23 12 26 140
% within Focused area of
HRA function 17.1% 39.3% 16.4% 8.6% 18.6% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
individual performance 34.3% 26.2% 37.7% 38.7% 37.1% 31.7%
4
Count 5 25 3 3 3 39
% within Focused area of
HRA function 12.8% 64.1% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 100%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on
individual performance
7.1% 11.9% 4.9% 9.7% 4.3% 8.8%
5
Count 13 30 11 2 14 70
% within Focused area of
HRA function 18.6% 42.9% 15.7% 2.9% 20.0% 100%
% within Perception on
HRA impact on
individual performance
18.6% 14.3% 18.0% 6.5% 20.0% 15.8%
Total
Count 70 210 61 31 70 442
% within Focused area of
HRA function 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%
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
at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is inferred that, there is no Association
between Focused area of HR function and Perception on HRA impact on individual
performance among the sample. Based on the row and column percentage, it is noted
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
firm performance 56.9% 55.2% 68.6% 59.0% 51.7% 57.9%
Female
Count 28 86 27 16 29 186
% within Gender 15.1% 46.2% 14.5% 8.6% 15.6% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
firm performance 43.1% 44.8% 31.4% 41.0% 48.3% 42.1%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Gender 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%
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
Since p value (Chi square value=11.809,p=0.757) is greater than 0.05, the
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
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance Total
Excellent Very
good Fair Moderate No impact
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 Age Group in years 14.9% 39.8% 18.8% 5.0% 21.5% 100%
% 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
% within Age Group in years 9.7% 43.5% 24.2% 19.4% 3.2% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
9.2% 14.1% 17.4% 30.8% 3.3% 14.0%
41-50
Count 11 27 9 4 13 64
% within Age Group in years 17.2% 42.2% 14.1% 6.3% 20.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
16.9% 14.1% 10.5% 10.3% 21.7% 14.5%
Above 50
Count 8 38 18 5 4 73
% within Age Group in years 11.0% 52.1% 24.7% 6.8% 5.5% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
12.3% 19.8% 20.9% 12.8% 6.7% 16.5%
Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Age Group in years 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%
Chi-Square Test
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 46.480(a) 16 0.000**
Likelihood Ratio 48.547 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .194 1 .659
N of Valid Cases 442
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
18.5% 17.7% 9.3% 7.7% 8.3% 14.0%
PG-Technical
Count 11 31 16 11 12 81
% within Educational
stream 13.6% 38.3% 19.8% 13.6% 14.8% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
16.9% 16.1% 18.6% 28.2% 20.0% 18.3%
PG-Nontechnical
Count 4 9 13 2 6 34
% within Educational
stream 11.8% 26.5% 38.2% 5.9% 17.6% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
6.2% 4.7% 15.1% 5.1% 10.0% 7.7%
Professional
Count 24 63 30 18 19 154
% within Educational
stream 15.6% 40.9% 19.5% 11.7% 12.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
36.9% 32.8% 34.9% 46.2% 31.7% 34.8%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Educational
stream 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%
239
Chi-Square Test
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 25.170(a) 16 .067NS
Likelihood Ratio 24.685 16 .076
Linear-by-Linear Association .800 1 .371
N of Valid Cases 442
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
impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
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 sample.
240
Table 4.63 Cross table Association between Department of working and the
Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among
the sample
Department of working
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on
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
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.334(a) 16 .788
Likelihood Ratio 11.274 16 .792
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.297 1 .130
N of Valid Cases 442
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
sample is accepted at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is concluded that, there is
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
impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between level of management and
perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.
242
Table 4.64 Cross table Association between level of management and the
Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among
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%
% within Perception on HRA
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
% within Level of management 15.3% 40.0% 22.9% 5.3% 16.5% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 40.0% 35.4% 45.3% 23.1% 46.7% 38.5%
Floor level
Count 30 94 32 20 23 199
% within Level of management 15.1% 47.2% 16.1% 10.1% 11.6% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 46.2% 49.0% 37.2% 51.3% 38.3% 45.0%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Level of management 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%
Chi-Square Test results
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.262(a) 8 .247
Likelihood Ratio 10.360 8 .241
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.291 1 .256
N of Valid Cases 442
Since p value (Chi square value=10.262,p=0.247) is greater than 0.05,
hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between level of management
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 level of management and Perception on the impact of HRA
243
on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and column
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
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance Total
Excellent Very
good Fair Moderate No impact
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
33.8% 32.8% 38.4% 46.2% 31.7% 35.1%
5-10
Count 16 49 28 7 22 122
% within Experience in years 13.1% 40.2% 23.0% 5.7% 18.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact
on firm performance 24.6% 25.5% 32.6% 17.9% 36.7% 27.6%
10-15
Count 3 22 5 5 6 41
% within Experience in years 7.3% 53.7% 12.2% 12.2% 14.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact
on firm performance 4.6% 11.5% 5.8% 12.8% 10.0% 9.3%
15-20
Count 8 24 7 5 3 47
% within Experience in years 17.0% 51.1% 14.9% 10.6% 6.4% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
12.3% 12.5% 8.1% 12.8% 5.0% 10.6%
Above 20
Count 16 34 13 4 10 77
% within Experience in years 20.8% 44.2% 16.9% 5.2% 13.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
24.6% 17.7% 15.1% 10.3% 16.7% 17.4%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Experience in years 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact
on firm performance 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
244
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.340(a) 16 .364
Likelihood Ratio 18.032 16 .322
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.950 1 .086
N of Valid Cases 442
Since p value (Chi square value=17.340,p=0.364) is greater than
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
impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between awareness on HRA and
perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.
245
Table 4.66 Cross table Association between awareness on HRA and the
Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among
the sample
Awareness on HRA
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
15.4% 9.4% 3.5% 5.1% 5.0% 8.1%
Aware
Count 18 82 26 10 23 159
% within Awareness on HRA 11.3% 51.6% 16.4% 6.3% 14.5% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
27.7% 42.7% 30.2% 25.6% 38.3% 36.0%
Somewhat
aware
Count 21 43 37 13 15 129
% within Awareness on HRA 16.3% 33.3% 28.7% 10.1% 11.6% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 32.3% 22.4% 43.0% 33.3% 25.0% 29.2%
Not aware
Count 10 42 17 10 17 96
% within Awareness on HRA 10.4% 43.8% 17.7% 10.4% 17.7% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 15.4% 21.9% 19.8% 25.6% 28.3% 21.7%
Not at all
Count 6 7 3 4 2 22
% within Awareness on HRA 27.3% 31.8% 13.6% 18.2% 9.1% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
9.2% 3.6% 3.5% 10.3% 3.3% 5.0%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Awareness on HRA 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%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 31.952(a) 16 .010*
Likelihood Ratio 30.743 16 .015
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.294 1 .070
N of Valid Cases 442
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
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 concluded that, there is a
significant Association between awareness on 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, 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
impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
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.
247
Table 4.67 Cross table Association between sources of awareness and the
Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among
the sample
Sources of awareness
Perception on HRA impact on firm
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 23.1% 21.4% 23.3% 28.2% 28.3% 23.5%
2
Count 3 16 4 4 5 32
% within Sources of awareness 9.4% 50.0% 12.5% 12.5% 15.6% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 4.6% 8.3% 4.7% 10.3% 8.3% 7.2%
3
Count 18 31 16 5 4 74
% within Sources of awareness 24.3% 41.9% 21.6% 6.8% 5.4% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 27.7% 16.1% 18.6% 12.8% 6.7% 16.7%
4
Count 18 70 32 10 22 152
% within Sources of awareness 11.8% 46.1% 21.1% 6.6% 14.5% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 27.7% 36.5% 37.2% 25.6% 36.7% 34.4%
5
Count 11 34 14 9 12 80
% within Sources of awareness 13.8% 42.5% 17.5% 11.3% 15.0% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 16.9% 17.7% 16.3% 23.1% 20.0% 18.1%
Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Sources of awareness 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%
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
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 15.658(a) 16 .477
Likelihood Ratio 16.176 16 .441
Linear-by-Linear Association .095 1 .758
N of Valid Cases 442
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
perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.
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
Practicing status of HRA
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact
on firm performance 66.2% 66.1% 66.3% 66.7% 63.3% 65.8%
No
Count 22 65 29 13 22 151
% within Practicing status of HRA 14.6% 43.0% 19.2% 8.6% 14.6% 100%
% within Perception on HRA impact
on firm performance 33.8% 33.9% 33.7% 33.3% 36.7% 34.2%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Practicing status of HRA 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%
249
Chi-Square Test
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 0.198(a) 4 .995
Likelihood Ratio .196 4 .996
Linear-by-Linear Association .090 1 .764
N of Valid Cases 442
Since p value (Chi square value=0.198,p=0.995) is greater than 0.05,
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
HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and
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
HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
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.
250
Table 4.69 Cross table Association between degree of practice of HRA and
the Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm
among the sample
Degree of practice of HRA
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 36.9% 28.6% 31.4% 33.3% 30.0% 31.0%
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 29.2% 30.7% 37.2% 25.6% 50.0% 33.9%
Half of the times
Count 5 39 13 7 7 71
% within Degree of practice
of HRA 7.0% 54.9% 18.3% 9.9% 9.9% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 7.7% 20.3% 15.1% 17.9% 11.7% 16.1%
Some times
Count 6 12 5 5 3 31
% within Degree of practice
of HRA 19.4% 38.7% 16.1% 16.1% 9.7% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 9.2% 6.3% 5.8% 12.8% 5.0% 7.0%
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
100.0% 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Test
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 22.686(a) 16 .122
Likelihood Ratio 23.745 16 .095
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.776 1 .052
N of Valid Cases 442
251
Since p value (Chi square value=22.686,p=0.122) is greater than
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
impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between rating of HRA practice and
perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.
252
Table 4.70 Cross table Association between rating of HRA practice and the
Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among
the sample
Rating of HRA practice
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
Total Excellent
Very
good Fair Moderate
No
impact
1 Count 9 31 12 3 7 62
% within Rating of HRA practice
14.5% 50.0% 19.4% 4.8% 11.3% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
13.8% 16.1% 14.0% 7.7% 11.7% 14.0%
2
Count 40 77 45 19 18 199
% within Rating of HRA practice
20.1% 38.7% 22.6% 9.5% 9.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
61.5% 40.1% 52.3% 48.7% 30.0% 45.0%
3
Count 9 37 13 9 15 83
% within Rating of HRA practice
10.8% 44.6% 15.7% 10.8% 18.1% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
13.8% 19.3% 15.1% 23.1% 25.0% 18.8%
4
Count 2 16 6 3 8 35
% within Rating of HRA practice
5.7% 45.7% 17.1% 8.6% 22.9% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
3.1% 8.3% 7.0% 7.7% 13.3% 7.9%
5
Count 5 31 10 5 12 63
% within Rating of HRA practice
7.9% 49.2% 15.9% 7.9% 19.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
7.7% 16.1% 11.6% 12.8% 20.0% 14.3%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Rating of HRA practice
14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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.
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 22.780(a) 16 .120
Likelihood Ratio 23.416 16 .103
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.434 1 .011
N of Valid Cases 442
253
Since p value (Chi square value=22.780,p=0.120) is greater than 0.05,
hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between rating of HRA practice
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 rating of HRA practice and Perception on the impact of HRA
on the performance of the firm among the sample. Based on the row and column
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
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
Total
Excellent
Very
good Fair Moderate
No
impact
1 Count 8 34 14 7 8 71
% within Factor influencing HRA practice
11.3% 47.9% 19.7% 9.9% 11.3% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
12.3% 17.7% 16.3% 17.9% 13.3% 16.1%
2 Count 39 77 40 20 36 212
% within Factor influencing HRA practice
18.4% 36.3% 18.9% 9.4% 17.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
60.0% 40.1% 46.5% 51.3% 60.0% 48.0%
3 Count 8 26 11 9 12 66
% within Factor influencing HRA practice
12.1% 39.4% 16.7% 13.6% 18.2% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
12.3% 13.5% 12.8% 23.1% 20.0% 14.9%
4 Count 2 25 8 2 3 40
% within Factor influencing HRA practice
5.0% 62.5% 20.0% 5.0% 7.5% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
3.1% 13.0% 9.3% 5.1% 5.0% 9.0%
5 Count 8 30 13 1 1 53
% within Factor influencing HRA practice
15.1% 56.6% 24.5% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
12.3% 15.6% 15.1% 2.6% 1.7% 12.0%
Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Factor influencing HRA practice
14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
100.0% 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Test result
Particulars Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 29.923(a) 16 .018*
Likelihood Ratio 34.598 16 .005
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.499 1 .034
N of Valid Cases 442
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
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, 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
on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between frequency of performing HRA
and perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the
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
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
Total Excellent
Very
good Fair Moderate
No
impact
Yearly
Count 15 35 20 3 12 85
% within Frequency of
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
% within Frequency of
performing HRA 14.2% 46.4% 19.0% 10.0% 10.4% 100.0%
% within Perception on
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
% within Frequency of
performing HRA 14.1% 43.5% 16.5% 8.2% 17.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on
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
% within Frequency of
performing HRA 13.1% 36.1% 19.7% 13.1% 18.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm
performance
12.3% 11.5% 14.0% 20.5% 18.3% 13.8%
Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Frequency of
performing HRA 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm
performance
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.906(a) 12 .537
Likelihood Ratio 11.480 12 .488
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.377 1 .066
N of Valid Cases 442
257
Since p value (Chi square value=10.906,p=0.537) is greater than 0.05,
hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between frequency of performing
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 noted that, there is no
Association between frequency of performing 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 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
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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.%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
26.2% 26.6% 22.1% 30.8% 26.7% 26.0%
Most of the times
Count 21 75 34 7 26 163
% within Frequency of measures taken on HRA report
12.9% 46.0% 20.9% 4.3% 16.0% 100.%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
32.3% 39.1% 39.5% 17.9% 43.3% 36.9%
Some time
Count 10 34 14 8 6 72
% within Frequency of measures taken on HRA report
13.9% 47.2% 19.4% 11.1% 8.3% 100.%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
15.4% 17.7% 16.3% 20.5% 10.0% 16.3%
Rarely
Count 14 23 14 6 9 66
% within Frequency of measures taken on HRA report
21.2% 34.8% 21.2% 9.1% 13.6% 100.%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 21.5% 12.0% 16.3% 15.4% 15.0% 14.9%
Never
Count 3 9 5 6 3 26
% within Frequency of measures taken on HRA report
11.5% 34.6% 19.2% 23.1% 11.5% 100.%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 4.6% 4.7% 5.8% 15.4% 5.0% 5.9%
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.%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.123(a) 16 .317
Likelihood Ratio 17.234 16 .371
Linear-by-Linear Association .033 1 .856
N of Valid Cases 442
Since p value (Chi square value=18.123,p=0.317) is greater than
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
HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between motive to focus on HRA and
perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.
Table 4.74 Cross table Association between motive to focus on HRA and the
Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among
the sample
Motive to focus on HRA
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
Total Excellent
Very
good Fair Moderate
No
impact
1
Count 6 20 5 3 11 45
% within Motive to focus on HRA
13.3% 44.4% 11.1% 6.7% 24.4% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 9.2% 10.4% 5.8% 7.7% 18.3% 10.2%
2
Count 18 58 31 11 18 136
% within Motive to focus on HRA
13.2% 42.6% 22.8% 8.1% 13.2% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
12.3% 10.4% 9.3% 17.9% 11.7% 11.3%
5
Count 21 64 29 14 20 148
% within Motive to focus on HRA
14.2% 43.2% 19.6% 9.5% 13.5% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
32.3% 33.3% 33.7% 35.9% 33.3% 33.5%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Motive to focus on HRA
14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
100% 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100%
260
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.015(a) 16 .672
Likelihood Ratio 12.907 16 .680
Linear-by-Linear Association .134 1 .714
N of Valid Cases 442
Since p value (Chi square value=13.015,p=0.672) is greater than 0.05,
hence, the null hypothesis, There is no Association between motive to focus on
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 motive to focus on 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 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
on HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
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.
Table 4.75 Cross table Association between individual preference for HRA
and the Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm
among the sample
Individual preference for HRA
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance Total
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 21.5% 22.9% 22.1% 20.5% 25.0% 22.6%
Most of the
times
Count 31 80 37 16 22 186
% within Individual
preference for HRA 16.7% 43.0% 19.9% 8.6% 11.8% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 47.7% 41.7% 43.0% 41.0% 36.7% 42.1%
Some times
Count 9 38 19 7 9 82
% within Individual
preference for HRA 11.0% 46.3% 23.2% 8.5% 11.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 13.8% 19.8% 22.1% 17.9% 15.0% 18.6%
Rarely
Count 9 23 10 7 11 60
% within Individual
preference for HRA 15.0% 38.3% 16.7% 11.7% 18.3% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 13.8% 12.0% 11.6% 17.9% 18.3% 13.6%
Never
Count 2 7 1 1 3 14
% within Individual
preference for HRA 14.3% 50.0% 7.1% 7.1% 21.4% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 3.1% 3.6% 1.2% 2.6% 5.0% 3.2%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Individual
preference for HRA 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
262
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.218(a) 16 .969
Likelihood Ratio 7.411 16 .964
Linear-by-Linear Association .530 1 .467
N of Valid Cases 442
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
HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
Null Hypothesis: There is no association between reasons for preferring HRA and
perception on the impact of HRA on the performance of the firm among the sample.
263
Table 4.76 Cross table Association between reasons for preferring HRA and
the Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm
among the sample
Reason for preferring
HRA
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance Total
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 20.0% 16.7% 17.4% 12.8% 18.3% 17.2%
2 Count 30 107 45 15 26 223
% within Reason for preferring
HRA 13.5% 48.0% 20.2% 6.7% 11.7% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 46.2% 55.7% 52.3% 38.5% 43.3% 50.5%
3 Count 14 24 17 8 12 75
% within Reason for preferring
HRA 18.7% 32.0% 22.7% 10.7% 16.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 21.5% 12.5% 19.8% 20.5% 20.0% 17.0%
4 Count 0 4 1 3 3 11
% within Reason for preferring
HRA .0% 36.4% 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance .0% 2.1% 1.2% 7.7% 5.0% 2.5%
5 Count 8 25 8 8 8 57
% within Reason for preferring
HRA 14.0% 43.9% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 12.3% 13.0% 9.3% 20.5% 13.3% 12.9%
Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Reason for preferring
HRA 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
264
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.713(a) 16 .284
Likelihood Ratio 18.672 16 .286
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.752 1 .186
N of Valid Cases 442
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
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 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
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance Total
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 16.9% 15.6% 10.5% 7.7% 20.0% 14.7%
Most
of the
times
Count 30 64 43 13 24 174
% within HRA conducts by
experts 17.2% 36.8% 24.7% 7.5% 13.8% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 46.2% 33.3% 50.0% 33.3% 40.0% 39.4%
Some
times
Count 9 40 11 6 6 72
% within HRA conducts by
experts 12.5% 55.6% 15.3% 8.3% 8.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 13.8% 20.8% 12.8% 15.4% 10.0% 16.3%
Rarely
Count 5 15 5 4 4 33
% within HRA conducts by
experts 15.2% 45.5% 15.2% 12.1% 12.1% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 7.7% 7.8% 5.8% 10.3% 6.7% 7.5%
Never
Count 10 43 18 13 14 98
% within HRA conducts by
experts 10.2% 43.9% 18.4% 13.3% 14.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 15.4% 22.4% 20.9% 33.3% 23.3% 22.2%
Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within HRA conducts by
experts 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%
266
Chi-Square Test results
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.445(a) 16 .298
Likelihood Ratio 18.548 16 .293
Linear-by-Linear Association .624 1 .430
N of Valid Cases 442
Since p value (Chi square value=18.445,p=0.298) is greater than 0.05,
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
Management attitude towards HRA
Perception on HRA impact on firm performance
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 24.6% 24.5% 15.1% 25.6% 20.0% 22.2%
2
Count 27 82 37 18 27 191
% within Management
attitude towards HRA 14.1% 42.9% 19.4% 9.4% 14.1% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 41.5% 42.7% 43.0% 46.2% 45.0% 43.2%
3
Count 8 41 19 5 11 84
% within Management
attitude towards HRA 9.5% 48.8% 22.6% 6.0% 13.1% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 12.3% 21.4% 22.1% 12.8% 18.3% 19.0%
4
Count 11 14 11 3 6 45
% within Management
attitude towards HRA 24.4% 31.1% 24.4% 6.7% 13.3% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 16.9% 7.3% 12.8% 7.7% 10.0% 10.2%
5
Count 3 8 6 3 4 24
% within Management
attitude towards HRA 12.5% 33.3% 25.0% 12.5% 16.7% 100%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 4.6% 4.2% 7.0% 7.7% 6.7% 5.4%
Total Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Management
attitude towards HRA 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%
268
Chi-Square Test result
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.255(a) 16 .654
Likelihood Ratio 13.386 16 .644
Linear-by-Linear Association .429 1 .512
N of Valid Cases 442
Since p value (Chi square value=13.255,p=0.654) is greater than 0.05,
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
HRA impact on the performance of a firm among the sample.
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.
269
Table 4.79 Cross table Association between focused area of HRA function
and the Perception on HRA impact on the performance of a firm
among the sample.
Focused area of HRA function
Perception on HRA impact on firm
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%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 15.4% 17.7% 17.4% 23.1% 16.7% 17.6%
2
Count 18 54 20 8 15 115
% within Focused area of HRA
function 15.7% 47.0% 17.4% 7.0% 13.0% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 27.7% 28.1% 23.3% 20.5% 25.0% 26.0%
3
Count 23 56 34 8 19 140
% within Focused area of HRA
function 16.4% 40.0% 24.3% 5.7% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 35.4% 29.2% 39.5% 20.5% 31.7% 31.7%
4
Count 6 16 7 7 3 39
% within Focused area of HRA
function 15.4% 41.0% 17.9% 17.9% 7.7% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 9.2% 8.3% 8.1% 17.9% 5.0% 8.8%
5
Count 8 32 10 7 13 70
% within Focused area of HRA
function 11.4% 45.7% 14.3% 10.0% 18.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 12.3% 16.7% 11.6% 17.9% 21.7% 15.8%
Total
Count 65 192 86 39 60 442
% within Focused area of HRA
function 14.7% 43.4% 19.5% 8.8% 13.6% 100.0%
% within Perception on HRA
impact on firm performance 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
270
Chi-Square Test results
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.617(a) 16 .627
Likelihood Ratio 13.034 16 .670
Linear-by-Linear Association .481 1 .488
N of Valid Cases 442
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
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
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .543
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 255.803
df 45
Sig. .000**
From the above table it is found that KMO measure of sampling adequacy
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
276
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables exhibit the variables
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
Rotation Sums of Squared
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables are reduced in to 4
predominant factors. It is also found that the 10 variables exhibit the total variance
of 64.063%. It is also ascertained that the 4 factors individually posses the variances
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
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .558
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 130.456
df 45
Sig. 0.000**
From the above table it is found that KMO measure of sampling adequacy
is .558, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity with approximate chi squire value 130.456, P=
.000 are statistically significant at 1% level this implies the sample size is adequate
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables exhibit the variables
from .378 to .759. This implies the range of variations defined between 37% to 75%,
this is adequate for factor segmentation from the variables. This leads to the factor
formation as stated in the table below:
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
Rotation Sums of Squared
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables are reduced in to 5
predominant factors. It is also found that the 10 variables exhibit the total variance
of 60.260%. It is also ascertained that the 5 factors individually posses the variances
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.
a Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
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
Table 4.92 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .576
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 326.716
df 45
Sig. .000
From the above table it is found that KMO measure of sampling adequacy
is .576, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity with approximate chi squire value 326.716, P=
.000 are statistically significant at 1% level this implies the sample size is adequate
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables exhibit the variables
from .451 to .672. This implies the range of variations defined between 45% to 67%,
this is adequate for factor segmentation from the variables. This leads to the factor
formation as stated in the table below:
283
Table 4.94 Total Variance Explained for Barriers in conducting HR audit
among the IT firms
Com
pon
en
t
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables are reduced in to 4
predominant factors. It is also found that the 10 variables exhibit the total variance
of 56.085%. It is also ascertained that the 4 factors individually posses the variances
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
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
Table 4.96 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .524
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 165.346
df 45
Sig. .000
From the above table it is found that KMO measure of sampling adequacy
is 0.524, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity with approximate chi squire value 165.346, P=
.000 are statistically significant at 1% level this implies the sample size is adequate
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables exhibit the variables
from .499 to .817. This implies the range of variations defined between 49% to 81%,
this is adequate for factor segmentation from the variables. This leads to the factor
formation as stated in the table below:
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
Rotation Sums of Squared
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables are reduced in to 5
predominant factors. It is also found that the 10 variables exhibit the total variance
of 61.171%. It is also ascertained that the 5 factors individually posses the variances
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 15 iterations.
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
Table 4.100 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .580
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 337.143
df 105
Sig. .000
From the above table it is found that KMO measure of sampling adequacy
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
289
From the above table it is found that the 10 variables exhibit the variables
from .441 to .801. This implies the range of variations defined between 44% to 80%,
this is adequate for factor segmentation from the variables. This leads to the factor
formation as stated in the table below:
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
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
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 69.920%. It is also ascertained that the 7 factors individually posses the variances
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
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 15 iterations.
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
Since p value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis, There is no significant
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
individual performance
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
Since p value is less than 0.01, the 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 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.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between mean ranks of
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
Since p value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis, There is no significant
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.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between mean ranks of
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
Factors influencing HRA
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.