CHAPTER - VI - Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @...

CHAPTER - VI

181

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In this chapter, an attempt has been made to analyze and

understand the perceptions of sample respondents about the

Strategic Human Resources Management and its Impact in

Achieving Organizational Effectiveness at Hindustan Coca-Cola

Beverages Private Limited, India. To elicit the opinions of

sample respondents, a well-structured Schedule is designed

and developed and has been administered to the employees,

figured in the sample. The Schedule consists of 24 standard

statements. The respondents have evinced more enthusiasm

and answered the questions with interest and patience. The

researcher after obtaining the responses from the respondents

has processed the information and tabulated, which has been

presented in this Chapter.

Cronbach's Alpha:

Cronbach's alpha is a measure of internal consistency that

shows how closely related are a set of items, as a group. For

conceptual purposes, the formula for the standardized

Cronbach's alpha is given below.

Here N is equal to the number of items, c-bar is the average

inter-item co-variance among the items and v-bar equals the

average variance.

182

Box Plot: The box plot explains the variation of the data and

also shows the average value, median value, highest value,

lowest value, 25th percentile, 75th percentile as well as the

outliers of the data as shown below

FIGURE: 6.1 - Box Plot

The researcher has administered the alpha scale method of

reliability analysis for each and every dimension. Table 6.1

below shows how the statements are related to one another for

each and every dimension.

Table: 6.1 - Reliability Tests

Dimension Name Alpha Cases Items

Organization Philosophy Policy and Procedure

0.817 448 6

Communication 0.711 448 6

Performance Management System 0.653 448 6

Training and development 0.650 448 6

Overall 0.795 448 24

183

The alpha coefficient for the 24 items is 0.795, suggesting that

the items have relatively high internal consistency.

TABLE: 6.2 - Age wise distribution of Respondents

Age Respondents Percent

Less than 30 yrs 53 11.8

30-39yrs 234 52.2

40-49yrs 140 31.3

50-59yrs 21 4.7

Total 448 100.0

Table 6.2 exemplifies the Age wise distribution of the

respondents. It is evident from the above table, a majority

(52.2%) of the respondents are in the age group of 30-39 yrs,

31.3% of the respondents are in between 40-49yrs of age, and

11.8% of the respondents are below 30yrs of age and a lesser

majority (4.7%) of respondents are above 50 yrs of age. The

scenic representation is shown below. From the secondary data

and or discussion with the officials, it is learnt that the main

reason for majority of above 30yrs is because, the sample that

was selected was managerial and above managerial cadre only.

CHART: 6.1 - Age wise distribution of Respondents

11.8

52.2

31.3

4.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less than 30 yrs 30-39yrs 40-49yrs 50-59yrs

184

TABLE: 6.3 - Tenure-wise distribution of Respondents

TENURE Respondents Percent

Less than 1 years 80 17.9

1 -2 years 33 7.4

2-4 years 87 19.4

Above 4 years 248 56.4

Total 448 100.0

The above table indicates the Experience of the respondents

who figured in the sample. For the convenience of analysis

purpose, the researcher has taken Less than 1 year of

experience, 1-2 years of experience 2-4 years of experience and

above 4 years into consideration. Out of the total sample of 448,

majority (56.4%) of the respondents have above 4 years of

experience, 19.4% 2-4 yrs. of experience, 17.9% below 1 yr. of

experience and the remaining 7.4% of the respondents are

having 1-2 yrs. of experience. The representation is shown below

in a diagrammatic representation.

CHART: 6.2 - Tenure-wise distribution of Respondents

17.9

7.4

19.4

56.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less than 1 years 1 -2 years 2-4 years Above 4 years

185

TABLE: 6.4 - Grade wise distribution of Respondents

GRADE Respondents Percent

Senior Management 48 10.7

Middle Management 251 56.0

Junior Management 149 33.3

Total 448 100.0

The above table illustrates the Grade wise distribution of the

respondents. Out of the total sample of 448, a majority (56%)

of the respondents are from Middle level managerial cadre,

while 33.3% of the respondents are from junior managerial

cadre and the remaining 10.7% belongs to senior managerial

cadre. The representation is shown below in a pie-chart for

better understanding. Since, the universe selected was from a

soft drink manufacturing and marketing company, the number

of team managers is more as compared to the number of

Individual mangers and National Regional Managerial cadre.

CHART: 6.3 - Grade wise distribution of Respondents

10.7

56

33.3

186

TABLE: 6.5 - Gender wise distribution of Respondents

The above table describes the Gender wise distribution of the

respondents. Out of the total sample of 488, a vast majority of 90.6 percent of the respondents are Male while the remaining 9.4 percent are Female respondents. The pictorial representation is shown below.

The reason for the considerable disparity between male and female employees might be due to taken over employee

population of the earlier bottling companies, who were taken on rolls by HCCBPL. Before the acquisition, the strength of the male employees was much more when compared to female employees. After acquisition, large scale recruitment was not taken up by HCCBPL. Hence, the skew in the male employee population.

However, in HCCBPL, the gender diversity has been improved from 3.6% in 2005 to the present 9.6%, which indicates the focused efforts from the management of HCCBPL in building a diverse organization.

CHART: 6.4 - Gender wise distribution of Respondents

90.6

9.4Male

Female

GENDER Frequency Percent

Male 406 90.6

Female 42 9.4

Total 448 100.0

187

TABLE: 6.6 - Detailed percentages of the four dimensions

Responses of the respondents on the dimension - ‘Business

Strategy’

S.

No

Statements on Business

Strategy SA A N DA SDA

1 I understand the business

strategy of HCCBPL 14.3 81.3 3.6 0.2 0.7

2

HCCBPL business strategy is

effective to compete in the

marketplace

13.6 80.4 2.9 2.2 0.9

3

I believe that my work which I am

performing, is contributing to

realize business strategy of

HCCBPL.

1.8 96 0.2 1.1 0.9

4

In my opinion business Strategies

of HCCBPL are effectively

communicated to all the

employees and its stake holders

18.3 56.1 19.2 6.8 1.6

5

I do feel that there is a better

strategy which HCCBPL can adopt

and proceed with.

17.9 54.9 17.6 7.6 2

6

I do believe that existing resources

with HCCBPL and their potential

are duly addressed while

formulating the business strategy.

17.6 54.9 17 7.1 3.3

Average Percentage 13.92 70.43 10.08 4.00 1.57

Table 6.6 reveals that the overall opinion of the respondents on

the dimension “Business Strategy”. It is observed from the data,

188

out of the total respondents of 448, on an average 70.43% of the

respondents have agreed with the said dimension 13.92% of

respondents have strongly agreed while 10.08% of the

respondents could not state their opinion and the remaining

6.57% of the respondents are against the said statements.

CHART: 6.5 - Detailed percentages of the four dimensions

Responses of the respondents on the dimension - ‘Business

Strategy’

13.92

70.43

10.08

41.57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Further, while it looks from the above responses that by and

large the employees of HCCBPL have understood and aligned to

the business strategy of HCCBPL. This is positive. However,

considering the fact that about 27% employees were either

neutral or negative on the strategy communication to its

employees and other stakeholders (question 4) HCCBPL may

focus more on communicating its business strategy with much

more aggression.

189

TABLE: 6.7 - Percentages of the respondents on the Role of

HR: Strategic Vs. Operational/ administrative dimension

S

No

Statements on

Role of HR: Strategic vs.

Operational/Administrative

SA A N DA SDA

7

I understand the accountabilities

of Human Resources function at

HCCBPL

11.4 17.4 62.1 6.9 2.2

8 The HR strategy has an impact on

the business growth of HCCBPL 23.4 46.3 20.8 8 2.5

9 HR policies and processes impact

my work at HCCBPL 18.8 56.4 17.6 6 2.2

10

The culture at HCCBPL

encourages proper execution of

HR processes

7.8 42.6 26.6 17.2 6.8

11

Top Management’s philosophy

towards HR is adequately designed

to ensure for the betterment of

organization effectiveness

11.4 17.4 62.1 6.9 2.2

12

In my opinion HR objectives and

initiatives are designed to create a

healthy organizational culture to

promote employee engagement

18.8 56.4 17.6 6 2.2


Table 6.7 reveals the overall opinion of the respondents on the

dimension “Role of HR: Strategic vs. Operational

/Administrative”. Out of the total respondents of 448, an average

190

of 38.92% of the respondents have agreed with the said

dimension 15.27% of the respondents have strongly agreed, while

34.47% of the respondents could not express their view with

regard to the said dimension and the remaining 11.35 % of the

respondents have negatively responded to said dimension.

CHART: 6.6 - Percentages of the respondents on the Role of

HR: Strategic Vs. Operational/ administrative dimension

16.27

38.92

34.47

8.5

2.85

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Disagree

Further, it is noteworthy that 49.6% employees were neutral to

negative on the question ‘The culture at HCCBPL encourages

proper execution of HR processes’. This indicates an

opportunity to focus on culture building exercises by HR to

promote HR process execution.

191

TABLE: 6.8 - Percentages of the respondents on the ‘HR

Competency Assessment’ dimension

S

no

Statements on HR:

Competency Assessment SA A N DA SDA

13

The HR function at HCCBPL

has the right skills to develop

and lead people processes

8.3 36.7 32.8 16.3 6.9

14

The talent management

initiatives are effective in

creating future leaders

9.6 41.7 28.1 16.1 4.5

15

The line managers are trained

to drive HR processes

efficiently

6.6 33.7 32.1 22.3 6.3

16

People are held accountable

for delivering high levels of

performance

24.1 53.8 13.8 6.7 1.6

17

The concept of synchronizing

peoples’ needs and

organizational needs is being

effectively addressed at

HCCBPL.

8.3 36.7 32.8 16.3 6.9

18

The ER policies and practices

are very much collaborative

and contribute to a great

extent towards the fulfillment

of objectives at HCCBPL.

24.1 53.8 13.8 6.7 1.6


192

Table 6.8 discloses that the overall opinion of the respondents

on the dimension “Competency Assessment”. It is evident from

the above table, on an average 55.73% of the respondents are

positively responded with the said dimension, while 25.57% of

the respondents does not shared their view in the said dimension

and the remaining 18.7 % of the respondents have

unenthusiastically responded.

CHART: 6.7 - Percentages of the respondents on the ‘HR

Competency Assessment’ dimension

13.33

42.4

26.57

14.07

4.63

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Disagree

It appears from the data that this is could be the big focus area

for HR to become more strategic and support execution of

business strategies. The specific areas for focus appears to be

building HR capabilities/competencies/building the capability

of line managers on HR process implementation etc.

193

TABLE: 6.9 - This table presents the percentages of the

respondents on the dimension – ‘People Process alignment’

S.

No

Statements on People

Process Alignment SA A N DA SDA

19

The HR processes in

HCCBPL are easy to

understand and practice

10.3 50.9 23 12.5 3.3

20

My job allows me the

opportunity to do what I do

best

29.2 50.7 12.3 6.3 1.6

21

In the last three year, I have

had opportunities at my

work to learn and grow

26.4 47.3 16.3 7.6 3.3

22

I understand how my

performance determines my

reward

22.3 48.4 17 8.3 4

23

New practices / methods are

encouraged and innovation

is promoted at HCCBPL

10.3 50.9 23 12.5 3.3

24

I do believe that my job

carries due weightage and

enable me to gain job

satisfaction.

26.4 47.3 16.3 7.6 3.3


Table 6.9 depicts that the overall opinion of the respondents on

the dimension “People Process Alignment”. It is observed from

194

the analysis that, on an average 69.73 % of the respondents

have positively responded with the said dimension, while 17.98%

of the respondents have not shared their opinion in the said

dimension and the remaining 12.26 % of the respondents have

apathetically responded. It needs to be seen whether the

employees who have not shared their opinion basically

understand the HR processes and their alignment in the

organization. There may be a need for HR to focus on the

communication of processes to address this kind of a situation.

CHART: 6.8 - This table presents the percentages of the

respondents on the dimension – ‘People Process alignment’

20.48

49.25

17.98

9.13

3.13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Disagree

195

Factor Analysis: Descriptive Statistics

TABLE: 6.10 - Average scores and its standard deviation of

each and every dimension of Strategic Human Resource

Management

Mean Std. Deviation

Business Strategy .9319 .29854

Operational/Administrative .5517 .49027

Competency Assessment .4576 .59291

People Process Alignment .7481 .54273

The average value of Business strategy is greater than the

remaining dimensions which show that the respondents opined

in a positive way with regard to this dimension when compared

to other dimensions. The dimension of competency assessment

is indicating a lesser average value which implies the modest

positive opinion of the respondents. Also, it indicates the need

to focus on competency building within the organization.

TABLE: 6.11 – Correlation Matrix

Correlation Matrix

1.000 .292 .337 .284

.292 1.000 .592 .556

.337 .592 1.000 .554

.284 .556 .554 1.000

.000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000

Business Strategy


Competency Assessment

People ProcessAlignment

Business Strategy




Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

BusinessStrategy

Operational/Administrativ

eCompetencyAssessment

PeopleProcess

Alignment

Determinant = .345a.

196

The above table is an abridged version of the R-matrix. The top

values of this table contain the Pearson correlation coefficient

between all pairs of the factors whereas the bottom values

contain the two-tailed significance of these coefficients. We can

use this correlation matrix to check the pattern of relationships.

First scan the significant values and look for any variable for

which the majority of values are greater than 0.06. Then scan

the correlation coefficients themselves and look for any greater

than 0.9. If any are found then there is a problem of singularity

in the data and we have to remove those variables. The

determinant of the matrix of this data is 0.345 which is greater

than 0.000001. So multi-collinearity is not a problem for this

data. To sum up, all the factors correlate fairly well and none

of the correlation coefficients are particular large; therefore no

need to consider eliminating any questions at this stage.

TABLE: 6.12 – KMO and Bartlett’s Test

.756

473.190

6

.000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of SamplingAdequacy.

Approx. Chi-Square

df

Sig.

Bartlett's Test ofSphericity

The above table reveals the KMO statistic which varies between

0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates that the sum of partial

correlations is large relative to the sum of correlations,

indicating diffusion in the pattern of correlations (hence the

factor analysis is likely to be inappropriate). A value close to 1

indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact

and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors.

197

Here the value is greater than 0.756 so we can say that the

range of being good.

Bartlett’s measure tests the null hypothesis that the original

correlation matrix is an identity matrix. For factor analysis to

work we need some relationships between variables and if the

R-matrix was an identity matrix then all correlation coefficients

would be zero. Therefore, we want this test to be significant

(i.e., have a significance values less than 0.05). A significant

test tells us that the R-matrix is not an identity matrix;

therefore, there are some relationships between the variables

we hope to include in the analysis. For this data, Bartlett’s test

is highly significant (p<0.001), and therefore factor analysis is

appropriate.

TABLE: 6.13 - Communalities

1.000 .314

1.000 .680

1.000 .700

1.000 .648

Business Strategy




Initial Extraction

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

The above table shows the communalities of extraction.

Principal component analysis works on the initial assumption

that all variance is common; therefore in initial the

communalities are all 1. The communalities in the column

labeled extraction reflect the common variance in the data

structure. So, for example, we can say that 31.4% of variance

associated with Business Strategy is common, or shared

variance. Another way to look at these communalities is in

terms of the proportion of variance explained by the underlying

factors.

198

TABLE: 6.14 – Total Variance Explained

2.342 58.549 58.549 2.342 58.549 58.549

.796 19.897 78.446

.457 11.413 89.859

.406 10.141 100.000

Component

1

2

3

4

Total% of

Variance Cumulative % Total% of

Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings


The Eigen values associated with each factor represent the

variance explained by that particular linear component and also

display the Eigen value in terms of the percentage of variance

explained so factor 1 explains 58.549% of total variance. It

should be clear that the first factor explain relatively large

among of variance whereas subsequent factors explain only

small amounts of variance. There is only one factor among all

with Eigen value greater than 1.

CHART: 6.9 – Scree Plot

4321

Component Number

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Eig

enva

lue

The screen plot graphs the eigen value against the factor

number. One can see these values in the first column of the

table immediately above. From the second factor on, one can

see that the line is almost flat, meaning the each successive

199

factor is accounting for smaller and smaller amount of the total

variance.

TABLE: 6.15 – Component Matrixa

.560

.825

.837

.805

Business Strategy




1

Component


1 components extracted.a.

From the whole analysis we can conclude that there is only one

factor extracted. All these four dimensions combined together

to get Strategic HRM.

Rotated Component Matrix a

Only one component was extracted.The solution cannot be rotated.

a.

200

TABLE: 6.16 - Difference in average opinion score among

male and female Student (t-test is administered)

Dimensions Gender n Mean S.D T-

value

P-

Value

Deci

sion

Business

Strategy

Male 404 0.935 0.294 0.62 0.536 N.S

Female 42 0.901 0.345

Operational

/Administrative

Male 404 0.935 0.294 0.62 0.536 N.S

Female 42 0.901 0.345

Competency

Assessment

Male 404 0.462 0.584 0.19 0.846 N.S

Female 42 0.440 0.678

People Process

Alignment

Male 404 0.771 0.516 1.73 0.09 N.S

Female 42 0.579 0.699

SHRM Male 404 0.683 0.363

1.12 0.268 N.S Female 42 0.597 0.481

Table 6.16 portrays that for each and every dimension there is

no significant average opinion score difference between male

and female.

Further, the average opinion score of the male is greater than

female in all the dimensions the same is represented below

graphically as a bar chart. Also for the whole there is no

significant difference in the opinion of the respondents in

strategic Human resource management with regard to Gender.

201

CHART: 6.10 - Difference in average opinion score among

male and female Student (t-test is administered)

Opinion of the respondents on four dimensions and SHRM by Gender

0.9350.901

0.9350.901

0.4620.44

0.771

0.579

0.683

0.597

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Business Strategy Operational

/Administrative

Operational

/Administrative

Operational

/Administrative

SHRM

Opin

ion

Score

TABLE: 6.17 - Relationship between age and the opinion of

the respondent (towards the dimensions Regression

analysis is performed)

Age Vs Dimension Name R2 P-value Decision

Business strategy 0.014 0.013 S

Operational /Administrative 0.027 0.000 S

Competency Assessment 0.021 0.002 S

People Process Alignment 0.01 0.029 S

SHRM 0.029 0.000 S

202

Here the R2 shows that age has explained 1.4% of the variance

towards the dimension “Business strategy”. The p-value

(0.013) indicates that the relationship between age and

Business strategy is statistically significant at a-level of .06.

Similarly, 2.7% for Operational / Administrative, 2.1% for

competency assessment and 1% for people Process alignment.

Further, there is a 2.9% of variance shown by the age towards

the Strategic HRM.

TABLE: 6.18 - Difference in opinion score among different

periods of experience (ANOVA test is performed for all the

dimensions in the SHRM)

Dimensions Tenure n Mean S.D F-

value

P-

Value

Decis

ion

Business

Strategy

Less than

1years 80 0.9104 0.3193

0.69 0.561 N.S 1-2 years 33 0.8854 0.3773

2-4 years 87 0.9215 0.2805

Above 4

years 248 0.9485 0.2870

Operational

/Administrati

ve

Less than

1years 80 0.5146 0.5205

0.70 0.551 N.S 1-2 years 33 0.6562 0.4617

2-4 years 87 0.5307 0.5316

Above 4

years 248 0.5576 0.4693

203

Competency

Assessment

Less than

1years 80 0.4021 0.6302

2.4 0.067 N.S 1-2 years 33 0.5417 0.5421

2-4 years 87 0.3314 0.6452

Above 4

years 248 0.5087 0.5620

People

Process

Alignment

Less than

1years 80 0.7250 0.5744

0.18 0.908 N.S 1-2 years 33 0.7083 0.4676

2-4 years 87 0.7759 0.5177

Above 4

years 248 0.7510 0.5522

SHRM

Less than

1years 80 0.6380 0.4154

0.70 0.553 N.S 1-2 years 33 0.6979 0.3410

2-4 years 87 0.6398 0.3852

Above 4

years 248 0.6914 0.362

From the above table it is evident that the average opinion

scores between the four categories classified according to their

experience in the organization has no significant difference.

This indicates that there is no significant difference in the

perception of the respondents from these four categories

classified according to their experience in the organization in

four dimensions of the Strategic Management at HCCBPL.

204

CHART: 6.11 - The variation in the opinion score of the

respondents of the four categories of experience in relation

to all four dimensions of SHRM at HCCBPL is presented in

box plots given below.

Tenure

Op

inio

n S

co

re

Above 15 years10-15 years5-10 yearsLess than 5 years

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

Boxplot showing Opinion of the respondents on Business Strategy by Tenure

From the above Box plots, it is observed that the opinion score

of the respondents on the four dimensions related to SHRM at

HCCBPL, India is found no different according to their

experience. In other words, their opinion of the respondents on

these factors is more or less unanimous notwithstanding their

experience. Further, it is affirmative as can be observed from

the plot. Further, there are some outliers in each and every

dimension of SHRM which concludes that some respondents

are very negative opinion towards the dimensions.

205

CHART: 6.12 – Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on Operational / Administrative by Tenure

Tenure

Op

inio

n S

co

re


2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on Operational/Administrative by Tenure

CHART: 6.13 – Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on Competency Assessment by Tenure

Tenure

Op

inio

n S

co

re


2

1

0

-1

-2

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on Competency Assessment by Tenure

206

CHART: 6.14 – Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on People Process Alignment by Tenure

Tenure

Op

inio

n S

co

re


2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on People Process Alignment by Tenure

CHART: 6.15 – Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents

on Strategic HRM by Tenure

Tenure

Op

inio

n S

co

re


1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

B oxplot show ing opinion of the respondents on Strategic H R M by T enure

207

TABLE: 6.19 - To know the mean significance difference in

the opinion score among the three types of respondents on

impact of the four dimensions in SHRM with Cadre ANOVA

test is conducted

Dimension Cadre n Mean S.D F-

value

P-

Value Decision

Business

Strategy

Senior/Top

level

Managerial

Cadre

48 1.0521 0.2386

4.51 0.011 S Middle level

Managerial

Cadre

251 0.9223 0.3070

Junior

Managerial

Cadre

149 0.9094 0.2941

The average opinion score of the respondents belongs to

senior/Top Level Managerial cadre is more when compared with

the remaining two cadres i.e., Middle level managerial cadre

and junior managerial cadre. Further, there is a significant

difference between these three averages. Also the positive score

of respondents suggests that their opinion towards the

business strategy is positive. The pictorial representation is

shown below as a Box plot, which gives the entire range of the

respondent’s opinion towards the impact of Business strategy

with the cadre. The circled plus represents the average value.

The star marks represent the outliers.

208


on Business Strategy by Grade

Grade

Op

inio

n S

co

re

Junior Managerial CadreMiddle level Managerial CadreSenior/Top level Managerial Cadre

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on Business Strategy by Grade

209

TABLE: 6.20 - Average opinion scores of the respondents

with various cadres are found to be insignificant for the

dimension Operational/Administrative


value

P-

Value Decision

Operational

/Administrative

Senior/Top

level

Managerial

Cadre

48 0.7014 0.3934

2.54 0.080 N.S

Middle

level

Managerial

Cadre

251 0.5299 0.5098

Junior

Managerial

Cadre

149 0.5403 0.4792

Average opinion scores of the respondents with various cadres

are found to be insignificant for the dimension

Operational/Administrative at 0.05 per cent level. The opinion

score for the respondents who is from Senior/Top level

Managerial Cadre is greater than the remaining two cadres.

Further, the average opinion score of the respondents who is

from Middle level Managerial Cadre. The same is mentioned

graphically below as a box plot.

210


on Operational / Administrative by Grade

Grade

Op

inio

n S

co

re


2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on Operational/Administrative by Grade

TABLE: 6.21 - The average opinion score of the Senior/Top

level Managerial Cadre is greater than the Middle level

Managerial Cadre and Junior Managerial Cadre but the

difference is not significant at 5% level of significance


value

P-

Value Decision

Competency

Assessment

Senior/Top level

Managerial

Cadre

48 0.4931 0.5359

0.10 0.908 N.S

Middle level

Managerial

Cadre

251 0.4529 0.6350

Junior

Managerial

Cadre

149 0.4541 0.5376

211

Further, Middle level Managerial Cadre and Junior Managerial

Cadre opined similar towards the dimension competency

Assessment. The graphical representation is shown below as a

box plot.


on Competency Assessment by Grade

Grade

Op

inio

n S

co

re

Jun io r Manager ial C ad reM idd le lev el Managerial C ad reSen io r/To p lev el Manag er ial C ad re

2

1

0

-1

-2

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on C ompetency Assessment by Grade

212

TABLE: 6.22 - The average opinion score of the Senior/Top

level Managerial Cadre is greater than the average opinion

score of Middle level Managerial Cadre and Junior

Managerial Cadre.


value

P-

Value Decision

People

Process

Alignment

Senior/Top

level

Managerial

Cadre

48 0.9063 0.5005

2.31 0.100 N.S Middle level

Managerial

Cadre

251 0.7251 0.5742

Junior

Managerial

Cadre

149 0.7360 0.4940

The average opinion score of the Senior/Top level Managerial

Cadre is nearer to 1, which explains that the employees

belonging to this cadre are opined that People process

alignment is good. The p-value in the above table indicates that

there is no significant mean difference in the average opinion

score of these three averages. The scenic representation is

shown below as a Box plot. Further from the plot the range of

opinions of all the respondents are extracted from -1 to +2.

213

CHART: 6.19 – Boxplot showing opinion of the respondent

on People Process Alignment by Grade

Grade

Op

inio

n S

co

re

Jun io r Managerial C adreM idd le lev el Managerial C adreSenio r/Top lev el Managerial C adre

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondent on People Process Alignment by Grade

TABLE: 6.23 - The significant difference in the three cadres

of the respondents towards the overall opinion on Strategic

Human Resource management ANOVA-test is established.


value

P-

Value Decision

SHRM

Senior/Top

level

Managerial

Cadre

48 0.7882 0.3123

2.56 0.078 N.S Middle level

Managerial

Cadre

251 0.6575 0.4024

Junior

Managerial

Cadre

149 0.66 0.3448

214

Further, it is observed from the Box plots that the opinion score

of the respondents, whose is from Senior/Top level Managerial

Cadre is greater than that of the remaining two categories. It

indicates that their perception levels are more positive than

those of the other categories. The outlier in the negative scale

clearly suggests that some of the respondents belonging to

three cadres opined negatively towards SHRM.


on Strategic HRM by Grade

Grade

Op

inio

n S

co

re


1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

Boxplot showing opinion of the respondents on Strategic HRM by Grade

CHAPTER - VI - Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER - VI - Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @...