INTRODUCTION:

Any Organization’s success relies extensively on human resources development, as HRD emphasizes on nurturing and expanding the skills and capabilities of Human Resources. By entrusting in training and development, career planning and development, and performance management, HR development ensures that employees are not only skilled and knowledgeable but also motivated and aligned with the organization’s goals (Werner and DeSimone, 2006). This continuous growth and improvement translate into enhanced productivity, innovation, and overall effectiveness, driving the organization towards its strategic objectives and maintaining a competitive edge in the markets (Indradevi, 2010; Swanson and Holton, 2009).

In the fast-paced and ever-evolving landscape of the IT sector, particularly in dynamic hubs like Hyderabad, the role of Human Resource Development (HRD) has become increasingly critical in shaping organizational success (Ebert and Shankar, 2017; Uraon, 2018). As IT companies strive to maintain a competitive edge, the focus on enhancing employee performance through strategic HRD initiatives has emerged as a pivotal factor. These initiatives, which encompass training programs, performance management systems, career development opportunities, and organizational interventions, are designed to boost individual competencies and overall productivity.

Hyderabad, known for its burgeoning IT industry and renowned tech parks like HITEC City, serves as a prime example of a city where HRD initiatives are making a significant impact. With numerous global tech giants and innovative startups calling the city home, understanding how HRD strategies affect employee performance in this vibrant ecosystem provides valuable insights into the broader implications for the industry.

This study investigates the effect of HRD initiatives on employee performance in selected IT companies in Hyderabad. By examining various HRD initiatives and their effects on employee skills, motivation, and productivity, the article aims to highlight the critical role of Human Resource Development initiatives play in enhancing performance of the employees.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Human Resource Development Initiatives:

Human Resource Development is the process of developing and unleashing expertise for the purpose of improving the individual, team, work process, and organizational systems performance (Richard Swanson). The assessment of Human Resource Development successes or results can be categorized in to the domains of learning and performance. In both cases the intent is improvement. Human resource development is a series of organized activities, conducted within a specialized time and designed to produce behavioral changes (Nadler).

The concept of human resource development is a framework for helping employees to develop their personal and organizational skills, knowledge, and abilities (Vasantham, 2015). Human Resource Development (HRD) is fundamentally a process rather than just a collection of tools and methods. While mechanisms and techniques like performance appraisals, counseling, training, and organizational development interventions are essential for initiating, facilitating, and advancing this process, HRD itself is an ongoing journey without a fixed endpoint. Consequently, it is important to regularly review these mechanisms to ensure they are effectively supporting the development process rather than obstructing it. Organizations can enhance this development process by strategically planning, allocating resources, and fostering an HRD philosophy that values and prioritizes the all-round development of their Human Resources

Werner and DeSimone (2006) suggested that human resource development (HRD) practices are strategically crafted programs intended to manage the growth of human resources in order to enhance organizational success. Haslinda (2009) supported this perspective, suggesting that HRD practices enhance employees' job capabilities, productivity, and efficiency, thereby improving the quality of goods and services. According to Yuvaraj and Mulugeta (2013), HRD interventions continuously boost employees' skills and performance through various practices, including training, career development, performance appraisal, and organizational development. Similarly, Rao (1987) identified key HRD practices such as training and development, performance appraisal, rewards, organizational development, career development, feedback and counseling, potential development, and job rotation. Consequently, this study focuses on examining three specific HRD practices: training and development, career planning and development and performance appraisal.

Employee Performance:

Employee performance refers to how well (or poorly) an employee performs their responsibilities and achieves their objectives. Accurate performance measurement takes into account the quality, quantity, and efficiency of a person's work. High performers can help the organizations to achieve the organizational goals in an effective manner, whilst low performers can have the reverse effect. Their smart work, ingenuity, and ability to innovate and motivate their peers, and help the organization remain competitive. Monitoring employee performance benefits both the organization and the employee. It identifies areas for improvement for each individual and enables the firm to provide possibilities for professional growth to its employees.

Mathis and Jackson (2009) defined employee performance as encompassing various factors including the quantity and quality of output, timeliness, attendance, work efficiency, and the overall effectiveness of the completed work. Price (2001) supported this definition, describing employee performance as the effective engagement of an employee with their work. Sempane et al. (2002) noted that employee performance reflects an individual’s overall perception and evaluation of their work environment. Islam and Siengthai (2009) further supported this view, suggesting that employee performance involves a positive emotional state arising from job appraisals and experiences. Mastrangelo et al. (2014) highlighted that organizational effectiveness is rooted in the efficiency of its individual employees. Based on these insights, this study examines the following measures of employee performance: work efficiency, work planning, creativity and innovation, and effort exertion.

Human Resource Development Initiatives and Employee Performance:

Human resource development (HRD) Initiatives are crucial to enhancing employee performance, as its various components are designed to significantly improve workers' abilities and thereby boost overall performance. Empirical research has consistently shown a positive relationship between employee training and performance (Elnaga & Imran, 2013). Al-Qout (2017) highlighted that HRD impacts employee performance in multiple ways, including improved performance and strengthened human relations. Similarly, Asfaw et al. (2015) identified a significant positive correlation between HRD practices and employee performance. This finding is further supported by a study conducted in Pakistan, which also reported a notable effect of HRD on employee performance (Tahir et al., 2014).

Otoo and Mishra (2018) conducted a study to assess the impact of Human Resource Development (HRD) practices on employee performance within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Ghana. The study included a sample of 500 employees from selected SMEs, with data gathered through questionnaires and analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results indicated that certain HRD practices positively influenced employee performance. However, the study was limited to SMEs, and the reliance on cross-sectional data restricts the generalizability of the findings to other economic sectors.

Frank and Mridula (2018) further investigated the impact of HRD on employee performance, focusing on the mediating role of employee competencies in the relationship between HRD practices and performance outcomes. Their study found that certain HRD practices affected performance by enhancing employee competencies. Moreover, the study revealed that employee performance mediates the relationship between HRD practices and overall organizational performance. However, because the research focused on the hotel industry, the results may not be applicable to other sectors. Nonetheless, the study supports the conclusion that HRD practices contribute to improved employee performance.

Rumawas (2015) carried out an empirical study to investigate the effects of HRD, organizational commitment, and compensation on employee performance at Sulut Bank in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. The research involved a sample of 125 employees selected from a total of 612, with data collected through questionnaires and analyzed using multiple linear regression. The findings indicated that HRD positively affects employee performance, while both organizational commitment and compensation also have significant impacts. However, this study was limited to a single bank in Indonesia.

Kwon (2019) examined the relationship between HRD and employee financial performance in Korean companies. Data were collected from 312 firms, and latent growth modeling was used to identify patterns of reciprocal relationships between HRD investments and financial performance over time. The results demonstrated a link between HRD and employee financial performance, although the study was restricted to a limited number of Korean organizations.

Otoo (2019) researched the connection between HRD practices and performance in banks in Ghana. Data were gathered through questionnaires from 550 employees across selected banks, and structural equation modeling was utilized to test the model's validity and hypotheses. The findings indicated that certain HRD practices influence organizational performance by affecting employee performance. However, this study was confined to a limited number of banks in Ghana.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The objective of the study is to observe the impact of HRD initiatives such as training and development, career planning and development and performance appraisal on employee performance in selected IT Companies in Hyderabad.

A descriptive study design was utilized, employing a structured questionnaire to collect primary data. Purposive sampling was applied to select IT companies, focusing on respondents with knowledge and awareness of various human resource development initiatives and strategies implemented by their organizations. The IT companies included in the study were Accenture, Tech Mahindra, Genpact India Ltd, Cap Gemini, and Wipro. Employees were designated as key informants for the research. Schein (2004) underscores the significance of involving employees in the research process, as they are the ones who enact the changes within an organization. The sample size was determined using the Yamane (1967) technique, identifying 500 potential respondents from the selected IT companies, with 350 providing complete responses, resulting in a response rate of 70 percent.

Research Hypotheses:

Based on the literature review presented above, the study has developed the research hypotheses as:

H₁: There is a significant relationship between employee training and development as an HRD initiative and employee performance.

H₂: There is a significant relationship between employee career planning and development programs as an HRD initiative and employee performance.

H₃: There is a significant relationship between employee performance appraisal as an HRD initiative and employee performance.

Research model:

Measures:

In this research, the variables were assessed using multiple items sourced from existing literature. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale, with respondents indicating their level of agreement with statements ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

To measure training and development, the study utilized the effectiveness of training scale from Santos and Stuart (2003) and Singh (2004). Originally consisting of ten items, this scale was modified for the current study, resulting in a revised five-item scale that exhibited a reliability score of 0.83.

Career planning and development were evaluated using an adapted version of Sturges et al.'s (2002) scale on organizational support and Denison's (2007) Organizational Culture Survey. The original 12-item scale was modified for this study, yielding a four-item version with a reliability of 0.82.

Performance appraisal was measured using the scale created by Walker et al. (2011) and Amin et al. (2013). The original nine-item scale was adapted for the current research, resulting in a four-item version with a reliability of 0.76.

Employee performance was assessed across four dimensions: work efficiency, work planning, creativity and innovation, and effort exertion.

Work efficiency was evaluated using the scale developed by Mathis and Jackson (2009). The original six-item scale was adapted for this study, leading to a three-item version with a reliability of 0.80.

Work planning was assessed using the scale from Sempane et al. (2002). The original five-item scale was modified for this study, resulting in a three-item version with a reliability of 0.79.

Creativity and innovation were measured using an adapted version of Price’s (2001) creativity and innovation scale. The original eight-item scale was revised for this study, yielding a four-item version with a reliability of 0.78.

Effort exertion was measured using the scale developed by Bernardin and Russell (1993). The original seven-item scale was adapted for this research, resulting in a four-item version with a reliability of 0.75.

Analytical Tools:

The effectiveness of the proposed model and hypotheses was evaluated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23. The researcher first tested the measurement model to establish construct validity by analyzing the relationships between observable indicators and their corresponding latent constructs, along with the correlations among the sub-dimensions. The subsequent step involved testing the overall model.

Handling Common Method Bias:

Podsakoff et al. (2003) explained common method bias as a distortion resulting from the measurement technique rather than the actual constructs being measured (p. 879). Craighead et al. (2011) highlight that unaddressed common method bias can undermine a study's contribution to knowledge. This study implemented techniques recommended by Conway and Lance (2010) to mitigate common method bias. These included validating construct validity through evidence, evaluating the appropriateness of self-reports, and ensuring minimal overlap between distinct constructs. The study utilized scales adapted from established sources and conducted confirmatory factor analysis for validity testing, with results meeting established benchmarks (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Mossholder et al., 1998). To further reduce evaluation apprehension, respondents were assured of their anonymity (Conway and Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2012). These measures ensured that common method bias remained negligible.

Data Analysis:

Demographic variables of the respondents:

The demographic variables considered for the present study are Age, gender, educational qualifications and experience which were summarized in Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics:

Descriptive statistics are summarized in Table 2 Correlation Matrix. The results indicate that each construct is positively and significantly correlated.

Table 1: Demographic Factors of the Respondents

Variables	Frequency(s)	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	215	62
Female	135	38
Age
21-30	80	22.8
31-40	210	60
41-50	40	11.4
51-60	20	0.57
Educational Qualifications
Diploma	74	21.14
Graduation	181	51.71
Post- Graduation	95	27.14
Experience
0-5 years	122	34.8
5-10 years	145	41.4
10-15 years	60	17.1
More than 15 years	23	6.5

The overall fit of the measurement model, as detailed in Table 3, was deemed acceptable. The chi-square/df ratio (3.82) was within the recommended threshold of less than 5.0, indicating a good fit (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980; Wheaton et al., 1977). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.056 and the standardized root mean residual (SRMR) value of 0.052 were both below 0.08, suggesting an adequate fit (Hoe, 2008; Sharma et al., 2005). Additionally, all other fit indices, including the TLI and CFI estimates, exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.90, further supporting the model's adequacy (MacCallum and Hong, 1997; Tanaka, 1993).

A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the measurement scales. Convergent validity was evaluated using three key indicators: factor loadings (standardized estimates), average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR). The results, presented in Table 4, show that Cronbach’s alpha for the constructs ranged from 0.71 to 0.83, surpassing the recommended minimum of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Kline, 2010). Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.73 to 0.82, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.60 (Byrne, 2013; Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2011), and were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The average variance extracted for the constructs ranged from 0.73 to 0.79, which is above the suggested threshold of 0.50, indicating strong reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2008). Additionally, composite reliability values ranged from 0.75 to 0.83, exceeding the recommended criterion of 0.70, which confirms adequate consistency (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2008).

Table 2: Correlation Matrix

Items	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Training and Development	6.89	2.29	1
2. Career planning and Development	10.39	3.3	0.4**	1
3. Performance Appraisal	7.37	2.12	0.3**	0.34**	1
4. Employee Performance	30.8	6.9	0.31**	0.21**	0.24**	0.11**	1

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Table 3: Results of Measurement and Overall Models

Items	x²	Df	x²/df	p-value	RMSEA	SRMR	TLI	CFI
Measurement Model	225.66	59	3.82	0.00	0.056	0.052	0.94	0.91
Overall Model	136.18	52	2.62	0.00	0.047	0.03	0.92	0.94

RMSEA: Root Mean Square of Approximation SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Residual

TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index CFI: Comparitive Fit Index, p< 0.00

Table 4: Factor Loadings and Chronbach’s alpha

Factor names, factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha
Factors	Items	(ʎ)	AVE	CR
Training and development (α=0.81)	Training and development programs are equipped with essential and relevant knowledge and skills.	0.721	0.744	0.83
	Employees are sent to training and development programs based on their specific training needs.	0.736
	The knowledge and skills associated with the aids used in the training and development programs are readily available for use	0.789
	Training and development programs are provided for employees across all aspects of quality.	0.824
	The activities in the training and development programs address the needs of employees.	0.734
career planning and development (α=0.83)	The organization offers training to advance my career.	0.822	0.763	0.82
	The organization supports my individual career development	0.763
	Organization provides impartial career guidance for my career growth	0.718
	organization supports my personal interests in career development	0.749
Performance Appraisal (α=0.80)	The appraisal system in this organization focuses on employee growth and development.	0.769	0.778	0.81
	The organization offers a documented and functional performance appraisal system.	0.784
	Performance is evaluated based on predefined objectives and measurable outcomes.	0.763
	Performance review discussions are carried out with the highest level of quality and focus.	0.794
work planning (α=0.79)	Effective work planning facilitates the setting and attainment of organizational goals.	0.793	0.772	0.78
	Employees within the organization are capable of planning and executing their responsibilities in accordance with the established schedule.	0.791
	Effective work planning enhances employees' focus on completing their assigned tasks efficiently.	0.732
Work Efficiency (α=0.81)	Employees demonstrate a strong sense of commitment, dedication, and responsibility.	0.801	0.767	0.79
	Employees have the necessary professional and technical knowledge to perform their duties efficiently.	0.786
	Employees execute their responsibilities in alignment with established policies and procedures.	0.713
Innovation and Creativity (α=0.78)	Employees in the organization are eager to innovate and adapt their working techniques.	0.798	0.763	0.75
	Employees refrain from copying others when addressing work-related issues.	0.764
	Employees have the capability to propose new ideas and offer solutions to work-related challenges	0.732
	Employees are skilled in articulating their thoughts clearly and coherently.	0.760
Making Efforts (α=0.76)	A sense of pride in their responsibilities drives employees to put in extra effort.	0.781	0.790	0.73
	Employees are enthusiastic and willing to work beyond official hours.	0.784
	The organization offers additional benefits to motivate employees to enhance their performance.	0.832
	Salary increments are given to those who diligently fulfill their assigned duties.	0.764

AVE: Average Variance Extracted, CR: Composite Reliability, All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.0

Table 5: Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses	β- coefficient	p -value	Result
H₁: There is a significant relationship between employee training and development as an HRD initiative and employee performance.	0.028	0.04	Accepted
H₂: There is a significant relationship between employee career planning and development programs as an HRD initiative and employee performance.	0.529	0.00	Accepted
H₃: There is a significant relationship between employee performance appraisal as an HRD initiative and employee performance.	0.153	0.03	Accepted

The proposed hypotheses were evaluated using structural equation modeling (SEM). The results of the structural model test, as shown in Table 3, indicate a good fit to the data. The chi-square/df ratio of 2.62 was within the recommended threshold of less than 3.0, suggesting a good fit (Byrne, 2013; Carmines and McIver, 1981). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.04 and the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) value of 0.03 were below the suggested thresholds of 0.06 and 0.05, respectively, indicating a good fit (Fan and Sivo, 2005; Miles and Shevlin, 1998). Additionally, all other indices, including the TLI and CFI estimates, exceeded the recommended cutoff value of 0.95, further supporting the model's adequacy (Bentler, 1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999). As a result, the overall structural model exhibits strong psychometric properties. Table V, which summarizes the hypothesis results, indicates that all three formulated hypotheses were supported and accepted within the dataset.

DISCUSSIONS:

This study provides significant empirical insights into the impact of HRD practices on employee performance. The findings validate Hypothesis 1 (H1) by demonstrating that training and development significantly enhance employee performance. This supports Becker’s (1964, 1993) theory of human capital, which views training as an investment that increases individual productivity. Hypothesis 2(H2) is also confirmed, revealing a notable effect of career planning and development on employee performance. This aligns with Gilley et al. (2009), who argue that career development initiatives strengthen the partnership between the organization and its employees, thereby enhancing their knowledge, skills, abilities, and overall competencies. The results for the third hypothesis indicate that performance appraisal significantly impacts employee performance. This supports Osman et al. (2011b), who assert that effective performance appraisal processes lead to improved employee efficiency, higher morale, greater enthusiasm for organizational values, and overall enhanced organizational effectiveness.

FINDINGS:

The findings from this study significantly enhance our understanding of the impact of Human Resource Development (HRD) practices on employee performance, particularly within the context of selected IT companies in Hyderabad. These insights are highly relevant for software companies in Hyderabad, where HRD practices can play a pivotal role in driving performance and productivity. The research confirms that effective HRD practices—including training and development programs, career planning and development interventions, and performance appraisal processes—are crucial for improving employee performance. This is especially pertinent in the software industry, where rapid technological advancements and competitive pressures necessitate continuous skill development and effective management strategies.

The study highlights the importance of implementing well-structured that training programs address specific skills relevant to current technological trends and project requirements, thereby enhancing employees' technical expertise and efficiency. Software companies should ensure that training programs address specific skills relevant to current technological trends and project requirements, thereby enhancing employees' technical expertise and efficiency. Additionally, career development programs are essential. These programs should align employees' career aspirations with organizational goals, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and performance. By creating an environment that supports career growth, software companies can boost their employees' competencies, which in turn improves overall organizational effectiveness The performance appraisal process also plays a crucial role in motivating employees and enhancing their performance. The study suggests that software companies should design and implement a robust performance appraisal system that accurately reflects employees' contributions and development. This system should be thorough and fair, providing clear and actionable feedback that supports continuous improvement. Performance appraisals should be conducted regularly to ensure they align with organizational objectives and employee development needs. This approach will help create a more motivated and high-performing workforce.

In summary, applying these findings to selected IT companies in Hyderabad involves adopting comprehensive HRD practices that emphasize targeted training, career Planning and development, and an effective performance appraisal process. By aligning these practices with both the needs of employees and the goals of the organization, software companies can enhance performance, boost productivity, and gain a competitive edge in the technology sector. This strategy not only addresses immediate performance needs but also lays the groundwork for long-term success and sustainability in a rapidly evolving industry.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS:

Several limitations of this study suggest important directions for future research. Firstly, data were collected through a cross-sectional research design, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships between variables. Employing a longitudinal research design could help test these causal relationships more effectively. Additionally, this study relied on a quantitative research design and analyzed data collected via structured questionnaires. Future research could benefit from incorporating qualitative data to provide deeper insights. A mixed-methods approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative methods, could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.

Another limitation is the reliance on subjective opinions from employees. Future studies should consider using objective measures and obtaining feedback from multiple sources to cross-validate responses and mitigate potential biases. Furthermore, the generalizability of the study's findings is limited to the specific sample of selected IT Companies in the given context. Caution should be exercised when applying these results to other sectors or contexts, as different industries may have unique characteristics.

The study also did not explore the impact of the study variables on employee satisfaction. Future research could investigate how employee satisfaction might be affected in relation with human resource development initiatives. Examining these potential effects could provide valuable insights into how HRD practices impact employee satisfaction. Thus, future studies are encouraged to explore the impact of HRD initiatives on employee satisfaction.

REFERENCES:

1. Agrawal, N.M. and Thite, M. Human resource issues, challenges and strategies in the Indian software industry. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management. 2003; 3(3): 249-264.

2. Amin, M., Khairuzzaman, W., Ismail, W., Zaleha, S., Rasid, A., Daverson, R. and Selemani, A. The impact of human resource management practices on performance: evidence from a public university. The TQM Journal. 2013; 26(2) 125-142.

3. Andersson, L.M. and Bateman, T.S. Cynicism in the workplace: some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1997; 18(5): 449-469.

4. Appiah, C. Human Resource Strategies for International Growth, Routledge, London. 2010

5. Armstrong, M. Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management: An Evidence-Based Guide to Delivering High Performance, Kogan page Ltd. 2009

6. Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. High performance work systems and firm performance: a synthesis of research and managerial implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 1998; 53(4): 53-101.

7. Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 107(2): 238-246.

8. Bernardin, H.J. and Russell, J.E.A. Human Resource Management: An Experiential Approach, McGraw-Hill Inc, Singapore. 1993

9. Bhattacharjee, S. and Chakrabarti, D. Indian IT outsourcing industry: future threats and challenges – a reassessment. Futures, 2015; 67: 11-21

10. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Routledge, New York, NY. 2013

11. Carmines, E.G. and McIver, J.P. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. in Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Borgatta, E.F. (Eds), Social Measurement: Current Issues, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. 1981: 65-115.

12. Cho, S., Woods, R.H., Jang, S.C. and Erdem, M. Measuring the impact of human resource management practices on hospitality firms’ performance. Hospitality Management. 2006; 25(2): 262-277.

13. Clardy, A. The strategic role of human resource development in managing core competencies. Human Resource Development International. 2008; 11(2): 183-197.

14. Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2010; 25(3): 325-334.

15. Craighead, C., Ketchen, D., Dunn, K. and Hult, G. Addressing common method variance: guidelines for survey research on information technology, operations, and supply chain management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 2011; 58(3): 578-588.

16. DeNisi, A. and Pritchard, R. Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: a motivational framework. Management and Organization Review. 2006; 2(2): 253-277.

17. Denison, D.R. Denison Model for Organizational Culture Survey, Denison Consulting, Zurich and Shanghai, Ann Arbor, MI. Fan, X. and Sivo, S.A. Sensitivity of fit indexes to mis specified structural or measurement model components: rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Struct Equ Modeling, 2007; 12(3): 343-367.

18. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18(1): 39-50.

19. Giles, W., Findley, H. and Feild, H. Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: beyond the review session. Journal of Business and Psychology. 1997; 11(4): 493-506.

20. Gilley, J.W., Eggland, S.A. and Gilley, M.A. Principles of Human Resource Development, Basic Books, New York, NY. 2009

21. Guthrie, J.P. High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal. 2001; 44(1): 180-190.

22. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson Education, Delhi. 2010

23. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper, Saddle River, NJ. 2006

24. Harrison, R. Employee Development, 2nd ed., Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD), London. 2000

25. Haslinda, A. Outcomes of human resource development interventions. Journal of Social Sciences. 2009; 5(1): 25-32.

26. Hill, R. Why HRD in small organisations may have become a neglected field of study. in J. Stewart and G. Beaver (Eds), HRD in Small Organisations, Routledge, London, 2004: 8-25.

27. Hoe, L.S. Quantitative research methods. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2008; 3(1): 76-83.

28. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6(1): 1-55.

29. Indradevi, R. Training for most capable workforce. Advances in Management. 2010; 3: 49-54.

30. Islam, M.Z. and Siengthai, S. Quality of work life and organisational performance: empirical evidence from Dhaka Export Processing Zone. Paper presented in ILO conference on ‘Regulating for Decent Work’, Geneva. 2009

31. Iverson, R.D. and Zatzick, C.D. High commitment work practices and downsizing harshness in Australian Workplaces. Industrial Relations. Journal of Economy and Society. 2007; 46(3): 456-480.

32. Kapel, C. and Shepherd, C. Career ladders create common language for defining jobs. Canadian HR Reporter. 2004; 14(12): 15-16.

33. Kaye, B. Build a culture of development. Leadership Excellence. 2005; 22(3): 18.

34. Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M. The impact of high performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors.Journal of Management. 2013; 39(2): 366-391.

35. Kinicki, A.J., Carson, K.P. and Bohlander, G.W. Relationship between an organization’s actual human resource efforts and employee attitudes. Group and Organization Management. 1992; 17(2); 135-152.

36. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY. 2011

37. Leopold, J. and Harris, L. The Strategic Managing of Human Resources, Prentice Hall Education Ltd, Harlow, Essex. 2009

38. MacCallum, R.C. and Hong, S. Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1997; 32(2): 193-210.

39. McDaniels, C. and Gysbers, N.C. (), Counselling for Career Development; Theories, Resources and Practice, Jossey-Bass Publications. McGraw, P. A review of human resource development trends and practices in Australia: multinationals, locals, and responses to economic turbulence. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 1992; 16(1): 1-16.

40. Mastrangelo, A., Eddy, E.R. and Lorenzet, S.J. The relationship between enduring leadership and organizational performance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 2014; 35(7): 590-604.

41. Mathis, R.L. and Jackson, J.H. Human Resource Management, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. 2009

42. Miles, J. and Shevlin, M. Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998; 25(1): 85-90.

43. Mondy, W. and Noe, R. Personnel: The Management of Human Resources, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. 1981

44. Neuman, W.L. Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Pearson. 2005

45. Noe, R. Employee Training and Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 2005

46. Otoo, F.N.K. and Mishra, M. Measuring the impact of human resource development (HRD) practices on employee performance in small and medium scale enterprises. European Journal of Training and Development. 2018; 42(7/8): 517-534.

47. Osman, I., Sidani, Y., Al-Ayoubi, B. and Emrouznejad, A. Data envelopment analysis model for the appraisal and relative performance evaluation of nurses at an intensive care unit. Journal of Medical Systems. 2011b; 35(5); 1039-1062.

48. Ostroff, C. The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes and performance: an organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992; 77(6); 963-974.

49. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88(5): 879-903.

50. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012; 63: 539-569.

51. Price, J.L. Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower. 2001; 22(7): 600-624 .

52. Rahimi, S., Khorasani, A., Rezaeizadeh, M. and Waterworth, J. The virtual human resource development (VHRD) approach: an integrative literature review. European Journal of Training and Development. 2022; 46(5/6): 484-503.

53. Raj Adhikari, D. Human resource development (HRD) for performance management: The case of Nepalese organizations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2010; 59(4): 306-324.

54. Rao, T.V. Planning for human resources development. Vikalpa. 1987; 12(3): 46-51.

55. Santos, A. and Stuart, M. Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal. 2003; 13(1): 27-45.

56. Scheel, T., Rigotti, T. and Mohr, G. Training and performance of a diverse workforce. Human Resource Management, 2014; 53(5): 749-772.

57. Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A. and Dillon, W.R. A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research. 2005; 58(7): 935-943.

58. Shih, H.A., Chiang, Y.W. and Hsu, C.C. Can high performance work systems really lead to better performance. International Journal of Manpower, 2006; 27(8): 741-763.

59. Sims, R.R. Organizational Success through Effective Human Resources Management, 1st ed., Greenwood Publishing Group. 2002

60. Singh, K. Impact of HR practices on perceived firm performance in India. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 2004; 42(3): 301-317.

61. Sturges, J., Guest, D., Conway, N. and Davey, K.M. A longitudinal study of the relationship between career management and organizational commitment among graduates in the first ten years of work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002; 23(6): 731-748.

62. Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N. Multiple dimensions of human resource development and organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2014; 35(6): 851-870.

63. Swanson, R.A. Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 2001; 4(3): 299-312.

64. Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. Foundation of Human Resource Development, Berrett – Koehler, San Francisco. 2009

65. Tanaka, J.S. Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structure equation models.in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Newbury Park, Sage, CA, 1993: 136-162.

66. Teseema, M. and Soeters, J. Challenges and prospects of HRM in developing countries: testing the HRM-performance link in eritrean civil service. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2013; 17(10: 86-105.

67. Uraon, R.S. and Gupta, M. Do HRD practices affect perceived market performance through operational performance? Evidence from software industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2020; 69(1): 85-108.

68. Uraon, R.S. Examining the impact of HRD practices on organizational commitment and intention to stay within selected software companies in India.Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2018; 20(1): 11-43

69. Walker, R.M., Damanpour, F. and Devece, K.C. Management innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2011; 21(2): 367-386.

70. Werner, J.M. and DeSimone, R.L. Human Resource Development: Foundation, Framework, and Application, Cengage Learning Publications. 2006

71. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F. and Summers, G. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology. 1977; 8(1); 84-136.

72. Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams, A. Human resource and sustained competitive advantage: a resource–based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 1994; 5(2): 301-326.

73. Yamao, S., Cieri, H.D. and Hutchings, K. Transferring subsidiary knowledge to global headquarters: subsidiary senior executives’ perceptions of the role of HR configurations in the development of knowledge stocks. Human Resource Management. 2009; 48(4): 531-554.

74. Youndt, M.A. and Snell, S.A. Human resource configurations, intellectual capital and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues. 2004; 16(3): 337-360.

75. Yuvaraj, S. and Mulugeta, K. Analysis of the strategic orientation of HRD practices and managers’ awareness towards the concepts of HRD in Ethiopia. Research Journal Social Science and Management. 2013; 3(1): 186-198.

Received on 05.10.2024 Revised on 31.10.2024

Accepted on 22.11.2024 Published on 17.03.2025

Available online from March 26, 2025

Asian Journal of Management. 2025;16(1):34-42.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2025.00006

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.