Hrd climate survey_ppt

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
CLIMATE
IN
ROURKELA STEEL PLANT: A STUDY
By
Sri Srinibash Dash
Under the guidance of
Prof(Dr.) J. Mahapatra

FRAMEWORK OF PRESENTATION
Framework of Presentation
Significance of the Study
Objectives of the Study
Hypotheses of the Study
Research Methodology
 Sample Design
 Research Instruments
 Sampling Techniques
 Statistical Methods
 Scheme of the study
 Analysis
 Overview of Results
 Hypotheses Testing
 Suggestions
 Conclusion

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is an attempt at understanding the HRD Climate in
Rourkela Steel Plant and it makes an effort to measure the
employees’ perception on the of HRD Climate.
The public sector in India today finds itself facing competition in
an increasingly volatile environment, brought by globalization as
well as by liberalization of the domestic market.
Many private players including steel majors like POSCO and
Vedanta Resources have entered India keeping in mind the
availability of resources in this region and the potential of the
market in the region.
The public sector steel plant at Rourkela, too, is faced with the
challenges of the new liberalized global economic environment
and it has to ensure a congenial HRD climate to grow by creating
a competitive advantage over others and achieve its ultimate
business goal.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Though the primary objectives of the study focuses on
the perception of the employees in RSP towards its
climate and OCTAPACE, the sub objectives are to study;
General Supportive Climate
Functioning of HRD Mechanisms
HRD Cultural Dimensions
The comparative results among the major groups like age
wise, hierarchy wise, work-group wise, length of service wise and
function wise
Openness, Confrontation, Trust, Autonomy, Proaction,
Authenticity, Collaboration and Experimentation of the
company

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Based on extant literature and objectives of the study,
Six null hypotheses (H0
1 to H0
6) were formed.
 H0
1 : There is no difference in the perception regarding HRD
climate in the RSP between item-wise mean values and parameter
wise scores.
H0
2 : There is no difference in the perception on HRD climate
between Executives vs. Non- Executives Employees.
H0
3 : There is no difference in perception on HRD climate
between Junior Level vs. Senior Level Employees.
H0
4 : There is no difference in perception regarding on HRD
climate in between Less than 45 Years vs. More than 45 years of
employees.
H0
climate in between Less than 20 Years Length of service vs. More
than 20 Years Length of service Employees
H0
climate in between Engineering vs. Service Employees

SAMPLE DESIGN
Scope of study : Limited to the employees of Rourkela Steel
Plant
Time Period : 2008-2011
 Data Source: Primary
 Method of Data Collection: Questionnaires
Sample Size: 644 (from various demographic categories, age
wise, hierarchy wise, work-group wise, length of service wise and
function wise)

Demographic Profile of Sample;
The demographic profile of respondents for the HRD Climate
survey is presented in the following table.
Demographic Profile of Respondents (N=644, HRD Climate Survey)
Stratification Variables Category Frequency Percent
Work Groups
Executives 256 40%
Non-Executives 388 60%
Hierarchical Levels
Junior Level Employees 435 68%
Snr. Level Employees 209 32%
Length of Service
Less than 20 Years 348 54%
More than 20 Years 296 46%
Age
Function
Engineering 450 70%
Service 194 30%
SAMPLE DESIGN

Demographic Profile of Sample;
The demographic profile of respondents for the OCTAPACE
Profile is presented in the following table.
Demographic Profile of Respondents (N=256, OCTAPACE Profile)
Stratification Variables Category Frequency Percent
Hierarchical Levels
Junior Management 96 38%
Middle & Senior
Management
160 63%
Length of Service
Age
Function
Engineering 148 58%
Service 108 42%
SAMPLE DESIGN

Questionnaire For HRD Climate ;
 The 38-questions are used for assessing the HRD climate of
the company.
{The questionnaire uses a five-point scale (0-4). It can be/has been
administered to all employees (especially supervisory and
managerial staff) and a HRD climate profile can be/has been
drawn up.}
Questionnaire For OCTAPACE Profile ;
 The 40 questions are used for assessing OCTAPACE Culture
of the company i.e. openness, confrontation, trust,
autonomy, pro-activity, authenticity, collaboration and
experimentation are valued and promoted in the
organization.
{The instrument contains two parts. In part I, values are stated in
items 1 to 24 (three statements each of the eight values), and the
respondent is required to check (on a 4-point scale, 1-4) how much
each item is valued in his organization. Part 2 contains sixteen
statements on beliefs, two each for eight values, and the
respondent checks (on a 4-point scale, 1-4) how widely each of
them is shared in the organization.}
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Sampling Techniques;
Full time employees belonging to Rourkela Steel Plant
constituted the respondents of the study.
The present study being a problem identification research, a
sample size of 650 was targeted and finally a sample size of 644
was achieved.
The technique of quota sampling was employed to ensure a
representative cross section of the respondents. Quota Sampling
is a stratified-cum-purposive or judgment sampling and thus
enjoys the benefits of both. It aims at making the best use of
stratification.
During the sample design some of the control
categories/characteristics (based on the nature of population)
were developed/ identified like work groups, hierarchical levels,
age, length of service and function and the quotas were assigned
so that the proportion of the sample elements possessing the
control characteristics will be the same as the proportion of
Sample Sizes Used in Research Studies
Type of Study Minimum Size
Problem identification research 500
Problem solving research 200
Source: Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation by Naresh K. Malhotra,
Fourth Edition, Pearson Press

Selecting Statistical Methods used before analysis:
Data cleaning
 Cleaning of data refers to scrutiny or careful checking of the
data collected from various sources. Before the data are used
for analysis, it is highly necessary that they should be properly
cleaned by the researcher; else, they might be remaining
certain errors and irregularities with the data, which in turn
may lead to fallacious conclusions.
Internal Consistency and Reliability;
 Cronbach’s alpha developed by Lee Cronbach in 1951 is the
most common form of internal consistency reliability
coefficient.
 Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency, that is
how closely related a set of items are as a group.
 By convention, a lenient cut-off of 0.6 is acceptable in
exploratory research.
Inter-item correlations:
 Inter item correlations have been calculated between the
items included for the study of HRD climate. I found that the
inter item correlations are high; it is evident that the items are
measuring the same underlying construct.

Statistical Methods used for analysis:
The study has used the following descriptive statistics
for comparison and interpretation of the data;
 Arithmetic Mean
 Range
 Standard Deviation
 Skewness
 Kurtosis
 Large Sample Test of Significance using the standard
normal variate Z

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Flow of Analysis;
Study of Data
Study of HRD Climate
Study of OCTAPACE Profile

ANALYSIS ON HRD CLIMATE:BRIEF PROCESS
Study of HRD Climate (A total of 38 Questions/items);
General Supportive Climate
No. of Items Included = 9
Analysis has been done on the basis of ….
Parameter wise Mean Values Vs. Item Wise Mean Values
Among Group wise Mean Values
All Level Mean Values Vs. Group wise Mean Values
Functioning Of HRD Mechanism
HRD Cultural Dimensions
= 38 Items
NOTE: The groups has been formed on the basis of control characteristics, work-

ANALYSIS: STUDY OF DATA
Final Reliability Analysis;
By convention, a lenient cut-off of 0.6 is acceptable in
exploratory research. The data was tested for reliability and
yielded a Cronbach alpha score ranging from 0.8650 to 0.9621.
The pair-wise inter-item correlations are high; it is evident that
the items are measuring the same underlying construct.
The analysis is done based on the responses of the sampled
employees working in Rourkela Steel Plant on the three
categories of HRD climate: General Supportive Climate,
Functioning of HRD Mechanisms, HRD Cultural Dimensions and
OCTAPACE Culture.
Table I : Reliability Analysis: Cronbach ALPHA
Cronbach Alpha Inter-Item Correlation
(Mean)
HRD Climate Survey
Overall (38 Items) 0.9621 0.402228
GROUP I General Supportive Climate (9 Items) 0.8650 0.419806
GROUP II Functioning of HRD Mechanisms (9 Items) 0.8830 0.457583
GROUP III HRD Cultural Dimensions (20 Items) 0.9371 0.429495

ANALYSIS: STUDY OF HRD CLIMATE
Comparing Parameter wise Means with Item wise Means;
Here, there are three different parameters considered for the
analysis i.e. General Supportive Climate (9 Items), Functioning
of HRD Climate (9 items) and HRD Cultural Dimensions (20
Items).
In the first step, the item-wise means and item-wise standard
deviations and then the parameter-wise means and parameter-
wise standard deviations were calculated (for all the three
parameters) to find out the significant differences (if any).
Then the item-wise means were compared with the respective
parameter-wise mean values using the large sample test of
significance.
The scores may range from 0 to 152 when the scores on all the
38 items are added to get a composite score. Scores above 114
indicate a good HRD climate. Scores closer to 150 indicate an
excellent climate (which is rare). Scores below 76 indicate that
there is considerable room for improvement. Our score is

ANALYSIS OF ALL EMPLOYEES PERCEPTION ON
HRD CLIMATE
General Supportive Climate;
In order to assess general supportive climate prevailing in the
organization, 9 items were identified from the questionnaire and
the scores on responses of the sampled employees in the
organization have been calculated.
It is found from the table that the overall mean scores for these
9 items put together is 2.66 (Percentage score 66.40) on a 5-
point scale. Thereby it can be stated that the general supportive
climate prevailing in the Rourkela Steel Plant is above the
theoretical average (i.e. 50% of maximum obtainable score).
Table II: General Supportive Climate
General Supportive Climate Attributes N Mean Percentage Rank
Top Management Support to HRD 644 2.33 58.15 9
Top Management Belief in HRD 644 2.89 72.13 1
Importance Given to HRD 644 2.55 63.74 8
Conduciveness of Personnel Policies 644 2.69 67.20 4
Time & Resources for HRD 644 2.65 66.19 6
Managers' Support to HRD 644 2.77 69.25 3
Help for Competence Development 644 2.55 63.86 7
Managers' Belief in HRD 644 2.81 70.34 2
Conduciveness of Psychological Climate 644 2.67 66.73 5
Average = 644 2.66 66.40 2nd
Where “Yellow” = Significantly Lower & “Green” = Significantly Higher@95% Level from the Group Mean
2.77

HRD CLIMATE
STRONG AREAS: Three important factors contributing to
general supportive climate for HRD are namely, “Top
management belief in HRD”, “Managers support to HRD” and
“Managers’ belief in HRD” with their individual mean values 2.89,
2.77 and 2.81 respectively which are significantly higher
(significance at 5% level) than the group average i.e. 2.66.
WEAK AREAS: However, there are some factors that do not
score that well: “Top management support to HRD”, “Importance
given to HRD” and “Help for competence development” with their
individual mean values of 2.33, 2.55 and 2.55 respectively which
are significantly lower (significance at 5% level) than the group
average.
The findings indicate that there is a gap between top
management belief and action towards development of its human
resources. Further, the line managers are believed to be neither
considering the development of their subordinates an important
part of their job nor helping people lacking their competence.
This indicates considerable room for improvement in these areas.

HRD CLIMATE
Functioning of HRD Mechanisms;
In the questionnaire, another 9 items were identified which deal
with the functioning of HRD mechanisms.
STRONG AREAS: The three important HRD mechanisms as per
the present survey namely, “Reward mechanism”, “Appreciation by
supervisors” and “Management information system” are having their
mean values of 2.79, 2.86 and 2.74 respectively, significantly
higher (significance at 5% level) than the group average i.e.
2.60. It indicates that supervisors do appreciate their
subordinates for good performance. Reward mechanism and
Table III: Functioning of HRD Mechanisms
HRD Mechanisms Attributes N Mean Percentage Rank
Identification of Employee's Potential 644 2.45 61.34 7
Rationality of Promotion Decisions 644 2.44 60.99 8
Reward Mechanism 644 2.79 69.84 2
Appreciation by Supervisors 644 2.86 71.47 1
Performance Appraisal - Objectivity 644 2.67 66.69 4
Non Threatening Performance Feedback 644 2.51 62.66 6
Management Information System 644 2.74 68.40 3
Employee's Welfare Activities 644 2.43 60.75 9
Job Rotation 644 2.55 63.74 5
Average = 644 2.60 65.10 3rd
Where “Red” = Significantly Lower & “Green” = Significantly Higher@95% Level from the Group Mean

ANALYSIS : STUDY OF HRD CLIMATE
WEAK AREAS: The major problem areas in HRD mechanisms
that emerge in this survey are: “Identification of employees’
potential”, “Rationality of promotion decisions”, “Non-
threatening performance feedback” and “Employees’ welfare
activities” with their mean values 2.45, 2.44, 2.51 and 2.43
respectively which are significantly lower (significance at 5%
level) than the group average.
It appears that minimum importance is given to employees’
welfare. Promotion decisions seem to have no link with employee
potential. The employees seem to be feeling insecure under the
performance feedback system.

HRD CLIMATE
HRD Cultural Dimensions;
Under the category of cultural dimensions, data has been
collected on 20 different items.
Table IV: HRD Cultural Dimensions
HRD Cultural Dimensions N Mean Percentage Rank
Helping Attitude among Employees 644 2.89 72.24 1
Informal Discussion with Seniors 644 2.73 68.21 7
Guidance to Juniors 644 2.76 69.02 5
Free from Biased Impression 644 2.57 64.13 15
Encouragement for Innovation 644 2.66 66.54 11
Understanding and Help in Case of Mistake 644 2.69 67.16 9
Self Development Initiative based on Feedback 644 2.68 67.08 10
Initiative to Know Self Strength and Weakness 644 2.54 63.43 18
Concern for Learning During Training 644 2.72 67.90 8
Opportunity for Applying Knowledge after Training 644 2.37 59.20 20
Need based Sponsorship of Trainees 644 2.55 63.86 17
Trust among Employees 644 2.80 69.88 3
Expression of Feelings to Seniors 644 2.62 65.53 12
Expression of Feelings to Juniors 644 2.77 69.25 4
Actions without Close Supervision 644 2.49 62.27 19
Delegation of Authority 644 2.60 64.91 13
Initiative for taking Higher Responsibility 644 2.57 64.32 14
Team Spirit among Employees 644 2.86 71.51 2
Team approach to Problem Solving 644 2.73 68.28 6
Concern for Career Development of Subordinates 644 2.57 64.13 16
Average = 644 2.66 66.44 1st
Where “Red ” = Significantly Lower & “Green” = Significantly Higher@95% Level from the Group Mean

HRD CLIMATE
STRONG AREAS: The seven most important cultural
dimensions (as perceived by employees) are: “Helping attitude
among employees”, “informal discussions with seniors”,
“Guidance to juniors”, “Trust among employees”, “Expression of
feelings to juniors”, “Team spirit among employees” and “Team
approach to problem solving” with their individual mean values
2.89, 2.73, 2.76, 2.80, 2.77, 2.86 and 2.73 respectively which
are significantly higher (significance at 5% level) than the group
average i.e. 2.66.
The analysis of data reveals that relationship between seniors,
juniors and colleagues is cordial and often they are helpful to
each other. Juniors get guidance from their seniors. They trust
each other, work in a team and jointly solve problems.

HRD CLIMATE
WEAK AREAS: The main problem areas in the HRD cultural
dimensions identified in the survey are: “Free from biased
impressions”, “Initiative to know self strength and weakness”,
“Opportunity for applying knowledge after training”, “Need based
sponsorship of trainees”, “Actions without close supervision”,
“Initiative for taking higher responsibilities” and “Concern for
career development of subordinates” with their individual mean
values 2.57, 2.54, 2.37, 2.55, 2.49, 2.57 and 2.57 respectively
which are significantly lower (significance at 5% level) than the
group average.
It appears that neither the employees have any interest to
know their strengths and weaknesses for their own development
nor their seniors show any concern for the career development of
their juniors.
There seems to be a gap between training needs and sponsorship.
Further, employees do not get opportunity to apply their knowledge after
getting training. Study reveals that seniors do not like to do close
supervision and even the climate is not free from biased impressions. The
analysis of data also establishes that employees do not show initiative to
take responsibilities.

ANALYSIS OF GROUP WISE PERCEPTION ON
HRD CLIMATE
Comparing Means on the basis of Control Characteristics;
Here, the respondents were divided on the basis of five control
characteristics i.e. work-group, hierarchy, age, length of
service and functions.
In the first step, group level item-wise means and group level
item-wise standard deviations were calculated (for all the five
control characteristics) to find out the significant differences (if
any).
Then the all level item-wise means were compared with the
group level item-wise mean values using the large sample test of
significance. And also the various group level item-wise mean
values were compared with the alternative group level item-wise
mean values lying under the same control characteristics.

ANALYSIS: STUDY OF HRD CLIMATE ON BASIS
OF GROUPS WISE
Executive vs. Non-Executives: General Supportive Climate
Analyzing “General Supportive Climate” based on the individual mean
values of its different dimensions between the group. It has been
observed that a few items having no significant differences under the
parameters of General Supportive Climate like “Top Management Belief in
HRD” and “Help for Competence Development”
Further, I found that a few items are having significant differences
between the group like, “Top Management Support to HRD, Importance
Given to HRD, Conduciveness of Personnel Policies, Time & Resources for
HRD, Managers' Support to HRD, Managers' Belief in HRD and
Conduciveness of Psychological Climate”
Table:6.6 Analysis among Work Groups
Work Groups ---> ALL Level (N=644) Executives (N=256) Non-Executives (N=388)
Description/Attributes Mean Mean SD Mean SD
GROUP I General Supportive Climate 2.66 2.60 1.12 2.69 1.09
Top Management Support to HRD 2.33 2.21* 1.17 2.40 1.13
Top Management Belief in HRD 2.89 2.88 1.09 2.89 0.85
Importance Given to HRD 2.55 2.72 1.09 2.44* 1.29
Conduciveness of Personnel Policies 2.69 2.46* 1.19 2.84 1.09
Time & Resources for HRD 2.65 2.52* 1.15 2.73 1.06
Managers' Support to HRD 2.77 2.59* 1.09 2.89 1.12
Help for Competence Development 2.55 2.56 1.08 2.55 1.05
Managers' Belief in HRD 2.81 2.67* 1.02 2.91 1.01
Conduciveness of Psychological Climate 2.67 2.79 1.08 2.59* 1.07
Note: ' * ' --> Significantly Lower@95% Level Compared with the other Group mean & ' _ '--> Significantly Higher/Lower@95% Level from the All
Level Score

OF GROUPS WISE
Executive vs. Non-Executives: Functioning of HRD Mechanism
Analyzing “Functioning HRD Mechanism” based on the individual mean
values of its different dimensions between the group. It has been
observed that a few items are having no significant differences under the
parameters of Functioning HRD Mechanism like “Identification of
Employee's Potential”, “Rationality of Promotion Decisions”, “Reward
Mechanism”, “Appreciation by Supervisors”, “Non Threatening Performance
Feedback” and “Employee's Welfare Activities”
Further, I found that perception of employees toward a few items
(Functioning HRD Mechanism) are having significant difference between
the groups like,“Performance Appraisal – Objectivity, Management
Information System and Job Rotation.
Work Groups --->
“ALL Level
(N=644) Executives (N=256) Non-Executives (N=388)
Identification of Employee's Potential 2.45 2.45 1.13 2.46 1.19
Rationality of Promotion Decisions 2.44 2.41 1.23 2.46 1.10
Reward Mechanism 2.79 2.77 1.03 2.81 1.01
Appreciation by Supervisors 2.86 2.78 1.05 2.91 1.06
Performance Appraisal - Objectivity 2.67 2.53* 1.17 2.76 1.04
Non Threatening Performance Feedback 2.51 2.44 1.19 2.55 1.07
Management Information System 2.74 2.46* 1.09 2.91 1.08
Employee's Welfare Activities 2.43 2.46 1.10 2.41 1.18
Job Rotation 2.55 2.35* 1.22 2.68 1.17
Note:' * ' --> Significantly Lower@95% Level Compared with the other Group mean & ' _ '--> Significantly Higher/Lower@95% Level from the
All Level Score

OF GROUPS WISE
Executive vs. Non-Executives: HRD Cultural Dimensions
In order to assess HRD Cultural Dimensions prevailing in the
organization, 20 items were identified from the questionnaire and
it has been observed.
Work Groups ---> ALL Level (N=644) Executives (N=256) Non-Executives (N=388)
GROUP III HRD Cultural Dimensions 2.66 2.57* 1.05 2.72 1.09
Helping Attitude among Employees 2.89 2.71* 0.94 3.01 0.84
Informal Discussion with Seniors 2.73 2.55* 1.00 2.85 0.89
Guidance to Juniors 2.76 2.71 1.00 2.79 1.03
Free from Biased Impression 2.57 2.41* 0.99 2.67 1.10
Encouragement for Innovation 2.66 2.53* 1.02 2.75 0.97
Understanding and Help in Case of Mistake 2.69 2.68 1.08 2.69 0.98
Self Development Initiative based on Feedback 2.68 2.52* 1.04 2.79 0.99
Initiative to Know Self Strength and Weakness 2.54 2.36* 1.05 2.65 1.03
Concern for Learning During Training 2.72 2.63 1.00 2.77 1.12
Opportunity for Apllying Knowledge after Training 2.37 2.38 1.13 2.36 1.30
Need based Sponsorship of Trainees 2.55 2.57 1.15 2.54 1.35
Trust among Employees 2.80 2.61* 1.09 2.92 0.98
Expression of Feelings to Seniors 2.62 2.48* 1.12 2.72 0.98
Expression of Feelings to Juniors 2.77 2.63* 1.02 2.86 0.94
Actions without Close Supervision 2.49 2.45 1.00 2.52 1.12
Delegation of Authority 2.60 2.70 0.96 2.53* 1.35
Initiative for taking Higher Responsibility 2.57 2.68 1.06 2.51* 1.28
Team Spirit among Employees 2.86 2.71* 1.04 2.96 0.98
Team approach to Problem Solving 2.73 2.63* 1.07 2.80 0.95
Concern for Career Development of Subordinates 2.57 2.41* 1.13 2.67 1.22
Note: ' * ' --> Significantly Lower@95% Level Compared with the other Group mean & ' _ '--> Significantly Higher/Lower@95% Level
from the All Level Score

OF GROUPS WISE
Executive vs. Non-Executives: HRD Cultural Dimensions
A few items are having no significant differences under the
parameters of HRD Cultural Dimensions like “ Guidance to Juniors”,
“Understanding and Help in case of Mistake”, “Opportunities for
Applying Knowledge”, “Need base Sponsorship Trainees” and
“Action without close Supervision”,
 Further, I found that perception of employees towards a few
items under the HRD Cultural Dimensions are having significant
differences between the groups like, “Helping Attitudes among
Employees”, “Informal Decision with Seniors”, “Free from Biased
impression”, “Encouragement for Innovation”, “Self Development
Initiatve based on Feedback”, “Initiative to know self strength and
weakness”, “Trust among Employees”, “Expression of Feelings to
Seniors”, “Expression of Feelings to Juniors”, “Delegation of
Authority”, “Initiative for taking Higher Responsibility”, “Team
Spirit among Employees”, “Team approach to Problem Solving” and
“Concern for Career Development of Subordinates”.

OF GROUPS WISE: Analysis across Hierarchical Levels
Table:6.7 Analysis across Hierarchical Level
Hierarchical Level ---> ALL Level (N=644) Jr. Employees (N=435)
Mid.&Sr. Employees
(N=209)
Top Management Support to HRD 2.33 2.31 1.14 2.37 1.16
Importance Given to HRD 2.55 2.46* 1.27 2.73 1.09
Conduciveness of Personnel Policies 2.69 2.73 1.16 2.59 1.10
Time & Resources for HRD 2.65 2.69 1.06 2.55 1.18
Managers' Support to HRD 2.77 2.84 1.14 2.62* 1.06
Managers' Belief in HRD 2.81 2.84 1.03 2.76 1.00
Conduciveness of Psychological Climate 2.67 2.66 1.06 2.69 1.12
GROUP II Functioning of HRD Mechanisms 2.60 2.64 1.13 2.53 1.12
Appreciation by Supervisors 2.86 2.97 1.04 2.62* 1.05
Performance Appraisal - Objectivity 2.67 2.73 1.08 2.54* 1.13
Management Information System 2.74 2.79 1.12 2.63* 1.08
Job Rotation 2.55 2.65 1.20 2.34* 1.18
GROUP III HRD Cultural Dimensions 2.66 2.68 1.10 2.62 1.03
Helping Attitude among Employees 2.89 2.96 0.87 2.75* 0.92
Informal Discussion with Seniors 2.73 2.77 0.93 2.65 0.97
Free from Biased Impression 2.57 2.60 1.10 2.50 0.99
Encouragement for Innovation 2.66 2.69 1.01 2.61 0.96
Understanding and Help in Case of Mistake 2.69 2.73 0.99 2.59* 1.08
Self Development Initiative based on Feedback 2.68 2.76 1.00 2.53* 1.03
Initiative to Know Self Strength and Weakness 2.54 2.57 1.04 2.46 1.06
Need based Sponsorship of Trainees 2.55 2.47* 1.34 2.74 1.09
Trust among Employees 2.80 2.91 0.98 2.56* 1.11
Expression of Feelings to Seniors 2.62 2.67 1.00 2.53 1.13
Expression of Feelings to Juniors 2.77 2.81 0.96 2.69 1.01
Delegation of Authority 2.60 2.52* 1.32 2.76 0.93
Initiative for taking Higher Responsibility 2.57 2.48* 1.25 2.75 1.06
Team Spirit among Employees 2.86 2.93 1.00 2.72* 1.01
Team approach to Problem Solving 2.73 2.76 0.97 2.68 1.07
Concern for Career Development of Subordinates 2.57 2.66 1.21 2.38* 1.11
Note: ' * ' --> Significantly Lower@95% Level Compared with the other Group mean & ' _ '--> Significantly Higher/Lower@95% Level
from the All Level Score

OF GROUPS WISE: Analysis across Age Groups
Table:6.9 Analysis across Age Groups
Age Groups ---> ALL Level (N=644) <than 45 Yrs. (N=307) >than 45 Yrs. (N=337)
Top Management Belief in HRD 2.89 2.82 0.95 2.70* 0.96
Importance Given to HRD 2.55 2.48* 1.25 2.64 1.19
Managers' Support to HRD 2.77 2.77 1.15 2.67 1.09
Identification of Employee's Potential 2.45 2.42* 1.17 2.59 1.17
Rationality of Promotion Decisions 2.44 2.42* 1.13 2.63 1.16
Performance Appraisal - Objectivity 2.67 2.67 1.11 2.64 1.10
Management Information System 2.74 2.73 1.08 2.66 1.14
Employee's Welfare Activities 2.43 2.38* 1.17 2.66 1.13
Job Rotation 2.55 2.65 1.16 2.67 1.22
Guidance to Juniors 2.76 2.77 1.02 2.63* 1.02
Self Development Initiative based on Feedback 2.68 2.66 1.05 2.62 1.00
Opportunity for Apllying Knowledge after Training 2.37 2.37* 1.28 2.64 1.19
Need based Sponsorship of Trainees 2.55 2.51* 1.30 2.68 1.25
Expression of Feelings to Juniors 2.77 2.79 1.00 2.66* 0.96
Delegation of Authority 2.60 2.55 1.26 2.68 1.17
Team Spirit among Employees 2.86 2.80 1.01 2.72 1.01
Team approach to Problem Solving 2.73 2.75 0.98 2.62* 1.02
Concern for Career Development of Subordinates 2.57 2.62 1.19 2.51 1.19
Note: ' * ' --> Significantly Lower@95% Level Compared with the other Group mean & ' _ '--> Significantly Higher/Lower@95% Level from
the All Level Score

OF GROUPS WISE: Analysis across Length of Services
Table:6.11 Analysis across Length of Service
Length of Service ---> ALL Level (N=644) <than 20 Yrs. (N=348) >than 20 Yrs. (N=296)
Importance Given to HRD 2.55 2.51 1.28 2.60 1.15
Managers' Support to HRD 2.77 2.76 1.17 2.78 1.05
Appreciation by Supervisors 2.86 2.90 1.08 2.81 1.02
Performance Appraisal - Objectivity 2.67 2.65 1.13 2.69 1.07
Management Information System 2.74 2.72 1.12 2.75 1.10
Job Rotation 2.55 2.61 1.21 2.48 1.18
Helping Attitude among Employees 2.89 2.91 0.87 2.87 0.91
Self Development Initiative based on Feedback 2.68 2.66 1.03 2.71 1.00
Need based Sponsorship of Trainees 2.55 2.48 1.30 2.64 1.23
Trust among Employees 2.80 2.84 0.99 2.74 1.08
Expression of Feelings to Juniors 2.77 2.78 0.99 2.76 0.96
Delegation of Authority 2.60 2.51* 1.26 2.70 1.14
the All Level Score

OF GROUPS WISE: Analysis across Functions
Table:6.13 Analysis across Functions
Functions ---> ALL Level (N=644) Engineering(N=450) Service (N=194)
GROUP I General Supportive Climate 2.66 2.73 1.08 2.49* 1.15
Top Management Support to HRD 2.33 2.38 1.11 2.21* 1.21
Importance Given to HRD 2.55 2.54 1.23 2.57 1.20
Conduciveness of Personnel Policies 2.69 2.82 1.10 2.38* 1.18
Time & Resources for HRD 2.65 2.80 1.05 2.30* 1.14
Managers' Support to HRD 2.77 2.88 1.11 2.52* 1.10
Help for Competence Development 2.55 2.66 1.02 2.31* 1.10
Managers' Belief in HRD 2.81 2.89 1.00 2.64* 1.05
GROUP II Functioning of HRD Mechanisms 2.60 2.70 1.08 2.37* 1.21
Rationality of Promotion Decisions 2.44 2.51 1.09 2.27* 1.27
Reward Mechanism 2.79 2.89 0.92 2.56* 1.18
Performance Appraisal - Objectivity 2.67 2.79 1.04 2.38* 1.18
Non Threatening Performance Feedback 2.51 2.63 1.09 2.22* 1.15
Management Information System 2.74 2.87 1.05 2.42* 1.18
Employee's Welfare Activities 2.43 2.51 1.12 2.24* 1.19
Job Rotation 2.55 2.67 1.16 2.27* 1.24
GROUP III HRD Cultural Dimensions 2.66 2.73 1.07 2.48* 1.06
Informal Discussion with Seniors 2.73 2.82 0.91 2.51* 0.98
Guidance to Juniors 2.76 2.84 0.98 2.57* 1.08
Free from Biased Impression 2.57 2.66 1.08 2.35* 1.01
Encouragement for Innovation 2.66 2.75 0.97 2.45* 1.03
Understanding and Help in Case of Mistake 2.69 2.78 0.97 2.46* 1.10
Self Development Initiative based on Feedback 2.68 2.78 1.00 2.46* 1.02
Initiative to Know Self Strength and Weakness 2.54 2.64 1.04 2.29* 1.03
Opportunity for Apllying Knowledge after Training 2.37 2.44 1.27 2.21* 1.14
Need based Sponsorship of Trainees 2.55 2.63 1.32 2.39* 1.14
Expression of Feelings to Seniors 2.62 2.70 1.01 2.43* 1.10
Expression of Feelings to Juniors 2.77 2.83 0.96 2.63* 1.00
Actions without Close Supervision 2.49 2.60 1.06 2.24* 1.06
Delegation of Authority 2.60 2.62 1.28 2.54 1.02
Initiative for taking Higher Responsibility 2.57 2.59 1.25 2.53 1.06
the All Level Score

ANALYSIS ON OCTAPACE CULTURE:BRIEF
PROCESS
Study of OCTAPACE Culture(A total of 40 Questions/items);
Parameters Included
Openness (5 Items)
Confrontation (5 Items)
Trust (5 Items)
Autonomy (5 Items)
Pro-action (5 Items)
Authenticity (5 Items)
Collaboration (5 Items)
Experimentation (5 Items)
No. of Items Included
5 Items in each Parameter = Total 40 Items
= 40 Items
NOTE: The groups has been formed on the basis of control characteristics, hierarchy
wise, age-wise, length of service wise and function wise.

ANALYSIS: OCTAPACE CULTURE
Tentative Norms for OCTAPACE Culture;
Table 6.3 shows the tentative norms for the OTAPACE Profile.
Table 6.3: Tentative Norms for the OCTAPACE Profile
Sl.No. Values Low High
1 Openness 13 17
2 Confrontation 13 17
3 Trust 13 17
4 Authenticity 10 14
5 Pro-action 13 17
6 Autonomy 11 16
7 Collaboration 13 17
8 Experimenting 11 16
Source: Training Instruments in HRD & OD by Udai Pareek (2008)

OCTAPACE Culture;
The 40 statement OCTAPACE questionnaire helps us understand
organization’s ethos on eight values. In order to study OCTAPACE
culture, the questionnaire has been administered on the
executives only. The mean score of each variable could
theoretically range from 5 to 20.
Further, the data has been analyzed (significance at 5% level)
on the basis of the groups; hierarchical levels, age, length of
service and function and the comparative results have been used
for developing recommendations.
Table V: OCTAPACE Profile Score
OCTAPACE Dimensions N Mean Percentage Rank
Openness 256 14.28 71.41 4
Confrontation 256 14.29 71.43 3
Trust 256 14.38 71.88 2
Authenticity 256 12.57 62.87 7
Proaction 256 15.46 77.30 1
Autonomy 256 12.49 62.44 8
Collaboration 256 13.82 69.08 6
Experimentation 256 13.90 69.49 5

OCTAPACE Culture Problem Areas;
Openness: It has been found that significantly a higher number
of employees believe that effective managers put a lid on their
feelings.
Confrontation: There is a gap between these beliefs and actions
as significantly a higher number of employees are found to pass
the buck tactfully when there is an actual problem.
Trust: The survey results reveal that a significantly higher
proportion of employees tend to rely on themselves when the
chips are down which means that people cannot rely on others in
times of crisis.
Authenticity: Significantly higher numbers of employee believe
that tactfulness, smartness and even a little manipulation are
applied to get things done inside the organization. Even a
significantly higher proportion of employees believe that telling a
polite lie is preferable to telling the unpleasant truth.
Pro-action: A significantly higher number of employees found to
believe that seniors do not encourage their subordinates to think
about their development and take action. Even most of the
employees believe that they do not consider both positive and
negative aspects before taking action.

OCTAPACE Culture Problem Areas;
Autonomy: A significantly higher number of employees are
deprived of close supervision. They are to first focus on obeying
and checking with seniors rather than acting on their own. It is
believed by them that freedom to employees breeds indiscipline.
Collaboration: A significantly higher proportion of employees
are focused on performing immediate tasks rather than being
concerned about large organizational goals. And they also believe
that usually, emphasis on team work dilutes individual
accountability.
Experimentation: it is widely accepted that in today’s
competitive situation consolidation and stability are more
important than experimentation.

An Overview of Results
The specific HRD strengths (average score or better) reflected in the
study are:
 Management’s interest in the development of employees
 Line managers’ support for and interest in HRD
Functional reward mechanism
Appreciation for good work in the work place
Functioning of management information system
Sympathy, help and guidance from seniors
Trust among employees
Team approach and problem solving spirit

The specific HRD weaknesses (comparatively low scores) reflected in
the study which have considerable scope for improvement are;
 Management support to HRD
Lack of emotional investment on the part of management in HRD
Lack of proper tools to identify employee potential
Often, promotions are not up to the expectations of aspiring and high
performing employees, causing frustration
Lack of non-threatening performance feedback system
Employee welfare is not able to prove itself as an attraction and
retention tool
Existence of biased impressions among employees inside the
organization
Lack of initiatives to know one’s strengths and weaknesses
Nominations to training programs are often made on easy-to-spare
basis rather than on need basis
There is less scope for applying knowledge after training
Lack of close supervision of work
Least delegation of authority for shouldering higher responsibility
Seniors have least concern for career development of subordinates
which is encouraging conflicts

Analysis across control characteristics reveal that;
Analysis on the basis of work groups i.e. executives and non-
executives indicate that a better HRD climate among non-
executives is prevailing in the organization.
Significant differences have also been observed among
respondents across different hierarchical levels. The junior level
employees have been found most positive and motivated to
improve their performance. Those who are in the middle and senior
level of the hierarchy have been found to be most critical and least
enthusiastic. However the groups do not reveal much difference in
case of OCTAPACE values.
Analysis on the basis of age groups i.e. employees less than 45
years and those more than 45 years did not reveal much difference
in HRD climate data. But, the group with less than 45 years of age
scores maximum with regard to OCTAPACE values.

Analysis across control characteristics reveal that;
Analysis on the basis of varying lengths of service i.e. tenure of
service less than 20 years and tenure of service more than 20
years, did not reveal much difference in HRD climate data as well
as basis the OCTAPACE values.
Significant differences have been observed among respondents in
different functions. The score indicates a better HRD climate in
engineering. The HRD climate scores are minimum in case of
services. The engineering groups score is maximum in respect of
all OCTAPACE values except for the dimension of “autonomy‟.

HypothesesTesting(HRD Climate)
ALL
LEVEL
Executives
vs. Non-
Executives
Junior
Employeesv
s. Senior
Employees
AGE
<45Years,
>45Years
Length of
service in
Years
<20, >20.
Function
Engineering
vs. Service
EmployeesACCEPT
REJECT
A R A R A R A R A R
H01 ×
H02 ×
H03 ×
H04 
H05 
H06 ×

SUGGESTIONS
RSP’s top management needs to take Necessary steps for
developing resource plans, action plans and work environment
plans needs to be taken by the top management to reduce the
perception gap between managements’ belief in and support for
HRD among the employees.
Further, continuous focus on competence development is
required and mapping should be done for indentifying needs of
individual groups for competence development.

SUGGESTIONS
Performance-potential matrix across all grades should be
prepared and posting, promotions, job rotation and succession
plan should be integrated with this.
Further, the management should focus on to gain the
confidence of employees in its welfare activities through
reintroduction of the schemes, which were partially or completely
withdrawn, gather information about employee’s welfare needs
through a systematic survey etc.

SUGGESTIONS
There is a need to map individual training needs and develop a
centralized data bank and design program inputs accordingly.
Also, trainees need to be accountable in matters of learning and
transfer learning to the job.
Further, the employees should be encouraged to identify their
strengths and weaknesses through a proper self-evaluation
feedback system. Senior employees should be trained in the art
of coaching and mentoring.
The organization should empower and educate the employees
in their work area and encourage them to take on higher
responsibilities, joint decision-making, support for unintended
failure, upgrading knowledge & skills, information sharing, joint
goal-setting, and participation in task force and special
assignments.

SUGGESTIONS
OCTAPACE Culture;
The management of the organization should create an
environment of openness by giving enough opportunities to its
employees to express their views, ideas, and suggestions without
fear. The management should encourage their subordinates to
confront problems bravely without searching for escape routes.
The employees should be given training in developing
confrontation abilities and approaches for creative problem-
solving. Management should improve the communication
relationship between the employees to create a higher degree of
trust among them.
Authenticity needs to be improved by providing fair and decent
deal to all employees so that they are not tempted to manipulate
and speak polite lies. The management should encourage people
to anticipate problems and make arrangements for their
resolutions well in advance so that necessary systematic and
process changes are made without compromising quality and
quantity taking in-to account both the positive and negative
aspects of the issues.

SUGGESTIONS
OCTAPACE Culture;
There is a need to develop autonomy by defining role clarity,
delegation of responsibility, and giving freedom to employees to
take decisions. The organization should empower employees and
encourage them to make decisions for themselves without the
fear of negative repercussions along with gradual enlargement of
duties.
The management should also promote the sense of cooperation
and collaboration among the employees, so that the routine
issues are resolved effectively without repetition or confusion.
To promote experimentation, the organization should organize
brainstorming sessions which will generate new and innovative
ideas.
Experimentation value should also be improved through
encouraging innovative methods to solve problems, rather than
relying on traditional and tested ways of dealing things.

CONCLUSION
The present study attempts to uncover the culture of
the organization i.e. Rourkela Steel Plant under
study.
It clearly reveals that there is considerable scope for the
development and implementation of appropriate HRD
programmes and interventions in RSP as well as various other
sectors in the country.
By doing this we can ensure enhancement of employee
competencies, dynamism, motivation and effectiveness in a
systematic and planned way.

Hrd climate survey_ppt

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Hrd climate survey_ppt

Similar to Hrd climate survey_ppt (20)

More from Srinibash Dash

More from Srinibash Dash (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Hrd climate survey_ppt