See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292975768

Organizational Performance Research in India: A Review and Future Research

Agenda

Chapter · January 2016

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199498864.003.0001

CITATIONS READS

0 6,778

2 authors, including:

Vishal Gupta
Indian Institute of Management
60 PUBLICATIONS   596 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovation and Compensation Research View project

Leadership Research in India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vishal Gupta on 04 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Citation: Singh, S., & Gupta, V. (2016). Organizational performance research in India: A review and future
research agenda. In G. Misra (Ed.) The Sixth Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) Survey of
Psychology in India. New Delhi: Oxford Publishing.

Organizational Performance Research in India: A Review and Future

Research Agenda

SHAILENDRA SINGH1 AND VISHAL GUPTA2

Organizational performance is the most important dependent variable of interest for researchers
working in just about any area of management. This chapter presents a review of the research
that has happened in the area of organizational performance in India during the period 2003-
2015. The chapter begins with a presentation on the issue of performance measurement and the
associated challenges. Next, it documents research that has linked individual-level, group-level
and organization-level variables to organizational performance. While presenting a description of
studies, the chapter also presents their critical appreciation bringing out salient points, theoretical
and conceptual contributions, limitations, gaps and the scope of future research. Important areas,
themes and issues that need attention are brought into focus. In the end, a multi-level model
incorporating the insights gained from the survey has been presented that provides a process
framework linking antecedent variables to organizational performance. The framework provides
a set of working hypotheses that should set the course of future organizational performance
research in the Indian context.
Keywords: Organizational performance; organizational effectiveness; performance;
performance measurement; individual-level; group-level; organization-level; causal framework;
Indian context.

INTRODCUTION
 
The ICSSR research survey is an ongoing program. The documentation of research in
organizational behaviour (OB) began with the work of Sinha (1972) where he analyzed the
important trends in the field of industrial/organizational psychology. The review was followed
up by another work (Sinha 1974) where he presented a review on job satisfaction and job
behaviour. These works focused on individual and group level processes in the context of
organizations. The first ICSSR survey on management was published in the year 1973 (Sharma
1973). Sinha (1981), in his review on organizational behaviour presented a review of Indian
work up to 1976. In this work he attempted to present the impact of individual-level variables
like motivation, commitment, and job satisfaction on a few organizational-level variables.
Khandwalla (1988a) presented a comprehensive review of the post-1976 Indian work on
                                                            
1
Professor, Human Resource Management Group, IIM Lucknow, India (shail@iiml.ac.in)
2
Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior Area, IIM Ahmedabad, India (vishal@iimahd.ernet.in) 

 
organizational effectiveness. He defined the construct of organizational effectiveness as a multi-
dimensional construct being determined by a host of contextual, strategic, structural and process
variables and documented the role these variables play in determining organizational
effectiveness. The work adopted an organization-level focus and highlighted only those studies
where unit of analysis was organization rather than individuals or groups. Khandwalla (1988b) in
another paper presented a set of recommendations on how research on organizational behaviour
(OB) can contribute to organizational effectiveness which can thereby lead to social
development. His work was in reference to the strategic organizations of developing economies
and presented how organization-level variables like coordination, conflict resolution,
interpersonal collaboration, boundary management, growth management, and institution-building
can contribute to revitalization of sick organizations. Observing the shifting focus of previous
(e.g. Khandwalla 1988a, b) and recent reviews (e.g. Vohra, Rawat and Pandey 2003; Kanungo
and Mishra 2004) on organizational level variables rather than individual and group-level
process variables, Sinha (2009) presented a review of research related to individual and group-
level processes in the area of OB relevant for the Indian setting. The work reviewed the
researches from 1992 to 2004. Unlike previous works, the work focused on individual, group and
organizational level variables and documented their impact on popular outcome variables like
productivity, absenteeism, turnover, organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction.
Gupta and Panda (2009) developed an ‘integrated culturist-institutionalist’ perspective for
furthering our understandings of organizations in India.
The theme of this review paper has been chosen keeping in mind the felt need of many
organizational theorists/academicians as well as practitioners for a documentation of recent
organizational performance related studies that have happened in the Indian context.
Organizational performance is the ultimate dependent variable of interest for researchers
concerned with just about any area of management. Market competition for customers, inputs,
and capital make organizational performance essential to the survival and success of the modern
business. The competitive landscape in the post-economic liberalization era offers a number of
challenges and opportunities to Indian private and public sector companies. These organizations
have started facing tremendous competition from various private sector as well as other non-
governmental organizations. Thus, the organizations have to develop innovative strategies in
order to improve or even to maintain their market share. A review of studies that have happened
on organizational performance and the identification of factors that can impact it, assume special
significance in today’s time and age. The present work is a humble attempt in this direction.
While the earlier reviews had considered variables like productivity and effectiveness as
the outcome variables amongst a set of other possible outcomes, the aim of this chapter is to
present a comprehensive review of studies that have been conducted in the period between 2003
and 2015 and have treated organizational performance as the outcome variable. We intend to
identify key individual-level, team-level and enterprise-level determinants of organizational
performance, a topic that has been the key concern of management scholars and practitioners
alike. Before we do that, we begin with a presentation on the topic of performance measures at

 
various levels of analysis. We present a definition of the ‘organizational performance’ construct
and document the one-dimensional and multi-dimensional measures of organizational
performance. Next, we review the literature and document the studies that have happened on
organizational performance during the period of interest (i.e. 2003-2015). The chapter presents a
critical appreciation of the studies bringing out the gaps that exist in the literature, and the scope
for future research. The chapter will conclude by presenting a causal process model linking
individual, group and organizational level variables to organizational performance and will
present a set of testable hypotheses for future research.

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMNT: DEFINITION AND

CHALLENGES

Organizational performance is probably the most frequently used dependent variable in

organizational research today. Yet, at the same time, it remains one of the most vague and
loosely defined constructs. The definition of organizational performance is a surprisingly open-
ended question with few studies using consistent definitions and measures. Performance is so
common in management research that its structure and definition are rarely explicitly justified;
instead, its appropriateness, in no matter what form, is unquestionably assumed (Richard,
Deviney, Yip and Johnson 2009). A major challenge for performance research is to establish a
clear, coherent and consistent construct for organizational performance (Rogers and Wright
1998). Due to the economic considerations, organizational performance has become an important
variable of study that has implications not only for organization level processes but also for how
individual and group level processes are modeled. Performance can be defined in varying ways.
For behavioral scientists, performance usually refers to subjective measures of individual-level
and organization-level performance, or variables like individual motivation, commitment, and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB). For finance, economics and strategy researchers,
organizational performance means firm performance, profits and sales, return-on-investment
(ROI), return-on-asset (ROA) and other financial parameters.
Current challenge is not necessarily about identifying what you can measure but it is
about identifying what you need to measure so as to concentrate on what is absolutely vital
(Powell 2004). If we define performance as an individual level construct then our measure of
performance will be individual-level. If we define performance as a group-level construct then
we will measure it through variables that can be observed and quantified at group level. And if
our concern is with firm-level performance then we will measure it using firm level variables
like ROI, ROA etc. While all the three ways of defining and measuring organizational
performance are equally valid and acceptable, the present review focuses on organization-level
conceptualization and measurement of performance. However, we do not restrict our review to
studies where only quantitative measures of performance have been adopted. We have also
included studies that have used subjective measures of organizational performance in this
review.

 
 There is very little research completed on the topic of organizational performance, partly
because there are so many other factors that influence the overall performance of the business.
Subject to the influence of four types of influences that impact an organization, namely, (i)
internal influences (e.g., power relationships); (ii) external influences (e.g., regulatory
environment); (iii) process issues (e.g., management of political processes); and (iv)
transformational issues (e.g., degree of top-level support and risk of gain or loss from change),
the performance measurement metrics do not remain constant and are subject to constant change
(Waggoner, Neely and Kennerley 1999). Moreover, there are numerous other factors that operate
to determine firm-level performance. This makes it incredibly difficult to isolate the role of
variables in the study and to identify their contribution, particularly in any kind of ROI
calculation.
Traditional financial measures of performance may not be adequate in today’s operating
environments. Based on a review of studies linking HR practices and firm performance, Dyer
and Reeves (1995) gave a typology of performance measures. The authors divided performance
measures into human resource, organizational, financial and market measures. Human resource
measures consist of variables like turnover, turnover intentions, absenteeism, job satisfaction;
organizational measures included productivity, quality, customer satisfaction and manufacturing
flexibility; financial measures consisted of ROA, return-on-equity (ROE), profits, sales and
employee value; and financial market category consisted of measures like stock prices, and
Tobin’s Q. Richard et al. (2009), in a comprehensive review of performance related research,
defined organizational performance to comprise of three specific areas of firm outcomes: (a)
financial performance (profits, return on assets, return on investment); (b) product market
performance (sales, market share); and (c) shareholder return (total shareholder return, economic
value added). They classified performance measures into two broad categories – objective and
subjective measures of performance. The objective measures consist of accounting measures,
financial measures and mixed accounting/financial measures. Subjective measures can be further
classified into fully subjective and quasi-subjective measures. Fully subjective measures assess
the underlying performance construct itself. The researcher may get ratings from the employees
of their (subjective) understanding of how their organization is performing as compared to its
competitors or industry. Quasi-objective measures elicit specific objective performance
information through self-report techniques. For example, a salesperson may be asked to report
the level of sales or the CEO to estimate the market value of the firm.
Menon and Mohanty (2012) analyzed the articles published in Strategic Management
Journal (SMJ) between 1980 and 2007 looking for various measures of organizational
performance used in the studies. It was found that while organizational performance had been
measured 487 times in the studies, 52% of the studies examined accounting returns, 17%
assessed growth over a period of time, 12% measured stock market returns or value, 5%
measured hybrid measures – a mixture of measures of accounting returns, growth, and stock
market returns, and 4% used survival as a measure for organizational performance. Interestingly,
only 8% of the total measures used market share as a measure for performance. The authors

 
observed that there is an overlap among the different dimensions of organizational performance.
They suggested that scholars should carefully select measures matching the theory under
scrutiny. Each measure should be justified based on the appropriateness of the research setting
and should be checked for their reliability, convergent and discriminant validities. Table 1
provides a summary of performance measures used in research studies.

Table 1 Summary of Performance Measures

S.No. Measure Type Variables Included
Objective Measures
1. Accounting measures Cash flow, Earning before interest and taxes (EBIT),
Earning before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization (EBITDA), Market share, Net operating
profits, Net operating profit less adjusted taxes (NOPLAT),
Profit margin, Return on Assets (ROA), Return on book-
valued assets, Return on capital employed (ROCE), Return
on equity (ROE), Return on investment (ROI), Return on
invested capital (ROIC), Return on net assets (RONA),
Return on sales (ROS), Return on total assets, Risk-adjusted
return on capital (RAROC), Sales, Sales growth, Variance
in accounting profitability.
2. Financial Beta coefficient (from CAPM), Earnings-per-share (EPS),
Market value (or market capitalization), Price-to-earning
ratio (P/E ratio), return on market-valued assets, stock price,
total shareholder return (TSR)
3. Mixed- Balanced scorecard, cash flow per share, cash flow return on
accounting/hybrid/ investment (CFROI), cash value added, discounted cash
market-based measures flows (DCF), economic value added (EVA), free cash flows,
internal rate of return (IRR), market-to-book value, market
value added (MVA), net present value (NPV), shareholder
value added (SVA), Tobin’s q, Total business return (TBR),
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC), overall
performance scale, growth/market share scale, stock
price/earning, cash flow/market value, return on assets/sales
Subjective Measures
1. Fully subjective Subjective comparison of company’s performance with
competitors, firm performance compared to industry
performance, firm’s ability to meet espoused goals (as set
by multiple stakeholders)
2. Quasi-subjective Self-report by employees/CEO on market value, sales
a
Sources - Richard et al. (2009); Menon and Mohanty (2012)

 
 At this point, we will like to highlight the difference between ‘organizational
performance’ and ‘organizational effectiveness’. While organizational performance is an
absolute term, effectiveness is a relative term that is defined as the degree to which an
organization has been able to achieve its espoused goals (operating as well as official) (Daft,
2013). However, organizational effectiveness and organizational performance have been used
interchangeably in the literature (e.g., Borman and Motowidlo, 1997; Khandwalla, 1988a). In the
present study we maintain that organizational performance comes before organizational
effectiveness and while organizational performance is a short-term metric, organizational
effectiveness is measured over a longer-term horizon. An effective organization is a high-
performing organization but vice-versa may not be true. For example, an organization that has
retrenched its workforce may achieve better financial performance in the short run. However, the
morale of the remaining workforce may reduce due to the retrenchment exercise and
organization’s long-term performance and survival may become uncertain. Thus, while the
organization has good performance it may not be effective in the long run. Similarly, while
Satyam’s Ramalingam Raju indulged in unfair accounting practices, the company showed good
profits and performance. But in the long run, the organization was not effective as it was
acquired by Tech Mahindra in 2009 when the report of scandal in the account books of Satyam
Computer broke. In the present study, we have reviewed all studies that have used organizational
performance and organizational effectiveness. However, in order to remain consistent, we have
used organizational performance in our own writing.
A major distinction that is made in organizational performance literature is that between
for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. We contend that the distinction between measurement
of organizational performance for for-profit and not-for-profit organizations is only artificial.
While generating profits is not a goal for not-for-profit organizations, they too have financial
concerns and need to generate money in order to pay for the salaries and investments they make.
Not-for-profit organizations, like any for-profit organization, have multi-dimensional goals of
which economic-financial is one (Baruch and Ramalho, 2006). For example, for not-for-profit
health care organization, profitability is a central factor for long-term sustainability (Harrison
and Sexton, 2004). Irrespective of whether the organization is for-profit or not-for-profit, they
are all organizations. Arguing for the similarity between for-profit and not-for-profit
organizations, Baruch and Ramalho (2006) observed:

“OEP [organizational effectiveness or organizational performance] aims at the

organizational level, be it named “performance,” “success,” “excellence,” “goodness,” or
anything else, it will still have to do with the measure of the magnitude of the effect or
impact the organization has over whatever object one might want to analyze, the
employee, the employee’s family, the competition, the community, the market, the
society at large. Therefore, there is no reason to consider that differences between for-
profit and NPOs are so wide that OEP study must be considered a fundamentally
different construct for each.” (pp. 44-45).

 
 While we have tried to cover studies that had examined organizational performance in
not-for-profit organizations in the present review, we found no study on organizational
performance for not-for-profit organizations in the Indian context.

Performance Measurement in Indian Context

 
A review of studies that have attempted to define organizational performance and have
developed instruments for its measurement in the Indian context is presented below. Roy,
Nagpaul and Mohapatra (2003) examined the issues involved in measuring effectiveness of
research units operating in R&D organizations and developed a four-dimensional model to
measure R&D performance. The model consisted of R&D effectiveness, recognition, user-
oriented effectiveness and administrative effectiveness as the four dimensions. Items included in
R&D effectiveness were ‘meeting institute’s R&D objectives’, ‘meeting quality standards’,
‘innovativeness’, ‘productiveness’ and ‘contributions to science and technology’. Recognition
included ‘national reputation of unit’s work’, ‘international reputation of unit’s work’ and
‘demand for publications’. User-oriented effectiveness included ‘social value of output’,
‘usefulness in solving societal problems’, and ‘use of R&D results’. Administrative effectiveness
included ‘success in meeting time schedules’ and ‘success in staying within the budget’. Based
on perceptual inputs from Indian executives working in Multinational Companies (MNCs),
Awasthy and Gupta (2004) attempted to understand organizational effectiveness of organizations
as perceived by executives. The categories reported by the executives were remarkably similar to
Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1983) Competing Values framework. The model proposed by the
executives contended that organizations vary on the dimensions of control versus flexibility,
internal versus external focus, and means internal versus ends. In terms of the first set of values,
an organization may emphasize order and stability more than innovation and change. Based on
the second set of values, an organization may keep a closer watch on its position vis-à-vis the
competition rather than on the needs of the people it employs. Its view regarding the third set of
values may drive an organization to concentrate more on the way it does its work (the means)
than on what it achieves by doing the work (the ends). The findings of the study suggested that
organization should be HR-driven and that adaptability and innovation is the key to
organizational effectiveness. After the HR dimension, respondents expressed greatest preference
for external orientation in which flexibility and willingness to act are given greater importance.
The study results showed that in the Indian context organizational effectiveness is conceived as
‘the adaptability, innovativeness and accountability to the stakeholder’s interest’ through HR
driven systems and policies.
Chauhan, Dhar and Pathak (2005), in their study on Indian managers, tested the
instrument developed by Mott (1972) measuring managerial effectiveness. The study established
that the instrument has different factor structure in the Indian context. While the original version
had three factors, such as productivity, flexibility and adaptability, the Indian version had only
two factors, such as functional effectiveness and personal effectiveness. Functional effectiveness

 
was close counterpart of productivity and personal effectiveness closely resembled adaptability
dimension. In a very similar study on Indian managers, Bamel, Rangnekar and Rastogi (2011)
found support for Mott’s (1972) three dimensional framework consisting of productivity,
adaptability and flexibility. Hence, not only does the appropriate measure of performance vary
with the situation, but also the factor structure of indicators that capture that latent constructs.
Aggarwal-Gupta and Vohra (2010) suggested a multiple stakeholder perspective to
measure school effectiveness. They observed that a school’s effectiveness is determined by
multiple factors like the principal of the school, the administrator of the school, the students, the
parents, and the teachers. Each one of these can determine organizational effectiveness. For
example, more collaborative behavior on the part of the principal leads to organizational
effectiveness. Parents demand for preferential treatment for their children may lead to personnel
and discipline problems that could negatively influence organizational effectiveness. The authors
concluded that the researchers should carefully study the context and devise the metric to
measure effectiveness in consultation with significant stakeholders.
Kumar and Gulati (2010) adopted the ROA measure to evaluate the efficiency,
effectiveness, and performance of 27 Indian public sector banks. A two-stage performance
evaluation model, proposed by Ho and Zhu (2004), was followed. In Stage I, the efficiency
scores are computed using advances and investments from inputs consisting of physical capital,
labor and loanable funds. The output variables of Stage I act as input in the Stage II. The
effectiveness score in the Stage II is computed using an output vector including net-interest and
non-interest incomes and an input vector including advances and investments. The overall
performance score is obtained by multiplying the efficiency and effectiveness scores.
Krishnan and Singh (2010) showed that turnover intentions may impact organizational
performance as they lead to organizationally deviant behaviors, reduced display of citizenship
behaviors and less performance orientation. Sharma and Kaur (2011) adopted a competing
values framework to assess organizational effectiveness. The authors used a fully subjective
measure of organizational effectiveness and took employees perception regarding effectiveness
of the organization. The authors then tested the impact of structural and psychological
empowerment on organizational effectiveness.
Antony and Bhattacharyya (2010) defined organizational performance as a weighted
summation of seven variables, namely, innovativeness, competitiveness, creativeness,
effectiveness, productiveness, efficiency and profitability. The weights of the summation were
obtained from the regression of organizational performance on the seven variables. The study
also described that organizational excellence can be measured by averaging the correlations of
performance variable scores. The study proposed a new general definition for organizational
excellence as ‘‘the outstanding measure of relationship of all performance variables influencing
an organization’s functioning’’.

 
Organizational Performance Measurement: Critical Appraisal

Vakkuri and Meklin (2006) analyzed the performance measurement systems of organizations
from an ambiguity perspective and observed that measurement of organizational performance is
fretted with three types of ambiguities: ambiguity in clearly understanding what performance
measurement is, ambiguity in understanding what performance measurement should produce and
ambiguity in understanding how the information produced by performance measurement should
be used. Measurement can be viewed as a process involving an explicit, organized plan for
classifying (and often quantifying) the particular set of data at hand – the indicators – in terms of
the general concept in the researcher’s mind (Roy et al. 2003). There is still a tendency amongst
researchers and practitioners to measure things that are easy to measure (Powell 2004). While a
majority of the published studies do show significant relationships between variables under study
and firm performance, these relationships are neither universal nor consistent. More attention
should be paid to understanding of the context and to designing the research study accordingly.
Given below are a few specific suggestions for researchers interested in conducting studies on
the topic of organizational performance.
First, the act of identifying a suitable performance measure is to clarify what is important
in the organization. In other words, the first step in deciding on performance measures is to
identify important stakeholders for the organization. If the aim of the organization is happy
customers then the researcher should measure customer happiness. It could be through
measuring customer complaints, positive customer feedback or customer referrals. For a R&D-
intensive organization, the performance metric could be very different. Such organizations would
measure their, or their employee performance in terms of the knowledge (papers, patents,
technologies) created (Gupta and Singh 2013). Ideally, before embarking on performance
studies, the researcher should question senior management about the organization objectives, and
to define clearly how they want to assess performance of their organization.
Second, an undue focus of researchers on accounting and financial measures of
performance may be futile, as it requires competing according to accounting rules, time frames
and goal-value assumptions. Recognizing the limitations of single indicator measures of
performance has led to multi-dimensional systems of performance measurement (e.g., Balanced
Scorecard [Kaplan and Norton 1996]). Sinha (2009) observed that most human processes do
have their crucial genesis at the person level rather than groups and higher macro levels. Even in
what might look like a macro-level process, it is only a few individuals who practically give
form and momentum to the macro-level considerations. Since there are different dimensions of
performance with different weightings of importance for different organizations, the
organizational performance construct must be contingent to the organization and target audience
including the utility of the performance data. Triangulation with multiple performance measures
can lead to reduction of measurement errors and improving construct validity.
Third, given the ambiguity in understanding what knowledge to produce, it is important
for the researcher to understand how to produce data that will encourage fruitful discussion

 
amongst the academic and practitioner community. Performance measurement is often
complicated by the non-availability of the data needed to construct the measures and the need to
carefully specify how the data and measures relate to other constructs in a model and to one
another (Richard et al. 2009). It is extremely difficult to get access to and thus the data from
multiple organizations. Over and above that, the authenticity of data obtained from respondents
is extremely doubtful. In certain cases, objective financial market or accounting measures may
not exist. In such cases it is essential that the researcher must rely on subjective managerial
estimates. Most of such studies take subjective, perception-based data on organizational
performance from one or multiple respondents. It is essential that researcher pays careful
attention to convert this data into information and insight that informs the researcher about
organization’s performance. Given the ambiguity in understanding what knowledge to produce,
it is important for the researcher to understand how to produce data that will encourage fruitful
discussion amongst the academic and practitioner community.
Fourth, many performance measures are themselves time-dependent. A number of
empirical studies have confirmed that performance itself does not persist indefinitely. This warns
against the adoption of short- or medium-term measures, as these can be heavily biased by
random fluctuations. Extending performance measures to include longitudinal data (i.e.,
measures repeated over time) can be used to tap the time dependent nature of performance as
well as serving to remove error. Using longitudinal data focuses attention on changes in
performance, effectively controlling for time invariant error, reducing the influence of common
method errors, and can also correct for contextual firm-specific fixed effects.
Finally, given the political and cultural implications of performance measurement,
notably the respondents’ fear of measurement and games they play to manipulate data, it is
essential that the respondents are educated about the purpose and the use of performance studies.
When the researcher is able to take care of the first two steps, he/she will have invaluable means
of communicating to the organization and its management corrective steps and the necessary
interventions. The measurement system can then act like a “route map” telling the management
where it is and can challenge the organization’s strategy.

REVIEW OF 2003-2015 INDIAN WORKS ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

The bulk of organizational behavior research in India has been on topics of organizational
psychology and studies on organizational performance are only handful in number (Khandwalla
1988a; Sinha 2009). Given the small number of studies that have happened on organizational
performance, the task of building of models of organizational level performance is much more
daunting than building of models of individual level performance in the organizational context.
Moreover, most of the studies of organizational level performance are either case studies of
single organizations, or simple, less rigorous empirical studies that do not provide much help in
theory development.

10

 
 Similar to the previous review of research works on organizational effectiveness (e.g.
Khandwalla 1988a) this chapter presents a review of studies where the unit of analysis is the
organization (rather than individuals or even teams working within the organization). Computer-
based information searches were conducted using the keywords organizational performance,
organizational effectiveness, firm performance, and firm effectiveness when paired with India in
the titles and abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles. The keywords were searched in the
following data bases: Business Source Complete (EBSCO: 2003 to 2015), a worldwide business
and management database (ABI/INFORM: 2003 to 2015) and Google Scholar (2003 to 2015).
We also searched through the some of the reputed Indian journals like Vikalpa, Psychological
Studies, IIMB Management Review, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Decision, Vision,
and Metamorphosis.
Criteria for including studies in the sample were that (a) the study measured performance
at the organizational level and not at individual or group levels. Studies on topics like job
satisfaction, motivation, commitment, employee attitudes and employee values, etc., in which the
researchers had reported information on employee performance without attempting to link it with
the performance of the organization have been omitted. Studies where the unit of analysis was
individual, not the organization, but from which some organization level inferences were made,
were included in the list of studies; (b) studies where samples were from India; (c) the study
assessed the performance of at least 20 or more organizations (for quantitative studies) and of
two or more organizations (for qualitative studies); and (d) the studies were published in journals
of decent standing in India and that had been indexed in reputed databases. This last criterion
eliminated studies that have been published in journals brought out by second- and third-tier
institutes in India and which have no academic standing in terms of quality and rigor of research.
Given below is a review of research on organizational performance based on studies that passed
the selection criterion mentioned above.

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL VARIABLES

Organizational Commitment

Piercy, Low and Cravens (2011) investigated the relationships between four antecedents of sales
organization effectiveness, including sales unit design, salesperson turnover, organizational
commitment, and salesperson performance, in seven countries (UK, Nigeria, India, Malaysia,
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Greece). All variables were measured in terms of manager’s
satisfaction with sales unit design, salesperson turnover, organizational commitment and
performance of salespeople. Sales unit effectiveness was assessed in terms of managers’
perception of performance relative to the major competitor and sales unit objectives, using a
multi-item scale for sales volume, market share, profitability, and customer satisfaction. The data
collection was carried out by an Indian national working locally. A sample of 107 responses was
obtained (42 percent response rate). Data collection was primarily in Chennai (formerly Madras),

11

 
with a smaller number of responses from Mumbai (formerly Bombay) and Calcutta. The study
found that manager’s perceptions of salesforce commitment and sales unit design were positively
related to sales organization effectiveness. In order to examine the possible effects of country
political stability and economic wealth, the seven countries were placed into three groups. Group
I (Bahrain, Greece, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia) had high levels of political stability and
relatively low income. Group II comprised two countries with low political stability and very
low incomes (India, Nigeria). The remaining country was United Kingdom, characterized by
relatively high political stability and income. The country group findings for positive
relationships between sales unit design, salesperson turnover, organizational commitment,
performance of salespeople and organizational performance were very strong. All of the
relationships except turnover satisfaction were significant for Group II (India and Nigeria).

Conflict Management Strategies

Samantara (2004) examined the relative effectiveness of conflict management strategies in the
framework of superior-subordinate relationships. The five methods of conflict management as
suggested by Blake and Mouton (1964) were examined in the study. The five conflict
management strategies are: i) withdrawing, ii) smoothing, iii) compromising, iv) forcing, and v)
problem-solving. Perceived measures of organizational effectiveness were used. The three
dimensions of effectiveness, namely, productivity, adaptability and flexibility were measured
using Mott’s (1972) organizational effectiveness scale. The study was conducted within two steel
manufacturing organizations (labeled as organization 1 and organization 2) operating in the
public sector. To test the generalizability of the research findings, the investigation was further
conducted in two paper manufacturing organizations (labeled as organization 3 and organization
4) in the private sector. Problem solving was related positively to organizational effectiveness for
organization 1, 3 and 4. No significant relationship was reported between conflict resolution
strategies and overall effectiveness for organization 2. Forcing strategy was negatively related to
overall effectiveness of organization 3. The findings of the study provide some support for the
relationship between conflict resolution strategies and organizational effectiveness.

Spirituality

Chakraborty and Chakraborty (2006) studied the Nishkam Karma (NK) or ‘detached
involvement’ principle of Bhagwad Gita and its implications for managerial effectiveness and
organizational effectiveness. NK was defined in the study as ‘performing work, accepted on the
basis of agreed remuneration, with little calculation or comparison with others, or concern for
additional personal recognition/gain/reward during or on completion of the work’, while Sakam
Karma (SK) or ‘attached involvement’ was defined as ‘performing work, accepted on the basis
of agreed remuneration, with anxious comparative calculation vis-à-vis others, for additional
personal recognition/gain/reward during or on completion of the work’. Effectiveness in the

12

 
study was defined as ‘true ethical effectiveness’ which is equal to ethical goals plus efficiency.
Efficiency stands for input-output ratio. Achieving efficiency not by shortcuts but through
proper, fair means is called as true ethical effectiveness. Work performance was segregated into
five clusters: i) scope – universal or local, ii) effectiveness in workplace, iii) secular character of
work, iv) sacred character of work and v) leadership. Of the five clusters only cluster on ‘secular
character of work’ showed departure from responses to other clusters. For all other clusters
respondents marked that they make use of NK principle to be effective in that particular aspect of
work. On an average 75% of responses favored the use of NK principle. The cluster ‘secular
character of work’ had 39% respondents marking NK principle. The response patterns show that
NK is deemed to be conducive to ethical work performance. Half of the respondents from each
organization felt that the idea of ‘work for work’s sake’ or ‘duty for sake of duty is good’ for
organizational health. A little more than two thirds of the respondents for all the subsets have
agreed that the practice of NK has very good effects on organizational effectiveness.

Identification

Das, Dharwadkar and Brandes (2008), in a study of an international call center in Kolkata,
considered the multiplicity of social identities, and explored the possible contradictory
implications of identification in transnational workplaces that may not be relevant in local
service work contexts. Identity centrality is defined as the extent to which a person defines
himself or herself as a member of a particular social category or the subjective importance of one
set of identities. By situating their study on transnational service work, the authors interrogated
the issue of centrality of one’s national identity, religious identity and occupational identity,
along with organizational identity, and their relative contributions to work outcomes. The study
was situated in the context of an international call center where it is required that employees
conceal their national and religious memberships in order to serve international customers.
Performance was measured by the average net sales per month for the months in which the
survey was conducted. Essentially, performance measured the number of sales made by a
particular call center employee and approved by the quality department of the firm. Daily sales
were summed over the two-month period and the average monthly sales performance for each
employee was computed. Apart from the quantitative performance measure, employee subjective
responses on intention to leave, stress and burnout were also recorded. The study found that
people with higher national identity centrality have significantly lower performance and higher
turnover intention. The study reported that national identity centrality is associated with poor
performance and increased intent to leave. Furthermore, national identity centrality also
moderated the relationship of organizational identification with performance and burnout.

13

 
Customer Orientation

Siddiqi and Sahaf (2009), in a study of Indian service sector, explored the impact of employee
customer orientation on employee outcomes (employee service effort, job satisfaction, spirit de
corps and commitment) and the impact of employee outcomes on organizational performance.
Customer satisfaction and service quality were considered as proxy measures of organizational
performance. The data for the study was collected from several branches of four banks located in
Delhi, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. Customer’s rating of his/her satisfaction and service
quality were obtained and matched with the responses of each employee. Service quality was
measured using a shortened six item measure derived from SERVQUAL scale developed by
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988). Scale developed by Maloles (1997) was used to
measure customer satisfaction. Scale by Mohr and Bitner (1995) was used to measure employee
service effort. Scarpello and Campell’s (1983) single item scale was used to measure job
satisfaction. Esprit de corps was measured using scale by Jaworski and Kohli (1993). Customer
orientation of service employees was measured using scales developed by Hennig-Thurau and
Thurau (2003). The study found that customer orientation of service employees exerts direct
impact on several employee outcomes (employee service effort, job satisfaction, spirit de corps
and commitment) as well as on organizational performance (customer service quality perception
and their satisfaction). The results also reported indirect effects of customer orientation on
performance through employee job responses. Job satisfaction was found to be the strongest
predictor of customer evaluation. The study reported that improved employee commitment and
involvement contribute to improved service provision which in turn increases customer service
evaluation. Employee outcomes were found to be significant mediator in the relationship
between customer orientation of service employees and organizational performance.

Psychological Capacities

Using a sample of service workers from a privately held BPO firm in India, Combs, Clapp-Smith
and Nadkarni (2010) examined the relationship between Indian service workers’ hope and their
performance outcomes. Hope is a critical performance determinant as it aids in goal formation,
persistence toward accomplishing goals, and positive affective responses to meaningful life
experiences. Performance measures were obtained through merit-based commission and
supervisor ratings of employee performance. Hope was found to be related positively to
employees’ supervisory performance ratings and performance-based commission that employees
earned. The study demonstrated the positive and significant relationship between hope and two
common yet different measures of work performance in an Indian services firm.

14

 
Achievement Motivation

Kunnanatt (2008) studied the distribution of achievement orientation among Indian managers in
banking sector to determine whether differences in the distribution of this attribute among them
lead to differences in their performance as executives. Achievement orientation was defined as
the extent to which a manager is ambitious, hard-working, competitive, keen to improve their
social standing, and emphatic in placing a high value on productivity and creativity. Performance
effectiveness was defined as the extent to which a manager achieves the performance targets
assigned (deposits and advance) to the branch under his/her charge. Assuming that the
measurement of effectiveness of a manager in producing results should be based on performance
over a long period, the deposit performance and advance performance of managers were
measured over a continuous period of three consecutive business years. For computational
purpose, combined performance of managers was expressed in the form of a combined
performance score (CP score – i.e. the score showing the average of the deposit and advance
performance of the manager for three consecutive years). This CP score was finally used as the
basis for classifying the managers into high- (HRP), moderate- (MRP), and low-result producers
LRP). The findings of the study showed that the attribute of achievement orientation is quite
ingrained among managers in Indian society. Since the managerial sample of the study was
drawn from all over the country, the findings lead to the possibility that need for achievement, or
n-ach, is somehow present across the Indian subcontinent. The study indicated that the HRP
managers with their higher level of achievement orientation have been quite successful in
responding to the level of business difficulties. The MRPs and LRPs, on the other hand,
possessed lesser degrees of achievement orientation and for these groups the targets have been
somewhat heavy, though not impossible, to achieve.

Organization- Level Variables

Structure

Organizational structure is a variegated phenomenon. A structure is made of different

characteristics like formal communications, hierarchy of authority, division of labor, rules,
specialization of functions, chain of command and system of departmentalization, routines and
performance programs, mechanism for integration and co-ordinations (Lawrence and Lorsch
1960; Chandler 1962; Thompson 1967; Galbraith 1972; Weber 1987).
Khandwalla and Mehta (2004) proposed a model for innovational success and
competitive excellences that emphasized adoption of the following: i) innovation-friendly
business strategies; ii) organizational structure; iii) top management style; iv) middle
management practices; and v) effective modes of managing innovations. They contended that
these choices would lead to innovation success, which, in turn, would enhance competitive
excellence of the organization. Effective management of innovation emerged as the strongest

15

 
predictor of innovational success which, in turn, was the greatest predictor of change in
competitive corporate excellence.
Garud, Kumaraswamy and Sambamurthy (2006) considered organizational design to be
comprising of four elements: people, process, technologies and governance. For four years, the
authors studied Infosys Technologies, a global information technology (IT) services company
headquartered in Bangalore, India. Through purposive sampling of members from top, middle,
and lower management, conducting in-depth interviews with them, coding of interview
transcripts, the authors concluded that an organization can transform itself even as it continues to
perform on a day-to-day basis by seeding each element of its organizational design with
generative properties, i.e., the routine application of these elements for day-to-day performance
also yields new possibilities for the future. These design elements reinforce and balance one
another, leading to the emergence of an organizational platform that supports both day-to-day
performance and transformation. Within designs for emergence, there are synergistic interactions
between design elements as they complement and balance one another. As the Infosys case
illustrated, day-to-day activities generate new possibilities, thereby ensuring exploration along
with exploitation. Such a design approach lies in contrast to designs underlying ambidextrous
organizational forms, wherein activities aimed at day-to-day performance and transformation are
separated from one another with attendant tensions being resolved at a higher level of hierarchy.
Prakash and Gupta (2007) studied the relationship between organization structure and
innovation in the manufacturing sector of India. Structural variables included in the study were
vertical complexity, horizontal complexity, formalization, centralization and participative
decision-making. Innovative performance of the firm was operationalized as the number of
innovations introduced by the organization over a specific time period of the past 7 years from
the time of data collection. It included innovations happening at all levels of production, in any
department or functional unit. Two organizations from the pharmaceutical/chemical sector and
two from heavy engineering/transmission and distribution sector were surveyed. Except for the
relationship between concentration of authority and the number of innovations, all other
relationships were found to be significant. The relationships between structure and number of
innovations were tested for the three stages of production: input, throughput and output. For the
input stage, relationship between participation in decision-making and number of innovations
was not found to be significant. All other relationships were significant. For throughput stage,
relationship between concentration of authority and number of innovations was not found to be
significant. All other relationships were significant. For output stage, relationship between
concentration of authority and number of innovations was not significant. Significant
relationships were found between vertical complexity and the number of innovations, between
centralization and number of innovations, and between participation in decision-making and the
number of innovations.
Santra and Giri (2008) studied the extent to which elements of structure, namely
centralization and formalization, influence the effectiveness of an organization. The respondents
were executives and managerial level employees of the organization where computers were

16

 
widely used. Organizations included for the study were steel manufacturing industry, banking
industry, shipping corporation, airlines, reality estates, R&D, telecom and IT industry.
Organizational effectiveness was measured using the scale developed by Mott (1972). The scale
consisted of dimensions such as efficiency, flexibility, adaptability, and innovation. It was found
that organizational structure was a predictor of organizational effectiveness. Counter-intuitively,
centralization and formalization were found to be positively correlated with organizational
effectiveness. The authors argued that formalization leads to a more stable working environment
and centralization leads to formal authority with decision-making power concentrated at the
topmost level in the organization. Employees prefer to work efficiently when proper guidelines
are being laid down by the organizations.
Sharda and Chatterjee (2011) examined the combinations of work designs, strategic
orientations, client relations and contexts, and their relationships with organizational
performance within a sample of outsourcing firms. Data were collected from top management
team and non-managerial employees of 60 outsourcing firms across India. Five dominant
configurations of outsourcing firms emerged, namely, clear-eyed strategists, adapting
professionals, focalizing artisans, conservative controllers, and overambitious associates.
Configurations of outsourcing firms were associated with organizational performance parameters
(average attrition, growth in employment, growth in clients, growth in offered processes and
overall satisfaction with organizational performance) that were measured though subjective
responses of the respondents. Adapting professionals and clear-eyed strategists appeared more
successful and conservative controllers were average performers. Overambitious associates
appeared more unsuccessful than other configurations, while focalizing artisans suggested a
configuration-in-transition.

Organizational Communication

Biswas, Giri and Srivastava (2007) analyzed the impact of organizational communication on
employee performance and organizational effectiveness. It was hypothesized that better
organizational communication process will lead to higher level of employee performance and
organizational effectiveness. Data were collected from 9 organizations in India, four of which
belonged to the manufacturing sector while five belonged to the service sector. Organizational
communication was measured using scale developed by Roberts and O’Reilly (1974) and
organizational effectiveness was measured using scale developed by Mott (1972). The results
established that organizational communication was significantly related to employee
performance and organizational effectiveness as hypothesized. Communication system is
considered to be effective if it disseminates information about favored organizational policies
and practices to all its members. It also provides members with updated knowledge about general
and specific environment of business. It is, therefore, likely that organizations having open
communication system will be more effective.

17

 
Firm Size

Vijyakumar and Sridevi (2010) studied the relationship of firm’s size and profitability, taking
into consideration major characteristics such as size and profitability of 20 Indian automobile
companies for a period of 13 years, from 1996-97 to 2008-09. The companies under automobile
industry were classified into three sectors namely, commercial vehicles, passenger cars and
multi-utility vehicles and two and three wheelers. The analysis was performed using a normal
linear regression model. Ratio of profit margin on sales, ratio of profit on total assets and return
on capital employed were used as dependent variables in the specified model. Firm size was
measured using assets and natural logarithm of net sales. The analysis showed mixed results: in
the overall pooled sample and in the two and three wheelers segment, firm’s size had statistically
significant negative relation with profitability in the Indian automobile industry while size had
significant positive relationship between firm’s size and profit margin in case of commercial
vehicles, passenger cars and multi-utility vehicles segment.

CEO and Top Management Teams

Using cross-sectional data on Indian manufacturing firms for the year 2007, Ghosh (2010)
explored the association between executive compensation and firm performance. The dependent
variable in the study was total executive compensation, defined as the aggregate of salary and
other perquisites paid to the CEO of the company. Two firm performance measures were
considered, namely, ROA and Market to Book Value Ratio (MBVR). Firm performance and its
interactions with performance variance (pay-performance sensitivity) were found to have highly
statistically significant positive coefficients. Firm size, firm ownership (modeled as dummies)
and industry type were kept as control variables. The study demonstrated that pay-performance
sensitivity estimates are significant and in line with those predicted by the agency theory.
Firm’s CEO, an important member of the firm’s “dominant coalition,” has a profound
impact on the strategic direction and performance of the firm (Hambrick and Mason 1984).
Nadkarni and Herrmann (2010) examined the relationships between CEO personality, strategic
flexibility and firm performance, using a sample of 195 small and medium-sized firms from the
Indian business process outsourcing industry. Firm performance was measured using three
established accounting-based measures of firm performance from the financial records provided
by the sampled firms: ROA, return on sales (ROS), and return on investment (ROI). Two major
results emerged from the study: (1) each variable in the five-factor model of CEO personality
(comprising of conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion and openness
to experience) influenced firm’s strategic flexibility and (2) strategic flexibility mediated the
relationship between CEO personality and firm performance. CEO extraversion, emotional
stability, and openness to experience enhanced firm performance by fostering strategic flexibility
while CEO conscientiousness undermined firm performance by inhibiting flexibility. Medium
levels of agreeableness maximized strategic flexibility and, consequently, firm performance.

18

 
 Lahiri, Kedia and Mukherjee (2012) studied the moderating role of management
capability for the relationships between firm’s human capital, organizational capital and
partnership quality and firm performance. The study defined human capital as the skills,
education, experience, and knowledge of a firm’s employees, organizational capital as the
codified knowledge and experience residing in databases, patents, manuals, structures, systems,
partnership quality as the perception of the extent of matching or fulfillment of expected
outcomes arising out of inter-organizational relationship between clients and providers, and
management capability as the ability to better manage i.e., bundle and leverage various firm-
level resources and capabilities through creation of valuable synergy resulting in performance
enhancement. Firm performance was measured by five items where top executives rated their
firm’s position relating to five organizational-level outcomes in the preceding two years with
respect to close competitors. The measure included both financial and non-financial indicators.
Study results showed that the human capital, organizational capital, and partnership quality
influence firm performance positively and significantly. More importantly management
capability positively moderated the relationships between the three intangible resources and firm
performance. That is, high management capability resulted in strong resource–performance
relationships and low management capability was found to result in relatively weaker
associations.

HRM Systems and HRM Practices

The resource-based theories of competitive advantage focus on the role internal resources like
employees play in developing and maintaining a firm’s competitive capabilities (Barney 1991;
Wright and McMahan 1992; Wright, McMahan and McWilliams 1994) and lay stress on keeping
the workforce rightly and appropriately encouraged and motivated (Rose and Kumar 2006). The
question of how Human Resource Management (HRM) policies and practices are linked to
employee and firm performance has, therefore, been a subject of great interest to both academics
and practitioners. Research in the field of HRM has been guided by various approaches, namely
high-commitment management (Walton 1985), high-involvement management (Lawler 1986;
Konrad 2006), and high-performance management (U.S. Department of Labor 1993;
Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg 2000). Having established that there exist HRM
practices that contribute to efficient organizations, researchers (e.g. Becker and Gerhart 1996)
have pondered over the issue of whether ‘HRM practices enhance firm performance in all
situations and contexts or are there specific situations where firm performance is enhanced much
more than it would have been in other circumstances?’ The first approach is called as
universalistic approach or the best practices approach and the second one as the contingency
approach. Contingency perspective talks about matching HRM strategy to organizational
strategy and also about configuration (‘bundles’) of HRM practices that enhance firm-level
performance (Wood 1999).

19

 
 Researchers have spent considerable time and effort in identifying the ‘best practices’
that constitute high-performance management systems and their impact on firm performance
(e.g. Arthur 1994; Huselid 1995; MacDuffie 1995; Pil and MacDuffie 1996; Bae and Lawler
2000; Guthrie 2001; Batt 2002; Wright, Gardner and Moynihan 2003; Bartel 2004; Messersmith
and Guthrie 2010). Though the progress in this area justifies the investment, these researches
have some serious limitations. First, little consensus has been developed about what practices
constitute the set of high-performance HRM practices, and the practices included usually are
narrowly focused and often lack theoretical grounding (Wright and Boswell 2002; Godard 2004;
Paré and Tremblay 2007). Second, the underlying intermediating mechanisms that contribute to
organizational performance underlying this relationship remains a black box and untested (Ferris,
Arthur, Berkson, Harrel-Cook and Fink 1998; Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley 2000; Macky and
Boxall 2008; Zhang and Agarwal 2009; Gupta and Singh 2010a,b,c). Finally, research in the area
of strategic HRM has been almost exclusively carried out in the western world (Rose and Kumar
2006; Som 2008). Work systems and employment practices vary significantly across
occupational, hierarchical, workplace, industry and societal contexts (Boxall and Macky 2009)
and any assertion about systems of best practices is patently false and not defensible (Wood
1999; Marchington and Grugulis 2000; Deshpande, Farley and Bowman 2004; Bryson, Forth and
Kirby 2005).
The strategic fit perspective of Human Resource Management raises the conceptual issue
of whether any organization-level policy (e.g. HR policy, communication policy, organizational
structure policy) can be described as a best practice, or whether, instead, the efficacy of any
policy can only be determined in the context of a particular firm’s strategic and environmental
contingencies. Empirically, the Miles and Snow (1978, 1984) and Porter (1980) strategic types
have been used to classify firm strategies. Research in the West has provided some, although not
entirely consistent, support for a positive strategic fit effect (Fey, Björkman and Pavlovskaya
2000). Huselid (1995) found that those firms that link HR policy to strategy report higher
financial performance outcomes. Delery and Doty (1996) found modest support for a fit with the
Miles and Snow typology. According to Youndt, Snell, Dean and Lepak (1996), the impact of
HRM practices on firm performance is conditioned by a firm’s strategic posture. MacDuffie
(1995), in contrast, explicitly rejected this hypothesis, claiming that in his international study of
car-manufacturing plants he found no evidence that a ‘fit’ of appropriate HRM practices to mass
production is able to compete with flexible. At a basic level, one might argue that HRM is
superfluous to performance unless human capital is somehow a central component of a firm’s
strategy. If firm’s approach to competition depends on, or makes use of, the talents and
capabilities of employees, then HR policy would be more likely to have an impact on
performance (Youndt et al. 1996).
Paul and Anantharaman (2003) studied the intervening process connecting HRM system
and organizational performance. They conducted a study on Indian software companies and
explored the mediating role of variables like employee competence, teamwork, organizational
commitment and customer orientation. Organizational performance parameters were obtained

20

 
from the CEO or senior most manager of the company. Organizational performance was
measured in two dimensions: operational performance and financial performance. Operational
performance was defined in terms of employee retention, employee productivity, product quality,
speed of delivery and operating cost. Financial performance was a single construct measured in
terms of growth in sales, net profit and return on investment from year 1997 to 2000. Each
organization was asked to rate their performance on each parameter in comparison with other
software companies for a period of three years (1997-2000). The study found that not even a
single HRM practice has direct causal connection with organizational financial performance. At
the same time, it was found that each and every HRM practice under study has an indirect
influence on the operational and financial performance of the organization. Further, HRM
practices such as training, job design, compensation and incentives directly affect the operational
performance parameters, viz., employee retention, employee productivity, product quality, speed
of delivery and operating cost.
Singh (2003a, b), in study of 84 Indian firms analyzed the relationship between strategic
HR orientation and organizational performance. Strategic HR orientation was defined as the
alignment of HR planning, selection, evaluating, compensating, developing, and staffing
practices with the business strategies of the firm. Firms that develop a strong strategic HR
orientation will make use of a bundle of HR practices to transform employees as the basis of
sustainable competitive advantage. Three measures of corporate performance were used in the
study, namely, return on assets, growth in sales and price-cost margin. Results of the study
showed that there are significant financial returns accrue to firms that use strategy-linked human
resource planning, selection, performance evaluation, compensation, training and staffing
practices. Through the use of strategy-based HR policies and practices, firms create a more
competent and committed workforce, which, in turn, provides a source of sustainable
competitive advantage. Overall, the results indicated that strategic alignment of HR policies and
practices with business plans helps to sustain the level of competence that is created by firms’
HR practices.
Kumar (2004) examined the effect of ESOP (employee stock ownership plan) adoption
on organizational productivity and performance. Productivity was measured using ATO (Total
Asset Turnover), defined as sales divided by the total book assets. Profitability of the firm was
measured using cash flow, cash flow divided by sales, ROA, and net profit margin. ESOP
participation was measured using the number of employee participants or the amount of
investment made by employees in ESOPs. The collective results of the study indicated that
ESOPs established in Indian firms have little effect on a firm’s productivity and profitability
based on accounting performance. Cross sectional regression analysis revealed that there is a
positive significant positive relationship between market performance and presence of ESOPs.
The market anticipations regarding the future performance of ESOP firms is positive. Overall,
the authors concluded that there is no automatic link between ESOPs and performance, and that
ESOPs are neither a passport to higher profit or productivity, nor a magic elixir that can facilitate

21

 
employee motivation. It is essential that the management synergizes the intellectual capital and
financial capital thereby linking employee and corporate futures for long-term goals.
Singh (2004) analyzed the impact of HRM practices on firm performance. Study used
two variables to measure perceived firm performance. The first was ‘organizational
performance’ and covered product quality, customer satisfaction, new product development,
ability to attract employees, ability to retain employees, and relations between management and
employees. The second was ‘market performance’ and covered aspects like marketing of
products or services, growth in sales, profitability and market share. The results of the study
showed that use of HR practices like training, career planning, employee participation, and
compensation are positively related to perceived measures of firm performance. The results
favored the universalistic perspective that posits greater use of specific HR practices will always
result in better firm performance.
Bhatnagar and Sharma (2005) studied the relationship between strategic HR roles,
organizational learning capability and organizational performance. Performance of organizations
was measured through firms’ profits and financial turnover figures. The study showed that
strategic HR roles are positively related to both the firm’s profit and financial turnover while
organizational learning capability is related to firm’s profit only and not to financial turnover.
Priyadarshini and Venkatapathy (2005) analyzed the variations in Human Resource
Development (HRD) practices in high and low performing nationalized and private banks. It was
found that there is significant difference between types of ownership (nationalized, private) of
banks with respect to role analysis, potential appraisal, career planning, and quality of work life.
The levels of performance (high, low) of banks exhibit significant differences between all
subsystems of HRD, namely, role analysis, induction, potential appraisal, performance appraisal,
career planning, counseling, training, quality of work life, and organizational development. The
study reported a significant interaction between ownership types and levels of performance on
the following subsystems: role analysis, induction, performance appraisal, potential appraisal,
training and quality of work life.
Rameshan and Singh (2005) examined the motivation and frustrations of health care
delivery managers, i.e. doctors and staff of various Primary Health Centres (PHCs) of the
Lucknow district of U.P. The analysis of the responses revealed that the doctors and staff are
dissatisfied with the working conditions and their career prospects. They attribute the present
problems of PHCs to the lack of incentives for performance and motivation. There are location
inconveniences, lack of promotions, delay in payments and lack of public support. It is essential
that the living facilities of the doctors and staff at the PHCs are improved along with their
infrastructure. Besides attending to hygiene factors the doctors and the staff should be provided
opportunity for personal and professional growth. The authors suggested that there is a need that
the health care delivery staff be exposed to behavioral training in order to enable them to serve
customers better.
Kasturi, Orlov and Roufagalas (2006) examined the relationship between HRM systems’
architecture (i.e., guiding principles and philosophy) and firm performance for small and

22

 
medium-scale enterprises located in Tamil Nadu in India. Performance was measured using
profit rate and log of productivity. The study showed that the philosophy that employees are part
owners and should have a share in the profits was positively related to profit while employee as
decision makers and employee as tools were negatively related to productivity.
Björkman and Budhwar (2007) studied the HRM practices being implemented by foreign
firms in their Indian subsidiaries and the linkage between HRM practices and organizational
performance. A mixed methodology comprising a questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews
was used to conduct this research in foreign firms operating in India. Organizational performance
was measured with two five-point subjective managerial assessments of the foreign parent
company’s satisfaction with the firm’s overall performance, and the overall performance
compared with other foreign-owned firms in the same industry in India. Study results indicated
that extensive use of a system of “high involvement HRM practices” pays off in terms of their
effect on firm performance, and the results appear to hold both at the corporate and foreign
subsidiary levels of analysis. Among the Indian MNC subsidiaries in this study, those that had
implemented HRM practices similar to those of the MNC in its home country exhibited inferior
performance. In contrast, a high degree of local adaptation of HRM practices in India lead to
substandard performance on the part of foreign subsidiaries. The authors concluded that adopting
HRM practices seen as appropriate in the local context may enhance the firm’s external
legitimacy, increase the commitment of host country employees, and may translate into HRM
practices likely to be compatible with societal norms. The use of performance appraisal was
positively associated with MNC subsidiary performance in India. A system whereby specific
individual goals are set and followed up may thus constitute an important part of how successful
organizations ensure a performance- and development- focused orientation among their work
force.
Biswas, Srivastava and Giri (2007) studied the linkages between firm’s HRM practices,
their effect on individual organizational members’ citizenship behavior, job involvement and job
satisfaction and ultimately the enhancement of organizational efficacy. HR practices were
measured using 21-item HR Practices Inventory (Yeung, Brockbank and Ulrich 1991). The scale
measured six vital areas of HR practices that were staffing, development, performance appraisal,
rewards, communication and organizational design. OCB was measured using 16 items of OCB
scale by Moorman (1993). Job involvement was measured using Job Attitude Scale by Lawler
and Hall (1970). Job satisfaction was measured by a scale developed by Schnake (1983).
Organizational effectiveness was measured with the help of scale by Mott (1972). The results of
the study showed for a significant association between HR practices and OCB thereby
confirming impact of management policies on extra-role behaviors. OCB has significant positive
influence on job involvement and job satisfaction. Job involvement and job satisfaction both
have positive impact on organizational effectiveness. The study, thus, showed that OCB, job
involvement and job satisfaction mediate the HR practices-organizational effectiveness
relationship.

23

 
 Chand and Katou (2007) analyzed the impact of HRM practices on hotel performance.
Hotel performance was measured based on employee perceptions of variables like sales growth,
productivity, profitability, goal achievement, and good services. The dimensions “hotel
category” and “type of enterprise” were found to be statistically significant on all performance
variables, except “good service quality” for the “type of enterprise” dimension. Hotel
performance was positively related with HRM systems. The authors concluded that it would be
advisable for the hotel management to focus on the “best” HRM practices for the hotel industry
in India, those being multi-skilling and experience, harmonized terms and conditions, formal
manpower planning, career planning, flexible job description, cross-cultural job design, formal
system of induction, need-based training and development criteria, production/service staff
responsible for their service, regular use of attitude surveys, social appreciation and recognition,
and staff informed about market condition and company performance. Improvement of these
HRM practices may develop competitive advantages for the hotels that adopt these practices.
Singh, Singh and Bhattacharya (2006, 2008) examined the relationship between
organizational performance and HR policies and practices. The data were collected from 49
organizations consisting of 18 public sector and 31 private sector enterprises representing a
diverse set of industries. The study used perceptual measures of organizational performance.
Performance was measured using scale developed by Khandwalla (2003). HR practices were
measured using scale developed by Pfeffer (1994). Performance was measured using three
factors: generic performance, consisting of learning and growth of employees, employee-
employer relationship, morale of employees, quality of product and services, innovativeness,
adaptability, impact on the industry, operating efficiency, and public image and goodwill,
financial robustness, consisting of financial strength, level of profitability, stability of
performance from one year to another, and growth of revenue/sales/and level of activity, and
social responsibility, consisting of business ethics and corporate social responsibility.
Motivational HR policies (financial incentives for excellent performance, encouraging employee
efforts and capturing know how, long term perspectives in dealing with people, elimination of
status symbols, self-managing teams, payment of higher than average wages in the industry and
employee ownership plans) and empowerment (encouragement of undertaking multiple tasks and
job rotation, practice of extensive information sharing, decentralization of decision making and
empowerment, and compressed distribution of salaries) emerged as significant contributors to
generic performance. Empowerment emerged as the significant positive contributor to financial
robustness and meritocracy (promotion from within, high budget allocation on training and skill
development, and rigorous selection procedure and selective recruiting) emerged as the
significant predictor of social responsibility. Empowerment and meritocracy were significant
contributors to overall performance.
In another study, Dhiman (2009) analyzed the effect of ESOP on corporate productivity.
The study discussed input strategy for estimating the impact of ESOPs on corporate productivity
based on pre- and post-adoption period, i.e. -1 year and 0 year, 1 year, 2 year, 3 year
respectively. The study used macro data of 202 listed companies in BSE (Bombay Stock

24

 
Exchange). Nearly half of these companies (99 companies) were classified into control group
(non-ESOP companies) and the others (103 companies) were categorized as experimental group
(ESOP companies). Asset turnover ratio (ATO) was identified and considered as exclusive
productivity parameter in this research. It is defined as Net Sales/Net Assets (at book value) and
was obtained from annual reports submitted to BSE. The study reported that ESOP is ineffective
in improving productivity performance in short duration. It may be statistically significant in
long periods i.e. five to six years after the implementation of employee stock option program.
Management needs to be careful while implementing such schemes in their organizations.
Based on a study of 98 manufacturing firms and 103 service firms in India, Ketkar and
Sett (2009, 2010) developed and tested a multi-level model that explored the ‘black box’ of the
inter-linkages between the various components of HR flexibility and firm-level human,
operational, and financial outcomes. Perceptual measures were used to capture firm performance
at three levels: employee performance (including dimensions of customer orientation and quality
consciousness), operating performance (cost, quality and cycle time of operations), and financial
and market performance (revenue growth, profitability operating cost efficiency, market share
growth, and overall financial performance). Study results showed that the HR system impacts
firm-level performance, HR flexibility mediates the relationship between HR system and
employee performance, and employee performance mediates the impact of HR system on
operational performance, which, in turn, mediates the impact of employee performance on
financial outcomes of the firm.
Kumar and Singh (2009) and Singh and Kumar (2009) studied the impact of HR policies
on firm level competitiveness. They performed survey based studies in two large public sector
companies in India, namely, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) and Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (DMRC). Firm competitiveness was measured using a scale adapted from
Khandwalla (2003). HR policies were measured using a scale based on Pfeffer (1994) study.
Culture was measured using a scale given in Denison, Janovics and Yong (2006). The study
results showed the presence of fully mediated relationships between HR policies and firm
competitiveness by organizational culture. The studies showed that progressive HR policies lead
to between culture formation that, in turn, results in higher readiness to compete and greater
competitiveness.
Chand (2010) investigated the effects of HRM practices on service quality, customer
satisfaction and performance in the hotel industry. Organizational performance was measured
based on employee perceptions on performance variables like sales growth compared to hotel
industry average, sales volume compared to business unit objectives market shares compared to
business unit objectives, market shares compared to hotel industry average, profitability
compared to hotel industry average, profitability compared to business unit objectives, ROI
compared to hotel industry average and overall assessment of company’s performance compared
to hotel industry average. The study showed that HRM practices will have an influence on the
effectiveness of delivering quality service and as a consequence customer satisfaction and hotel
performance. The results suggested that HRM practices improve hotel service effectiveness and

25

 
in consequence firm performance and thus extend research by Chand and Katou (2007) who
found a positive relationship between HRM practices and hotel performance.
Azmi (2010) investigated the impact of HRM devolution on firm performance.
Devolution has been defined as the reallocation of personnel tasks to line managers such that line
managers become more involved in HRM. The study used both objective (published
performance data) and perceptual/subjective (evaluation of corporate performance by the
respondent) criteria for measuring organizational performance. The study reported a significant
positive relationship between devolution and performance. The results of the study indicated that
devolution of HRM has a significant direct and positive impact on organizational performance in
the sample firms.
Dixit and Pal (2010) collected data through a questionnaire-based survey, and from the
payroll records and annual reports of 10 small-scale manufacturing firms to determine whether
group incentives have a positive influence on firm performance. The study results revealed that
group-incentive pay scheme is beneficial. The analysis showed that firms that pay group
incentives perform better compared to firms that pay only fixed wages. It was found that group
incentive has positive and significant impact on ROI.
Stumpf, Doh and Tymon (2010) conducted a study on the strength of HR practices in
India and their effects on employee career success, performance and potential. The research
involved 28 Indian companies from five industry groupings: Business Process Outsourcing
(BPO), Information Technology (IT), Engineering and Manufacturing (MFG), Pharmaceuticals
(Pharma), and Banking and Financial Services (BFSI). Performance and potential data were
obtained directly from each company and independent of the survey. Each company sponsor was
responsible for providing an archival performance rating and potential for advancement
assessment for each randomly identified employee who was asked to participate in the survey.
Performance ratings were collapsed into a 3-point scale, with 1 being development needed or
potential lacking, 2 being acceptable performance or potential, and 3 being exceptional
performance or potential. A 3-point scale was used to make meaningful comparisons across
companies. Professional development, performance management and normalized ratings were
the three HR practices that were measured. Performance management and professional
development practices were each positively related to career success. Performance management
was related to performance even after controlling for geographic footprint and professional
development was negatively related to performance even when controlled for geographic
footprint or industry sector. Stronger relationship was found between professional development
practices and career success in international firms than in global firms. A stronger relationship
was found between normalized ratings and career success in global firms. With respect to
industry differences, the study found a stronger relationship between performance management
and career success in service firms than in manufacturing or IT. Professional development was
more strongly related to performance in manufacturing and service firms than IT firms. The
normalization with performance relationship was weakest in service firms, performance

26

 
management was most strongly related to potential in manufacturing firms, and normalization
was most strongly related to potential in IT firms.
Azmi (2011) identified four types of strategic HRM fit and examined their relationships
with the effectiveness of HRM functions and organizational performance. The four types of fits
identified were: fit between HRM practices and organizational strategy; fit between role and
position of HR managers to make them more strategic for the organization; internal fit or
consistency in HR policies and practices; and fit between HRM and other functional areas.
Performance was measured through both subjective as well as objective measures. Subjective
measures included HR managers’ evaluation of the improvement in overall performance of the
company in the past 1 year and the objective measures included return on capital employed,
sales, and shareholder returns. HRM effectiveness was measured using subjective measures of
HR managers on ‘influence of HR department on the organization’, ‘relationship of HR
department with other stakeholder’, and ‘overall effectiveness of HR department.’ The study
results showed that HRM-strategy fit and HRM-cross functional fit had a positive and significant
relationship with organizational performance. HRM roles-position fit, HRM intra-functional fit,
and HRM cross-functional fit had a significant and positive relationship with HRM
effectiveness. HRM effectiveness had a significant direct and positive relationship with
performance of the organization.
Nigam, Nongmaithem, Sharma and Tripathi (2011) investigated the relationship between
strategic human resource management (SHRM) and performance in service sectors firms in
India. They explored whether the three main approaches in the area of SHRM – universalistic,
contingency and configurational approaches hold true in an Indian setting. Data were collected
from 25 organizations. Data on organizational effectiveness were collected from respondents
who responded to perceptual measures on quality, quantity, efficiency, flexibility and
adaptability. The study results showed that there is positive relationship between SHRM and
effectiveness, business strategy has an impact on the relationship between SHRM and
effectiveness and there are different configurations of dimensions of SHRM that impact
organizational performance differently in different business strategy options. The configuration
of HR systems and HR capabilities dimensions determine the extent of the impact of SHRM on
effectiveness.
Muduli (2012) performed an in-depth study of Steel Authority of India Limited to
examine the relationships between business strategy and SHRM practices, SHRM practices and
HR outcomes and HR outcomes and organizational performance. Data on performance were
collected using executives’ perceptual responses to three variables consisting of profit
maximization, market leadership, and improved productivity. The study found strong positive
relationship among business strategy, SHRM practices, HR outcome variables and organizational
performance.
Loshali and Krishnan (2013) studied the relationships between transformational
leadership, SHRM, and firm performance using a sample of 121 managers from different
organizations in India. Firm performance was measured through respondents’ subjective

27

 
perception of six parameters – market share growth, sales growth, return on investment, return
on assets, return on sales, and overall performance in comparison to the major competitors of the
organization during the previous year. Results showed that strategic HRM partially mediates the
relationship between transformational leadership and performance.
Muduli (2015) studied the relationships between high-performance work system (HPWS)
and organizational performance and examined the role of human resource development (HRD)
Climate in moderating the relationship between HPWS and the organizational performance in the
context of the power sector of India. The sample comprised employees working in Gujarat Urja
Vikas Nigam Ltd., Gujarat, India. The number of sample respondents selected for the study was
150. The respondents were selected from various units of the company. Power sector executives
were asked to provide perceptual performance data via five-point Likert scales on three variables
for measurement of organizational performance, namely, profit maximization, market leadership,
and improved productivity. HPWS was found to be positively related with organizational
performance. The study provided support for the contention that HPWS influences
organizational performance and the relationship is stronger in the presence of a supportive
development environment (HRD climate) based on openness, confrontation, trust, authenticity,
proaction, autonomy, collaboration and experimentation (OCTAPAC).

Dynamic Capabilities

In highly competitive and rapidly evolving social as well as business environments, firms of
today need capabilities that can enable an organization to purposefully create, extend, or modify
its resource base. Dynamic capabilities are said to be of three main types: organizational
processes for learning, reconfiguration and coordination (Teece, Pisano and Shuen 1997).
Studies have further extended the concept to include a lot of other capabilities like reverse
engineering, manufacturing flexibility (Malik and Kotabe, 2009), etc. In the present section, we
present research studies that have happened in the Indian context examining the linkages
between dynamic capabilities and firm performance.
Khandekar and Sharma (2005) examined the relationship of human resource capability
(HRC) with organizational performance and sustainable competitive advantage in the Indian
organizations. Organizational performance was measured using the managers’ perceptions of
product quality, customer satisfaction, new product development, ability to attract and retain
employees, and relationship between junior and senior levels. Sustainable competitive advantage
was measured using a four-item subjective measure developed by Barney (1991). The study
found significant relationship between HRC and organizational performance and between HRC
and sustainable competitive advantage.
Bhatnagar (2006) analyzed the relationship between organizational performance and
organizational learning capability. The purpose of this research was to measure Organizational
Learning Capability (OLC) perception in the managers of public, private and multinational
organizations and establish the link between OLC and firm performance. Organizational learning

28

 
capability perception for the managers of the IT sector and of multinational firms was the
highest, while it was lowest for the engineering sector. Mixed results were found for the market
indicators of firm performance, i.e. firm’s financial turnover and firm’s profit emerged as
predictors of OLC in Indian organizations, whereas financial turnover was found to be predicting
organizational learning capability. Encouraging results of predicting OLC through firm
performance were found, where a linear relationship was established, through financial turnover.
Khandekar and Sharma (2006) studied the role of organizational learning in influencing
organizational performance. Organizational learning prioritizes the creation and acquisition of
new knowledge, and emphasizes the role of people in the creation and utilization of that
knowledge. Organizational learning can present an important and yet unexplored route to
performance, success and competitive advantage for the organizations. A proxy measure of
organizational learning was used in the study that measured it using items like HR strategies,
training and learning, performance appraisal, rewards and incentives, supportive atmosphere,
teamwork, knowledge creation, quality management and flexibility. Organizational performance
was measured using manager ratings. The findings of the study supported the hypothesis that
organizational learning, which largely gets reflected through HRM practices, has a positive
correlation with organizational performance.
Kamath (2008) studied the relationships between the intellectual capital (IC) components,
namely human, structural, and physical capitals with the traditional measures of performance of
the company, namely profitability, productivity and market valuation. Value added by IC
(VAIC) for top 25 firms in the drug and pharmaceutical industry in India, for a ten-year period
from 1996 to 2006 was estimated. The evaluation was done on the basis of the ranking obtained
by each firm in the VAIC index estimated. The study results found that the domestic firms
performed well and efficiently utilized their IC as seen by the VAIC rankings. Performance was
measured using return on assets, assets turnover ratio (defined as the ratio of the total revenue to
the book value of the firm) and market-to-book ratio (defined as ratio of market capitalization to
book value of the total assets of the firm). The relationships between intellectual capital and
financial performance of the industry were not supported in the empirical analysis.
Malik and Kotabe (2009) developed and tested a model linking three dynamic
capabilities, namely, organizational learning, reverse engineering, and manufacturing flexibility
to firm performance. The study also modeled the roles played by managerial use of two types of
government policies: input supporting policies and marketing supporting policies. The study
tested its hypotheses on a sample of Indian and Pakistani manufacturing firms. Firm performance
was measured using a scale consisting of eight items focusing on the impact of a focal product
technology on creation of new products, improvements in existing products, sales and profit
growth, market share growth, customer satisfaction levels, return on investment, and speed to
market. Managerial self-reports on performance were used as performance information was
closely guarded for reasons of confidentiality. Results showed that organizational learning,
reverse engineering and manufacturing flexibility had significant impacts on firm performance.
Additionally, organizational learning combined with input supporting government policies

29

 
enhanced performance while marketing supporting government policies had an insignificant
influence on performance.
Mondal and Ghosh (2012) investigated the relationship between intellectual capital and
financial performance of 65 Indian banks for a period of ten years from 1999 to 2008. Reserve
Bank of India’s database and the profit and loss accounts and balance sheets of the banks for the
relevant years were used to obtain the data. ROA, return on equity (ROE) and assets turnover
ratio (ATO) were used to measure the profitability and productivity of the banks. The intellectual
capital (human capital and structural capital) and physical capital of selected banks were
analyzed and their impact on corporate performance was measured using multiple regression
technique. The analysis indicated that the relationships between banks’ intellectual capital with
ROA and ATO were positive and significant. However, the data did not support the relationship
between intellectual capital and ROE. The study results showed that all types of banks assets that
is, human, structural and physical capitals were important for enhancing banks’ productivity.
Sony and Naik (2012) investigate the relationships between Six Sigma, organizational
learning and innovation performance. The study examined the mediating role of organizational
learning between Six Sigma and innovation performance, and the moderating effects of
organizational types (public limited company, private limited company, private SMEs) between
six sigma and organizational learning. This study proved that Six Sigma is positively related to
organizational learning and that Six Sigma role structure and Six Sigma focus on metrics
contributes positively to organizational innovation. However, Six Sigma structured improvement
procedure was found to be negatively related to organizational innovation. The study found no
support for the moderating effects of organizational type between Six Sigma and organizational
learning.
Mondal and Ghosh (2013) examined the value relevance of intellectual capital on firm
performance (measured through ROA and Tobin’s q). The study showed that intellectual capital
efficiency of 110 Indian knowledge companies yielded greater profitability. Though most of the
intangible assets are not reported in a company’s financial statement, investors still consider the
invisible value of intellectual capital when evaluating the companies. The study also found that
not every Indian company has a positive value of IC. Some companies even have a negative
intellectual capital value (intellectual liabilities).
Saini (2013) developed a knowledge management (KM) instrument and examined the
relationship between existence of KM practices and organizational performance using
descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling technique. Data on performance was
captured using a 13-item scale developed by the author that asked respondents to provide
perceptual data on organization’s competitive advantage, capture and use of knowledge from
outside sources, sharing or transferring of knowledge with partners/clients, market share,
achievement of strategic objectives, transparency, knowledge reuse, collaborative work,
decision-making, production processes, worker retention and protection from knowledge loss
due to workers’ departure. Data were from SMEs of three industries i.e. software,

30

 
pharmaceutical and textiles in North India. The study confirmed the relationships between
adoption of knowledge management practices and improved organizational performance
Joshi, Chawla and Farooquie (2014) through a combination of qualitative as well as
quantitative research methods identified segments among knowledge management (KM)
practitioners and analysed whether performance varied across these segments. The authors
developed a KM framework that classified practitioners into active, partly active and passive KM
practitioners. The results showed that a significant difference existed in organizational as well as
financial performance between any two cluster pairs. Data on non-financial and financial
performance indicators were obtained from the respondents of organizations from manufacturing
as well as services industry of both public and private sectors. Non-financial measures included
perceptions of enhanced productivity, improved quality of product and services, better utilization
of existing resources, customer expectations, reduced duplication of efforts, etc. Financial
performance indicators included measures like net profit margin, return on assets and return on
capital employed.
Vishnu and Gupta (2014) study the relationship between intellectual capital (IC) and
performance of pharmaceutical firms in India. Data were collected on 22 large pharmaceutical
firms collected for empirical investigation. Return on assets and return on sales were used to
measure organizational performance. IC and its components – human capital, structural capital
and relational capital were modeled as the predictor variables. The authors proposed an extended
and modified Value Added Intellectual Capital (VAIC) model by adding the relational capital
sub-dimension. Multiple regression analysis on the data showed positive relationship between IC
and its components and performance. Relational capital was added as a new variable in the
proposed models but showed no significant relationship with the performance variables. Hence,
irrespective of theoretical support for relational capital, this variable adds little empirical value
over and above human and structural capitals. .
Jain and Moreno (2015) investigated the impact of organizational learning (OL) on the
firm’s performance and knowledge management (KM) practices in a heavy engineering
organization in India. Organizational performance was measured through self-report of 205
middle and senior executives of the project engineering management division on a questionnaire
adapted from Marsick and Watkins (2003) consisting of 12 items. Results were analyzed using
the exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis techniques. The findings showed
that all the factors of OL, i.e. collaboration and team working, performance management,
autonomy and freedom, reward and recognition and achievement orientation were found to be
the positive predictors of different dimensions of firm’s performance and KM practices.

Corporate Governance

Quality of governance has become a critical success factor for survival and a vital source of
competitive advantage for an organization. Dwivedi and Jain (2005) analyzed the impact of
governance parameters like board size, directors’ shareholding, public shareholding, institutional

31

 
and foreign shareholding, on firm performance while controlling for industry effects and other
non-governance variables. Firm performance was measured using Tobin’s Q which is the ratio of
firm’s market value and the book value of its assets. The results of the study provided evidence
that a higher proportion of foreign shareholding is associated with increase in market value of the
firm, while the Indian institutional shareholders’ association was not statistically significant. A
weak positive association was found between board size and firm value. Directors’ shareholding
had a non-linear negative relationship with firm value, while the public shareholding had a linear
negative association. The authors concluded that findings of study are both fragmented and
inconsistent with the existing literature. A country’s financial system and legal provisions
regarding shareholder rights protection may play an important role in moderating or influencing
this relationship. This, according to them, appeared to be the main cause of inconsistency in the
results across countries.
Ghosh (2006) examined the association between financial performance and boards of
non-financial firms. Using data on 127 listed manufacturing firms in India for 2003 the findings
indicated that, after controlling for various firm-specific factors, larger boards had a dampening
influence on firm performance, judged in terms of accounting (RoA and arithmetic average of
ROA, return on sales and return on equity) as well as market-based measures of performance
(adjusted Tobin’s Q – defined as ratio of market value of equity to the book value of debt). The
analysis of impact of remuneration of CEO on performance revealed that CEO compensation has
a significant effect on the performance of the firm. When remuneration was employed for the
market indicator of corporate performance, the impact was no longer significant suggesting that
CEOs tend to be more concerned with the performance-based measures of corporate
performance as compared with market-based measures.
Garg (2007) studied the influence of board size and independence on firm performance.
The measures of firm performance included in the study were: Tobin’s q, ratio of operating
income (EBIT) to assets, ratio of sales to assets, and market-adjusted stock price returns
(MASR). The measure for board independence was taken as the number of independent directors
as a percentage or proportion of total directors. To see the differences between boards with
different independences, the board independence was categorized as follows: category 1 –
proportion of independent directors with respect to total board size was less than one-third;
category 2 – board independence was greater than one-third and less than one-half; category 3 –
board independence was greater than one-half and less than 60 percent; category 4 – board
independence was greater than 60 percent and less than 74 percent and category 5 – board
independence was greater than 74 percent. Board size was measured as total number of directors
on the boards. To the see the impact of different board sizes on firm performance, the boards
were categorized as follows: category 1 – board size was of 3 to 6 members; category 2 – board
size was of 7 to 9 members; category 3 – board size was of 10 to 12 members and category 4 –
board size was more than 12 members. Outside director ownership, firm size, leverage, industry
control, risk, type of company, age, number of outsiders, diversification, and ratio of capital
expenditure over sales were taken as control variables. The study reported an inverse association

32

 
between board size and firm performance (all measures of firm performance) that seemed to be
insensitive to the method of investigation. Analysis of the influence of board sizes on firm
performance revealed that as the boards became larger the value of performance measures
decreased. The results, consistent with agency theory perspectives, showed that when boards get
to be too big, agency problems increase and the board becomes more symbolic and less a part of
the management process. The study recommended limiting the board size to 6. The results for
the influence of board independence on firm performance were mixed with significant positive
coefficient with accounting-based measures of performance (sales/assets and EBIT/assets) as
dependent variables and insignificant with market-based performance measures (Tobins’ Q and
MASR). The study showed that the argument that board independence positively influences firm
performance cannot be accepted. Different proportion of independent directors did not have
identical impact on firm performance. There was no impact on firm performance when the board
independence was less than 33 percent or greater than 74 percent. The results strongly suggested
having board independence between 50 and 60 percent as the category reported higher
coefficients. The impact of board independence on firm performance is less when the board
independence is between 60 and 74 percent. To analyze the reverse relationship of the impact of
firm performance on board size, regressions were run with board size as dependent variable and
different performance measures as explanatory variables. Coefficients with lag values of
performance measures as explanatory variables were estimated to see whether a bad performance
in a particular year led to changes in board size in the next year. The results showed that firm
performance inversely influences board size. The study also showed that firm performance
inversely influences board independence. Firms tend to increase board independence during
times of poor performance possibly due to the pressure exerted by the stakeholders and on the
assumption that adding of independent directors will bring in new expertise. The study also
tested for the endogenous determination of firm performance and board size and for firm
performance and board independence. The study reported that board size and firm performance
are endogenously determined while board independence and firm performance are not
endogenously determined.
Jackling and Johl (2009) investigated the relationship between internal governance
structures and financial performance of Indian companies. The study analyzed the relationships
between board size, frequency of board meetings, proportion of outside directors on the board,
and concentrated leadership structures and firm performance. Performance was measured using
return on assets, and Tobin’s Q. The results using 3SLS estimations showed evidence of a
positive and significant relationship between board composition in terms of outside directors and
financial performance as measured by Tobin’s Q. The notion that powerful CEOs (duality role,
CEO being the promoter, and CEO being the only board manager) have a detrimental effect on
performance was not supported. Larger boards were positively related to firm performance.
Outside directors with multiple appointments were negatively related to performance, suggesting
that “busyness” does not add value to the firm.

33

 
 Sarkar and Sarkar (2009) studied the relationship between multiple directorships and firm
performance for 500 large firms in India. The study used market-to-book value ratio and Tobin’s
Q as measures of company’s market performance and return on assets and net-value-added to
assets as measures of a company's operating performance. The study did not find any negative
relation between multiple directorships of independent directors and company performance. This
was the case even when a majority of independent directors were appointed to as high as eight
directorial positions. Multiple directorships by independent directors correlated positively with
firm value. Independent directors with multiple positions were found to attend more board
meetings and were more likely to be present in a company’s annual general meeting. These
findings supported the “quality hypothesis” that busy outside directors were likely to be better
directors, and the “resource dependency hypothesis” that multiple directors may be better
networked thereby helping the company to establish more linkages with its external
environment. On the contrary, study found a strong positive relation once multiple directorships
crossed a particular threshold. The finding tends to support the view that multiple directorships
can be reflection of the quality of independent directors where the more able directors are
successful in attracting more directorships yet discharge their responsibilities without
compromising on company value. Multiple directorships by inside directors were, however,
negatively related to firm performance. The results suggested that the implications of multiple
directorships of inside directors are very different from those of independent directors. The
results seemed to strengthen the arguments in favor of restricting the number of directorships
held by inside directors.
Using archival data on the top 500 Indian and Chinese firms from multiple data sources
for 2007, Singh and Gaur (2009) examined the relationships between business group affiliation
(defined as affiliation to a group of firms which, though legally independent, are bound together
by a constellation of formal and informal ties and are accustomed to taking coordinated action),
within firm governance and external governance environment and firm performance. The study
examined two aspects of within firm governance – ownership concentration (defined as greater
ownership in the hands of a few owners) and board independence (defined as board members
free from the influence of firm management). The study also examined the moderating role of
firm governance for the business group affiliation-firm performance relationship. Performance
was measured using ROA, return on sales (ROS) and return on equity (ROE). The study found
that group affiliated firms performed worse than unaffiliated firms, and the negative relationship
was stronger in the case of Indian firms than for Chinese firms. Also, ownership concentration
had a positive effect on firm performance, while board independence had a negative effect on
firm performance. Further, group affiliation – firm performance relationship in a given country
context was moderated by ownership concentration but not by board independence.
Kota and Tomar (2010) examined the effect of CEO duality structure (one individual
holding the two most powerful posts on the board of directors, namely those of CEO and
chairman), independent directors on the board, audit committee independence and board size
with the performance of 106 mid-sized firms in India between 2005 and 2007. CEO duality was

34

 
positively related to firm performance. The study found support for a negative relationship
between board size and firm performance. Larger boards negatively affect firm performance. The
firm performance was measured using Tobin’s q which is defined as ratio of market value of a
firm to the replacement cost of its assets.
Kumar and Singh (2012) examined the efficacy of outside directors on the corporate
boards of 157 non-financial Indian companies for the year 2008. Firm performance was
measured using Tobin’s q. The study found that there was a significant negative relationship
between the outside directors and the firm performance. When grey (affiliate outside directors)
and independent director (non-affiliate outside directors) were differentiated, the percentage of
the grey director on board has a significant negative relationship with firm performance, while
independent directors did not have significant but a positive relationship with firm performance.
Promoters’ ownership was positively related to firm performance in all models as investigated in
many prior studies studied. The findings also showed very weak but positive moderating effect
of promoter ownership on grey directors but negative on independent directors. The study
showed that the negative effect of outside directors on the firm value of Indian companies is
mainly due to the grey directors, while independent directors have a positive but insignificant
effect. It may be concluded that market values companies with a greater proportion of
independent directors. However, the promoters who are owners and controllers of Indian
companies negatively impact the performance of independent directors.
Kumar and Singh (2013) examine the effect of corporate governance structure (corporate
board size and promoter ownership) on firm value for 176 Indian companies listed on the
Bombay Stock Exchange using linear regression analysis. Tobin’s Q (defined as market value of
equity plus book value of short-term and long-term debt divided by total assets) was used to
measure performance. Board size was measured as the number of directors on the board of the
firm and promoter holding was measured as the percentage of total equity ownership of promoter
group in the company. Firm age (measured as the logarithm of the number of years since the
establishment of a firm), firm size (measured as the natural logarithm of total assets), firm
leverage (measured as the ratio of long term debt to the total assets) and sales growth (measured
as total sales of the current year minus total sales in the previous year divided by total sales in the
previous year) were modeled as control variables in the analysis. The results showed a negative
relationship of board size with firm value and significant positive association of promoter
ownership with corporate performance. The study suggested that only above a critical ownership
level of 40 percent does promoter’s interest become aligned with that of the company, resulting
in positive effect on firm value.
Jameson, Prevost and Puthenpurackal (2014) examined the prevalence and performance
impact of controlling shareholders and study corporate board structures and ownership structures
in 1796 Indian firms. The study found that controlling shareholder board membership in Indian
firms had a significant negative association with Tobin's q. Similar result was obtained even
when this participation occurs through board membership or designation as CEO. Higher
proportion of independent directors, higher institutional ownership or larger firm size did not

35

 
appear to mitigate this relationship. Overall, board membership of controlling shareholders
seems to be costly for minority shareholders.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies and practices can lead to significant advantages
for business organizations. Pressures from customers, suppliers, employees, communities,
investors, activist organizations and other stakeholders have encouraged companies to adopt or
expand CSR efforts. Research evidence regarding the importance of CSR for performance is
mixed. Mittal, Sinha and Singh (2008) undertook a study to explore some indicative measures of
ethical commitment/corporate responsibility and then to compare them against financial
performance measures. For this research, three indicators were chosen – two of corporate
financial performance (market value added [MVA], economic value added [EVA]), and one of
corporate social responsibility (having a code of ethics). The sample consisted of 50 companies
taken from the SandP CNX Nifty for which full and comparable company data was available for
the years 2001-2005. The research showed that over half of SandP CNX Nifty companies either
produce a sustainability report or have a specific section on their website or in their annual report
covering corporate responsibility. Correlation of CSR with EVA over the five-year period
showed negative correlation in three out of five years and in two years when it showed positive
correlation the figure was very low indicating insignificant correlation. Correlation of CSR with
MVA indicated positive correlation but again the figure was very low to indicate any significant
relationship. Results of regression analysis showed that CSR initiative was not significantly
related to EVA and MVA. There was little evidence that companies with a code of ethics would
generate significantly more economic value added (EVA) and market added value (MVA) than
those without codes.
Mishra and Suar (2010) examined whether CSR towards primary stakeholders influences
the financial and the non-financial performance of Indian firms. Perceptual data on CSR and
non-financial performance were collected from 150 senior-level Indian managers including
CEOs through questionnaire survey. Hard data on financial performance of the companies were
obtained from secondary sources. Findings indicated that stock-listed firms show responsible
business practices and better financial performance than the non-stock-listed firms. Controlling
for confounding effects of stock-listing, ownership, and firm size, a favorable perception of
managers towards CSR was found to be associated with increase in financial performance and
non-financial performance of firms. Such findings held their ground when CSR was assessed for
the six stakeholder groups in aggregate and for each stakeholder group in segregate. Findings
suggested that responsible business practices towards primary stakeholders can be profitable and
beneficial to Indian firms.

36

 
Organizational Culture

Researchers of organizational effectiveness have tried to identify various contextual factors that
can influence individual and organizational efficacy. Biswas, Giri et al. (2007) analyzed the
impact of organizational culture on employee performance and organizational effectiveness. The
study was conducted in 9 organizations of India, four from the manufacturing sector and five
from the service sector. Organizational culture was measured using an instrument developed by
Denison (1990) which consisted of four dimensions namely involvement, consistency,
adaptability and mission. Organizational effectiveness was measured using scale developed by
Mott (1972). Scores on organizational effectiveness were obtained through managerial self-
reports. The results found support for a positive relationship between organizational culture and
organizational effectiveness as had been hypothesized. Culture, being an organization-level
construct, was found to have a significant influence on individual as well as firm-level criteria,
namely, employee performance and organizational effectiveness.
Singh et al. (2006) and Singh (2012) studied the impact of organizational culture on
organizational competitiveness. They used an adapted version of Denison and Neale’s (1996)
Denison organizational culture survey which consists of 12 dimensions, namely, empowerment,
team orientation, capability development, core values, agreement, coordination and integration,
creating change, customer focus, organizational learning, strategic direction and intent, goals and
objectives and vision. The results revealed that strategic direction and intent, and core values
were significant positive predictors of competitiveness in people, quality, adaptability and
governance areas. Goals and core values emerged as positive predictors of competitiveness in
financials and core values again emerged as significant predictor of competitiveness in social
responsibility area. In terms of relative importance, mission (comprising of strategic direction
and intent, goals and objectives and vision sub-dimensions) emerged as the most important
dimension of organizational culture followed by consistency and adaptability (comprising of
core values, agreement and coordination and integration sub-dimensions) in predicting various
dimensions of competitiveness.
Kumar and Singh (2009) and Singh and Kumar (2009) studied the impact of HR policies,
firm strategies, and organizational culture on firm level competitiveness. They performed survey
based studies in two large public sector companies in India, namely, National Thermal Power
Corporation (NTPC) and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The study results showed the
presence of fully mediated relationships between HR policies and firm competitiveness by
organizational culture. The studies showed that progressive HR policies lead to between culture
formation that, in turn, results in higher readiness to compete and greater competitiveness.

Strategic Orientation

Kaul (2003) investigated the diversification trend in pre-liberalization phase in India and the
impact of diversification on firm performance. The paper developed a framework suggesting that

37

 
the decision to diversify is influenced by four factors, namely, environmental, organizational,
performance and ownership. These factors influence the deployment of resources over a period
thereby creating ‘specific assets’ that determine the extent of diversification. The environmental
factors like the rate of industrial growth and the level of industry concentration encourage the use
of enterprise’s specific assets. The organizational variables such as top management attitudes,
size of enterprise, age, etc., will determine the extent to which and enterprise shall use the
specific assets within environmental constraints. Past performance representing organizational
slack also motivate and constrain the management’s willingness to undertake diversification
because this determines the availability of resources to be allocated and invested over a period.
Two measures of product-market diversity – one quantitative and another qualitative were used
in the study. The quantitative measure was represented by percent entropy measure of
diversification developed by Jacquemin and Berry (1979) and qualitative measure was suggested
by Wrigley (1970). The performance was measured by cash flow and ROA, return on equity
(ROE), and growth of sales (GRS). The results of the study indicated that enterprises in India in
the pre-liberalization period were dominated by single and dominant business categories, they
have moved from specialization (single product market) to diversification and performance-wise
and specialized enterprises are found to be far ahead of diversified enterprises in terms of ROA
and GRS. The trend was from single business to unrelated business. Specialized enterprises were
found to be ahead of diversified enterprises in terms of ROA and GRS. However, in terms of
ROE, the performance of diversified and specialized enterprises did not vary. The impact of
diversification strategies along with variables like industry, foreign equity on firms’ performance
was measured through multiple regression method. The results suggested that corporate strategy
and its relationship with performance cannot be understood merely by relating diversification
level to ROA. Controlling for industry, foreign equity and firm-specific variables (RandD
intensity, advertising intensity, inventory intensity, export intensity, age, size, vertical
integration, and capital intensity), the diversification categories did not emerge as significant
variables in explaining ROA, ROE and GRS. However, in combination with other variables their
contribution in determining and explain ROA was significant. Diversification does not have
significant direct impact on ROA. Rather, its impact on performance depends on complex
interaction between diversification strategy, corporate capabilities and resource and external
environment. The study also confirmed the view that corporate strategy is not only product-
market diversification, but also the industry and deployment of resource. Thus, entrepreneurs
should decide the industry in which they want to enter, and then deploy resources over time.
Depending on the base industry and deployment of resource they can decide to diversify. The
study results showed the importance of considering control variables. Inclusion of control
variables can alter the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. Industry and sector (private-
public) specific studies are required to separate out the incremental impact of antecedent
variables on organizational performance.
Sathye (2005) studied the impact of privatization on performance of Indian banks. The
financial performance of the banks was measured using standard measures like ROA, spread to

38

 
working funds ratio, establishment expenses to total expenses ratio, loan out ratio, and non-
performing assets to net advances ratio. Efficiency of the banks was measured using accounting
ratios such as deposits per employee, advances per employee and net profit per employee. The
study results showed that financial performance of partially privatized banks (measured by return
on assets) and their efficiency (measured by three different ratios) were significantly higher than
that of fully public banks. In the matter of quality of advances (measured by ratio of non-
performing assets to net advances) significant difference was not found in these two groups
(public-sector and private-sector banks). The partially privatized banks seemed to be catching up
with the banks already in the private sector. No significant performance or efficiency difference
was seen in these two cohorts of banks. Overall, the study showed that partially privatized banks
have continued to show improved performance and efficiency in the years after privatization.
Kumar and Singh (2006) studied the influence of organizational culture, HR policy and
different business strategies on the competitiveness of a large nationalized bank in India. Porter
(1996) proposed three strategies to achieve competitive advantage, namely, innovation, quality
enhancement and cost reduction. Strategy variables of the bank were included in the model to
tests its effect on organizational competitiveness. Competitiveness was measured using scale
developed by Khandwalla (2003). The items measured three dimensions of competitiveness:
quality efficiency and governance, economic efficiency and social responsibility. Modified
version of organizational culture scale developed by Denison et al. (2006) was used to measure
organizational culture. Scale developed by Pfeffer (1994) was used to measure HR policies in the
bank. Organizational strategies were measured using a scale adapted from Khandwalla (2003).
Capability development, strategy development and intention and customer focus showed
statistically significant effect on quality efficiency and governance dimensions of
competitiveness. Of the HR policy variables, egalitarian and meritocracy policy emerged as
significant positive contributor towards competitiveness. Among the strategy variables, product
development and differentiation were found to have the strongest effect on the quality, efficiency
and governance dimension of competitiveness. Three variables one each from organizational
culture, HR policy and strategy, had statistically significant effects on the economic efficiency of
competitiveness. Change orientation dimension of organizational culture, compensation policy
and product development and differentiation strategies influenced economic efficiency
positively. Four variables – one from organizational culture (core values), two from HR policy
(promotion policy and selection policy), and one from strategy (expansion) – were found to have
statistically significant effects on the social responsibility dimension of competitiveness. The
overall competitiveness of the bank was perceived to be significantly influenced by two
organizational culture variables: capability development and organizational learning; two HR
policy variables: compensation and long-term HR policy perspective; and two strategy variables:
product development and differentiation and expansion policies.
Jain and Bhatia (2007) studied the relationship between market orientation and business
performance of manufacturing firms in India. Market orientation is defined as being constantly
vigilant of market developments and responsive to changing customers’ needs and wants, thus

39

 
building a solid base for withstanding market challenges. Both financial and non-financial
measures of performance were included. Market orientation consisted of intelligence generation,
intelligence dissemination and responsiveness dimensions. Market intelligence generation is
about collecting information and developing an understanding of the target market through
formal and informal information systems. Effective communication of market intelligence
throughout the firm is called as intelligence dissemination. Designing and implementing a
response constitutes the responsiveness of the firm. Business performance was ascertained
through the use of three sets of measures, viz., financial, non-financial and overall business
performance measures. For measuring financial performance, respondents were asked to report
their perceptions about their organizations’ performance during the last five years in respect of
sales growth, market share and profitability/ROI. Measures of non-financial performance
included employee commitment, esprit de corps, product quality, new product success, and
competitiveness. Firm’s overall performance was measured through respondents’ opinion about
the organization’s performance in comparison to its major competitors over the past three years.
The study results showed that the market orientation adds to the efficiency of deploying skills
and resources in carrying out business operations, thus leading to enhanced financial and overall
performance. The study also showed a significant positive relationship between market
orientation and non-financial performance measured in terms of team spirit, commitment of
employees, product quality, new product success, improved competitiveness and high customer
satisfaction. Results of moderator analysis showed that market orientation continues to remain a
significant and major contributor to the business performance under both “high” and “low”
external environmental conditions. The study suggested that adopting a market orientation
strategy can improve business performance under varying market condition.
Gaur and Kumar (2009) investigated how group affiliation interacts with the degree of
internationalization (DOI) to affect firm performance. The study found strong support for a
positive relationship between DOI and firm performance. The authors had hypothesized an initial
negative relationship between DOI and performance as had been reported by some scholars for
the USA and for Japanese firms. The significant square term of DOI suggested that improvement
in firm performance was more at a higher level of DOI. The significant coefficients for some of
the industry fixed effects suggested that the shape of the performance curve may depend on the
level of internationalization of the various subsectors within the broad manufacturing and
services sector. If many firms in a subsector are in the early and growth stages of
internationalization, then the shape of the statistically fitted curve could be U-shaped, as had
been hypothesized by the authors. If almost all firms in a subsector are in the early stage of
internationalization, the shape of the fitted curve will simply be a downward sloping linear curve.
By contrast, subsectors that are mainly in their growth stage, and include a number of relatively
large internationalized companies, will have an upward sloping linear curve. Business groups are
defined as ‘a set of firms which, though legally independent, are bound together by a
constellation of formal and informal ties, and are accustomed to taking coordinated action’
(Khanna and Rivkin 2001, pp. 47-48). The study found a significant moderating role of business

40

 
group affiliation on the firm performance relationship showing that as the degree of
internationalization increases, affiliation to a business group becomes detrimental for firm
performance. The study used return on sales (ROS) and ROA as the measures of firm
performance in the study. DOI was measured by the ratio of foreign sales to total sales and group
affiliation by an indicator variable which took a value of one if the firm was affiliated to a
business group and zero otherwise.
Kumar and Singh (2009) and Singh and Kumar (2009) studied the impact of firm
strategies on firm level competitiveness. They performed survey based studies in two large
public sector companies in India, namely, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) and
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Firm strategy was measured using a 15-item modified
scale of Khandwalla (2003). Culture was measured using a 60-item scale of Denison et al.
(2006). The study results showed the presence of fully mediated relationships between firm
strategy and firm competitiveness by organizational culture. The studies showed that firm’s
strategies lead to culture formation that, in turn, results in higher readiness to compete and
greater competitiveness.
Gaur, Vasudevan and Gaur (2011) collected data through intensive surveys of the CEOs
or top managers of small and medium-sized enterprises in India and investigated the link
between market orientation and manufacturing performance for small and medium enterprises in
India. Manufacturing performance was measured by using four items relating to cost, quality,
delivery, and flexibility. The study found a positive link between two sub-dimensions of market
orientation – customer orientation and inter-functional coordination – and manufacturing
performance. Competitor orientation, however, did not have a positive impact on manufacturing
performance. Further, the paper found that firm resources and competitive intensity moderate the
relationship between customer orientation and manufacturing performance.
Jain (2012) examined the relationship between organizational size and alliance formation
with organizational performance. Study was based on data collected from 250 middle level
executives of two-wheeler manufacturing organizations located in northern part of India.
Organizational performance was measured using a perceptual measure consisting of four
dimensions, namely, profit orientation and growth orientation, resource acquisition orientation;
perceived overall organizational performance and human resource acquisition related
organizational performance. Data on employee morale and turnover intentions were also
collected. The results showed that collaborated small organizations were high on the mean of
profit and growth related organizational performance, perceived overall organizational
performance and human resources acquisition related organizational performance compared to
collaborated large, non-collaborated large and non-collaborated small organizations. Large
collaborated firms, non-collaborated small and non-collaborated large firms too were not found
as effective. The study showed that small size is more effective compared to large ones under
unstable market conditions and alliance formation may benefit smaller firms much more that
larger firms. Thus, the study demonstrated interaction between organizational size and alliance
formation strategy.

41

 
 Gupta and Batra (2015) examined the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
(EO) and firm performance using data collected from small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) located in Punjab, India. EO is defined as the degree to which a firm’s strategic posture
reflects entrepreneurial practices and behaviors (Anderson et al., 2009; Zahra et al., 2014). EO is
based on the idea that specific management philosophies and strategy-making processes enable
the organization to combined and embed knowledge in new products, processes, and operational
activities (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005). Environmental contingencies – demand growth and
competitive intensity – were theorized to have a moderating influence on the EO–performance
relationship. Demand growth refers to rate of increase in customer needs and preferences (Russo
and Fouts, 1997) and competitive intensity is defined as the degree of competition that a firm
faces in its primary markets (Auh and Menguc, 2005).
EO was operationalized as a one-dimensional construct and measured using a seven-item
instrument. Competitive intensity was measured using a two-item scale and demand growth
using a three-item scale. Firm performance was measured using a multi-dimensional
conceptualization comprising of market share, profitability, productivity, and customer
satisfaction. Findings indicated that EO had an overall positive effect on firm performance. The
study also provided support for the predictions that demand growth and competitive intensity
moderate the EO–performance linkage. Results indicated that the relationship between EO and
firm performance is stronger in SMEs when demand growth is higher, while the association
between EO and performance weakens when competitive intensity is high.

SUMMARY, GAPS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary of Studies on Organizational Performance

The present review has covered research conducted on the topic of organizational performance
over the last few years (2003-2015). While the authors have made their best attempt to cover all
relevant studies that have been conducted and/or published during 2003-2015 on organizational
performance, it is possible that some studies may have escaped our attention. We offer our
sincerest apologies for the omission and accept full responsibility for it.
Organizational performance is not determined by any one variable. Rather, it is a
systemic phenomenon that is affected by multiple variables like firm size, employee
commitment, motivation, structure, culture of the organization, strategy adopted, HRM practices
instituted, the top management team, decision making processes, conflict resolution strategies
followed, and many others. Not only is the performance affected by individual variables but also
by the interaction amongst them. Presented below is a summary of the studies reviewed in this
chapter. We also pen down the observations that we have made while writing this review.

42

 
Summary of Individual-level Studies

The studies reported in the survey have tested the impact of individual level variables on
employee and organizational performance in service context. In a services context (e.g. BPOs,
banks, call centers), employee performance has a very direct implication on organizational
performance. For example, the number of calls correctly handled, an indicator of employee
performance, determines the business that that particular BPO is going to get. Employee
performance measures like deposits and advances can be used as indicators of organizational
performance as it is through these basic operations that the bank generates surpluses and profits.
Employee net sales per month are likely to have a direct implication on organizational
performance. Employee net sale per month is likely to have a direct implication on
organizational performance. The results of these studies can, therefore, be extended to
organizational performance and it can be said that the employees’ individual-level variables are
likely to have a positive bearing on organizational performance. Given that performance is an
organization-level construct, the small number of studies testing the impact of individual-level
variables on organizational performance also suggests a lack of multi-level analysis in
performance research. The responses obtained from the employee should be aggregated at
organization level and their relationship with objective measures of organization-level
performance be analyzed. Only when this is done will we have a conclusive support for the
contention that improved employee performance translates into organizational performance.

Given below is a summary of individual-level studies:

1. There is a positive relationship between employees’ organizational commitment and
organizational performance. Piercy et al. (2011) have found evidence for a positive
relationship between salesforce commitment and effectiveness. While the study based its
conclusion on manager’s perception of both employee commitment and firm effectiveness,
the existence of the relationship is both intuitive and based on theory. Future studies may do
well do explore this using objective measures of performance/effectiveness.
2. The survey presents evidence that positive psychological capacity like hope has a positive
influence on employee performance in the services context (Combs et al. 2010). The study
results can be extended to organizational performance and it can be said that the employees’
psychological capacities are likely to have a positive bearing on organizational performance.
3. There is some evidence that achievement motivation is positively related to employee
performance (Kunnanatt 2008). The impact of motivation on organization-level performance
needs to be tested explicitly.
4. Organizational Identification has been found to contribute to employee performance
measured as net sales per month (Das et al. 2008). National identity is negatively related to
employee performance and has been found to moderate the relationship between
organizational identification and work performance. Employee net sale per month is likely to
have a direct implication on organizational performance. This may be more evident in a

43

 
 service sector where customer-employee interaction is high. Thus, the results of the study can
be used as a preliminary evidence for a positive significant relationship between
identification and organizational performance.
5. Customer orientation is positively related to customer perceptions of service quality and their
satisfaction, treated as proxy measures of organizational performance (Siddiqi and Sahaf
2009). There is need to test the impact of customer orientation explicitly on organizational
performance measures. The preliminary results, however, suggest a positive relationship
between the two. The review also showed that the relationship between customer and
organizational performance also holds good for small and medium enterprises (Gaur,
Vasudevan and Gaur, 2011).
6. There is limited evidence that conflict resolution strategies of managers can positively impact
organizational effectiveness (Samantara 2004). Problem solving strategy has been found to
be superior in enhancing organizational effectiveness.
7. Drawing on the rich Indian tradition of spirituality, there is some evidence for the positive
relationship between managers’ spiritual makeup and organizational effectiveness
(Chakraborty and Chakraborty 2006). ‘Nishkama Karma’ or detached involvement’ is found
to positively impact organizational efficiency and ethical work performance of employees.

Summary of Organization-level Studies

8. Organizational culture is found to be positively related to organizational performance

(Biswas, Giri et al. 2007; Kumar and Singh 2009; Singh and Kumar 2009). While culture and
performance are organization-level variables, the relationships between the two have been
tested at individual level of analysis. In other words, the study reports that positive
organizational culture is positively related to employee perceptions of organizational
effectiveness. It is required that the relationship is tested at organization-level of analysis and
also using objective measures of organizational performance.
9. There is mixed evidence about the impact of structure on organizational performance.
Formalization has been found to be positively associated with perceptions of organizational
effectiveness (Prakash and Gupta 2007; Santra and Giri 2008). Vertical and horizontal
complexity has been documented by Prakash and Gupta (2007) to be positively related to
perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Centralization was found to be positively
associated with perceptions of organizational effectiveness in one study (Santra and Giri
2008) while in another study, centralization (Prakash and Gupta 2007) was negatively
associated to organizational effectiveness. Participation in decision making and
decentralization were found to be essential for enhanced performance. Garud et al. (2006) in
a case study on Infosys mentioned the importance of ‘emergent’ organizational design that
can quickly adapt to the changing environmental dynamics. They emphasized the need for
flexible, modular organizational structure that has less of vertical and horizontal complexity.
Piercy et al. (2011) showed a positive relationship between sales unit design and sales

44

 
 organization effectiveness for the Indian firms. Sharda and Chatterjee (2011) examined the
configurations (inter-organizational networks) of organizations and showed that the way
work designs, strategic orientations, client relations and contexts, and their relationships are
configured have a significant relationship with firm performance. Overall, the set of studies
that have happened on organizational structure have failed to provide a clear picture of the
design elements needs to enhance organizational performance. The empirical studies (e.g.
Piercy et al., 2011; Prakash and Gupta 2007; Santra and Giri 2008; Sharda and Chatterjee,
2011) have adopted a cross-sectional study design which does not provide any information
on causality. Also, the studies lack methodological rigor that is the hallmark of any good
study. Much more work is needed on this topic to establish clearly the design elements
necessary for greater organizational performance.
10. Organizational communication is found to be positively related to perceptions of
organizational effectiveness (Biswas, Giri et al. 2007). An effective communication system
builds not only a sense of communality of purpose, but also helps in keeping employees
aware of environmental realities, thereby contributing on enhance organizational
performance. There is need to test the relationship at organization level of analysis.
11. There is no definite evidence that firm size has an influence on organizational performance
(Vijaykumar and Sridevi 2010). Study testing the impact of firm size on organizational
performance failed to provide definite information on the relationship between firm size and
performance. While firm size had positive relationship with performance for commercial
vehicles and passenger cars and multi-utility vehicles segments of Indian automobile
industry, it had negative relationship with two and three wheelers segment. Future studies are
needed to provide evidence about the directionality of the relationship.
12. CEO personality has been found to impact organizational performance positively (Nadkarni
and Herrmann 2010). CEO personality traits enhance firm’s strategic flexibility which, in
turn, influences firm performance.
13. There is some evidence that CEO compensation has a positive impact on firm performance
which, in turn, has a positive influence on CEO compensation (Ghosh 2010). CEO
compensation has become an important and strategic decision for the present day
management. It is important for present day management to pay careful attention to this
aspect when planning for high performance. Lahiri et al. (2012) showed that organizations
having higher top management capability have a stronger resource (human capital,
organizational capital, partnership quality) – performance relationship.
14. The link between firm’s HRM practices and its performance has received the greatest
attention from the academic community. The number of studies conducted on this topic far
exceeds the number on any other topic. There is growing evidence that certain types of HRM
practices positively influence organizational performance (Paul and Anatharaman 2003;
Singh 2004; Björkman and Budhwar 2007; Chand and Katou 2007; Singh et al. 2008;
Dhiman 2009; Chand 2010). The results have been found to be consistent in cross-industry
studies (e.g., Singh 2004), and in sector specific studies (e.g., Chand and Katou 2007;

45

 
 Muduli, 2012, 2015; Priyadarshini and Venkatapathy, 2005). While there is broad agreement
that HRM practices do influence organizational performance, the set of practices that should
be adopted by an organizations is open to conjecture. Researchers have provided a broad list
of HR practices consisting of multi-skilling, harmonized terms and conditions, formal
manpower planning, career planning, flexible job description, cross-cultural job design,
formal system of induction, need-based training and development criteria, production/service
staff responsible for their service, regular use of attitudes surveys, social appreciation and
recognition, staff informed about market condition and company performance (Chand and
Katou 2007), training, career planning, employee participation, and compensation (Singh
2004), selection, induction, training, job design, work environment, performance appraisal,
compensation, career development, and incentives (Paul and Anantharaman 2003). There is
need for researchers to conduct a review of studies on HRM practices and identify a set of
practices that have potential to significantly impact performance of Indian organizations.
Moreover, all the studies testing HRM-performance relationship have used subjective
(perceptual) measure of organizational performance. There is no study testing the impact of
HRM practices on objective measures of organizational performance.
15. There is evidence that sector specific differences can influence the HRM practices-
performance relationship. Chand and Katou (2007) found support for HRM practices that
were different from those found in other studies like Singh (2004). Stumpf et al. (2010)
found a stronger relationship between performance management and employee career
success in service firms than in manufacturing or IT. Professional development was more
strongly related to performance in manufacturing and service firms than in IT firms (Stumpf
et al. 2010). Priyadarshini and Venkatapathy (2005) showed that high and low performing
banks differ significantly in the HRD subsystems. Studies (Priyadarshini and Venkatapathy,
2005; Stumpf et al., 2010) have also suggested that industry and ownership types can
moderate the relationship between specific HRM practices and organizational performance.
16. Individual level outcome variables have been found to mediate the relationship between
HRM practices and organizational performance (Paul and Anantharaman 2003; Biswas,
Srivastava et al. 2007). Employee outcome variables like competence, teamwork,
commitment and customer orientation have been studied as process variables that explain the
impact of HRM practices on perceptions of organizational performance (Paul and
Anatharaman 2003). OCB, job involvement and job satisfaction have also been found to
mediate the relationship between perceptions of HR practices and perceptions of
organizational performance.
17. There is evidence that adaptation of HRM practices to the national culture of the country in
which a firm is operating has a positive impact on perception of organizational performance
(Björkman and Budhwar 2007). Adopting HRM practices seen as appropriate in the local
context may enhance the firm’s external legitimacy, increase the commitment of host country
employees, and may translate into HRM practices likely to be compatible with societal
norms.

46

 
18. There is mixed evidence of the impact of ESOPs on employee performance (Kumar 2004;
Dhiman 2009). ESOP scheme has been found to be ineffective in improving productivity
performance in short duration. It may be statistically significant in long periods i.e. five to six
years after the implementation of employee stock option program. The study shows that
organizations should have realistic expectations about improvement in performance that will
be achieved through ESOP scheme. They should not expect immediate returns from the
scheme.
19. There is evidence that group incentives are positively related to organizational performance
(Dixit and Pal 2010).
20. Devolution of HR responsibilities to line managers has been found to positively related to
organizational performance (Azmi 2010). The results of the study support the claim of
researchers that devolution of HRM in India has similar implications as found in most
researches abroad.
21. HR flexibility has been found to mediate the relationship between environment dynamism
and firm performance (Ketkar and Sett 2009, 2010). HR flexibility is a multi-dimensional
construct and evidence indicates that HR flexibility mediates the influence of environmental
dynamism on firm performance. The HR system directly impacts firm-level employee
performance: employee performance mediates its impact on operational performance, which
in turn mediates the impact of employee performance on financial outcomes of the firm.
22. Dynamic capabilities are positively related to firm performance. Human resource capability,
organizational learning capability, manufacturing flexibility, reverse engineering, and
knowledge management have been shown to be positively related to firm performance
(Khandekar and Sharma 2005, 2006; Bhatnagar 2006; Malik and Kotabe 2009; Sony and
Naik 2012; Saini 2013; Joshi et al. 2014; Jain and Moreno 2015). Organizational learning
capability of an organization has been argued to be largely exhibited in terms of the HRM
practices (HR strategies, training and learning, performance appraisal, rewards and
incentives, supportive atmosphere, teamwork, knowledge creation, quality management and
flexibility) that are adopted by the organization (Khandekar and Sharma 2006) which, in
turn, have a positive impact on organizational performance.
23. Impact of intellectual capital on firm performance has found mixed evidence in the literature.
While Kamath (2008) found no relationship between intellectual capital and firm
performance, Mondal and Ghosh (2012, 2013) and Vishnu and Gupta (2014) found positive
relationship between intellectual capital and firm performance.
24. After HRM systems and practices, the review found that corporate governance was the
second most widely researched topic for its influence on organizational performance. There
is mixed and fragmented evidence about how corporate governance issues impact
organizational performance (Dwivedi and Jain 2005; Garg 2007). Board size has been found
to be negatively related to organizational performance (Ghosh 2006; Garg 2007) while in
other studies it was found to have a positive association (Dwivedi and Jain 2005; Jackling
and Johl 2009). Results testing the influence of board independence on firm performance

47

 
 were mixed with significant positive association with accounting-based measures of
performance and non-significant association with market-based performance measures (Garg
2007). There is a reverse relationship reported between firm performance and board size and
between firm performance and board independence. Firm performance has been found to
inversely affect both board size and independence (Garg 2007). Contrary to the findings in
other countries, Dwivedi and Jain (2005) reported that directors’ shareholding had a non-
linear negative relationship with firm value, while the public shareholding had a linear
negative association. Higher proportion of foreign shareholding is associated with increase in
market value of the firm, while the Indian institutional shareholders’ association was not
statistically significant. The results of the study are inconsistent with the findings in the
literature and are counter-intuitive. Dwivedi and Jain (2005) contend that a country’s
financial system and legal provisions regarding shareholder rights protection may play an
important role in moderating this relationship.
25. Powerful CEOs (duality role - CEO being the promoter, and CEO being the only board
manager) have a detrimental effect on performance was not supported (Jackling and Johl
2009). On the contrary, Kota and Tomar (2010) found that CEO duality was positively
related to firm performance. Multiple directorships by inside directors were, however,
negatively related to firm performance (Sarkar and Sarkar 2009). While Sarkar and Sarkar
(2009) did not find any negative relation between multiple directorships of independent
directors and company performance, Jackling and Johl (2009) found that outside directors
with multiple appointments were negatively related to performance.
26. Singh and Gaur (2009) found that ownership concentration had a positive effect on firm
performance, while board independence had a negative effect on firm performance.
However, Kumar and Singh (2012) found that independent director (non-affiliate outside
directors) have a positive relationship with firm performance. They also concluded that
market values companies with a greater proportion of independent directors.
27. The study found that group affiliated firms performed worse than unaffiliated firms, and the
negative relationship was stronger in the case of Indian firms than for Chinese firms. Also,
ownership concentration had a positive effect on firm performance, while board
independence had a negative effect on firm performance. Further, group affiliation – firm
performance relationship in a given country context was moderated by ownership
concentration but not by board independence (Singh and Gaur 2009).
28. There is mixed evidence that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) measures impact
organizational performance. Mittal et al. (2008) analyzed the impact of having codes of
ethics/conduct/principles listed in a firm’s annual reports and their firm performance. The
study found little evidence that companies with a code of ethics would generate significantly
more EVA and MVA than those without codes. In another study on CSR, Mishra and Suar
(2010) examined whether CSR towards primary stakeholders influences the financial (FP)
and the non-financial performance (NFP) of Indian firms. The study found that CSR is

48

 
 associated with increase in FP and NFP of firms. Findings suggested that responsible
business practices can be profitable and beneficial to Indian firms.
29. There has been significant amount of work that has happened on the relationship between
strategic human resource management and firm performance. Strategic alignment of HR
policies and practices with business strategy has been shown to be important for
organizational competitiveness and enhanced organizational performance (Singh 2003;
Kumar and Singh 2006; Azmi 2011; Nigam et al. 2011; Muduli 2012, 2015). Different HR
practices for different business strategies will be needed in order to positively influence
organizational performance. Egalitarian and meritocracy HR policy along with product
development and differentiation strategies were found to have the strongest effect on the
quality, efficiency and governance dimension of competitiveness; compensation policy and
product development and differentiation strategies were found to be influencing economic
efficiency positively; promotion policy and selection policy along with expansion strategy
were found to have statistically significant effects on the social responsibility dimension of
competitiveness; and the overall competitiveness of firm was influenced by compensation
and long-term HR policy perspective when used along with product development and
differentiation and expansion strategies.
30. Organization’s HR philosophy is related to firm performance (Kasturi et al. 2006). The
philosophy that employees are part owners and should have a share in the profits is positively
related to profit while employee as decision makers and employee as tools were negatively
related to productivity.
31. Studies have shown that strategic alignment of HRM function is influenced by the leadership
existing in the organization (Loshali and Krishnan 2013). Transformational leaders are much
more likely to achieve strategic fit between organizational and HR strategies.
32. There is limited evidence that privatization strategy has a positive influence on organizational
performance (Sathye 2005). The financial performance of partially privatized banks and their
efficiency were significantly higher than that of fully public banks. Partially privatized banks
also seem to be catching up with the banks already in the private sector. Overall, the study
results have shown that privatization can lead to improved performance and efficiency even
in the years after privatization.
33. Market orientation strategy has been found to add to the efficiency of deploying skills and
resources in carrying out business operations, thus leading to enhanced financial and overall
performance (Jain and Bhatia 2007). A significant positive relationship between market
orientation and non-financial performance measures in terms of team spirit, commitment of
employees, product quality, new product success, improved competitiveness and high
customer satisfaction (Jain and Bhatia 2007).
34. Internationalization and alliance formation were positively related to firm performance (Gaur
and Kumar 2009; Jain 2012). The authors also suggested that the actual relationship depends
on the level of internationalization of the various subsectors within the broad sector. If many
firms in a subsector are in the early and growth stages of internationalization, then the degree

49

 
 of internationalization-firm performance relationship will follow a U-shaped curve (decrease
initially and then pick up after certain degree of internationalization is reached).
35. Entrepreneurial orientation of leaders and top management is positively related to firm
performance (Gupta and Batra 2015). The relationship is stronger when the demand growth
is high and is weaker when the intensity of competition is high.

Gaps, Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Promising work has been done in the period 2003-2015 on organizational performance.
Researchers have tested the relationship between individual-level antecedent variables and
organizational performance and between organization-level antecedent variables and
organizational performance. Tables 2 and 3 provide a break-up of the studies surveyed in this
chapter. Table 2 provides a description of the measures used in the studies while Table 3
provides a description of research designs (longitudinal/cross-sectional) adopted in these studies.

Table 2. Break-up of Measures used in Studies Surveyed

Total
Type of Measure Used Number of Studies
Studies
Subjective measures: 49
By OB/HRM researchers: 41
Organization-level of analysis 37
Individual-level of analysis 4
By Non-OB/Non-HRM researchers: 8
Organization-level of analysis 8
Individual-level of analysis 0
Objective measures: 34
By OB/HRM researchers: 9
Organization-level of analysis 6
Individual-level of analysis 3
By Non-OB/Non-HRM researchers: 25
Organization-level of analysis 25
Individual-level of analysis 0
TOTAL STUDIES SURVEYED 83

50

 
 Table 3. Break-up of Research Designs used in Studies Surveyed
Total
Type of Research Design Used Number of Studies
Studies
Longitudinal: 15
By OB/HRM researchers: 6
Organization-level of analysis 4
Individual-level of analysis 2
By Non-OB/Non-HRM researchers: 9
Organization-level of analysis 9
Individual-level of analysis 0
Cross-sectional: 64
By OB/HRM researchers: 41
Organization-level of analysis 37
Individual-level of analysis 4
By Non-OB/Non-HRM researchers: 23
Organization-level of analysis 23
Individual-level of analysis 0
TOTAL STUDIES SURVEYEDa 79
a –Four studies used both subjective and objective measures of performance and
therefore were counted twice in Table 2. Therefore, the mismatch of 4 in ‘total studies
surveyed’ in Table 2 and Table 3.

We highlight some major gaps, limitations of research and directions for future research
below. The gaps and limitations listed below should guide researchers in better formulating their
research questions and research methodology.
1. There have been very few studies that have tested relationship between individual-level
antecedent variables and individual-level employee performance. Table 2 shows that only 7
studies (4 with subjective performance measures and 3 with objective performance measures)
have happened at the individual level of analysis. There is a strong need for greater number
of individual-level studies that test the impact of individual-level antecedent variables on
employee performance. Moreover, there is a need to extend the results obtained in
individual-level of analysis studies and test whether enhanced performance of employees
translates into higher organizational performance. Given that performance is an organization-
level construct, the small number of studies suggests a lack of multi-level analysis in
performance research. Studies on employee performance contend that individual level
performance will translate into organizational performance (especially in a service sector
context like call centers, BPO, banks etc). It is, therefore, essential that the relationship
between individual level constructs and organization level performance be tested. The
responses obtained from the employee should be aggregated at organization level and their
relationship with objective measures of organization-level performance be analyzed. Only
when this is done will we have a conclusive support for the contention that improved
employee performance translates into organizational performance.

51

 
2. Most of OB studies have used only perceptual measures of organizational performance.
Table 2 shows that more than half of the studies on organizational performance have used
subjective measures of performance. OB researchers are the major contributors to this trend.
Out of 49 studies that used subjective measures of performance, 41 studies were done by
OB/HRM researchers. Non-OB/non-HRM researchers (i.e. researchers working in the area of
economics, strategic management, finance, marketing) have used objective measures of
performance in most of their studies. The trend is quite disturbing. This suggests that our area
is lacking in a serious attempt to understand how organizational performance is affected. We
are perhaps looking for simple solutions to complex problems! Perceptual data has serious
limitations. Researchers often treat variables like service quality perception, organizational
commitment and customer satisfaction synonymous to organization performance. However,
the objective link between the individual level variables and actual objective measures of
organizational performance is rarely demonstrated. Subjective measures are affected by
individual biases and there is no surety of the authenticity of the response obtained. A
respondent may mark favorably on perceptual measures of performance in order to boost
his/her or his/her organization’s image. Customer questionnaires can be distributed to
satisfied customers thereby introducing bias into the study results. Researchers must make
use of not only subjective measures but also other measures of organizational performance
like profitability, return on investment (ROI), corporate image, customer retention etc.
3. Table 3 shows that about 80 percent of the studies on organizational performance have
adopted a cross-sectional research design. Inferences about causality cannot be conclusively
established in cross-sectional studies. Moreover, the studies using cross-sectional research
designs have not tested the reciprocal impact of firm performance on antecedent variables. It
is likely that effective performance dictates whether the firm adopts a more participative
culture, establishes transformational leadership, more open communication system, or a
smaller and independent board of directors. It makes sense to test for the reciprocal effects of
criterion variables on the antecedent variables. Researchers should consider conducting
longitudinal studies that can provide more detailed information about the causality of the
relationship under consideration.
4. The literature has provided little insight into the intervening processes that influence
performance. It is required that the researchers try and test the possible influence mechanism
through which performance can be affected. For example, individual level perceptual and
psychological variables are likely to impact individual behaviors which are likely to lead to
enhanced employee performance. Enhanced employee performance should contribute to
enhanced group performance which, in turn, should lead to enhance organizational
performance. For example, individual OCB can lead to development of cohesive work
groups and positive group-level behavior which can then contribute to organizational
performance. Different antecedent variables can indirectly influence organizational success.
If we ignore the process on our way to establish relationship between antecedent and
performance parameters, we may arrive at false conclusions. Hence it is high time that we

52

 
 tested relevant models to identify the value-adding processes in the context of organizational
outcomes. Unless the process through which organizational performance is achieved is tested
out, our knowledge of this very important topic shall remain incomplete and we will never be
able to find the big picture!
5. The overall amount of research produced by Indian researchers testing the impact of group-
level antecedent variables and organizational performance in the period covered by the
present review has hardly been significant. There is a great need to research the impact of
group-level variables like leadership, teamwork, communication, power and politics,
interpersonal dynamics on organizational performance. Also required is the identification of
important process variables (e.g. teamwork, group OCB etc.) through which the group-level
variables might impact organizational performance.
6. There is strong need for performance researchers to focus on the dynamic aspects of the
interactions between individual-, group-, and organizational-level variables. Individuals and
groups are embedded in an organizational context. They are bound to be affected by
organizational characteristics like structure, HRM practices, culture, and leadership. As with
organizations themselves, these relationships continue to evolve over time. The literature on
organizational performance has remained silent on the interactions between variables across
levels. If we are to understand completely the dynamics involved in the individual-group-
organization relationship, we need to study the interactions that occur in this continuing
relationship.
7. The findings of the study can be influenced by geographic and cultural differences. The
variety of processes and ways in which they are carried out may vary from organization to
organization. It is, therefore, essential to conduct across region/culture studies (keeping
cultures/region as control variables) to find the broad underlying relationships between the
variables of interest and performance, and then to conduct moderator analysis to find how the
relationships vary across regions/cultures.
8. There is sparse research that has tested the moderating impact of contextual variables like
firm size, and external environment on the relationship between antecedent variables and
firm performance. In most studies these variables have either been treated as control
variables or the studies have remained silent on their impact on the findings. It is essential
that future studies do not merely treat these variables as control variables but also test their
moderating influence on the relationships being tested.
9. There are concerns of generalization of study results across sectors, across industries and
across regions. Very few studies (e.g. Stumpf et al. 2010) have tested the influence of
industry type, sector type on the relationships between antecedent variables and
organizational performance. Although the service sector (e.g. IT/ITES) has emerged as a
major contributor to gross domestic product (GDP) in India, there is hardly any study that has
analyzed the sectoral variations on organizational performance. It is likely that the
relationships will vary across sector and industry and the impact of these contextual variables
need to be tested in literature.

53

 
10. Questionnaire-based survey is the most common method adopted by researchers. Other
methods like case studies, experimental research, laboratory “organizational” experiments,
simulation exercise, field experiments and action research, participant observation studies,
and study of archival records can lead to development of greater knowledge on the topic of
organizational performance. These methods can also be used to verify the conclusions
reached using questionnaire-based studies.
11. Theory testing through rigorous methods is extremely essential. Indian researchers have been
found to be lacking in the rigor of data analysis. Some studies (e.g., Sathye 2005; Khandekar
and Sharma 2006; Sharda and Chatterjee 2011; Jain 2012; Joshi et al. 2014) have reported
very preliminary statistical analysis to test the study hypotheses. It is essential that the
research community adopts more robust data analysis tools and techniques (e.g. structural
equation modeling [SEM], hierarchical linear modeling, hierarchical regression analysis) to
analyze the study data. This will provide credibility to the findings reported.
12. Indian studies on performance have mostly been small sample studies. As such, with small
samples we cannot be certain that the chosen companies are representative of firms operating
in India or representative of firms within the industry sectors and geographic categories
examined. Future studies should be conducted with larger samples in order to provide greater
confidence about the validity and generalizability of the results reached. Also, using a larger
sample size the methodological restrictions can be avoided. Advanced data analysis
techniques (e.g. SEM) are large sample techniques and can then be employed to test the
overall model without much difficulty.
13. More robust performance indicators should be used in studies. It is necessary that the study
uses multiple measures of performance while testing the impact of antecedent variables.
Some studies (e.g. Dhiman 2009) have used only one measure of performance. Most of the
studies have used ROA and Tobin’s q as the measure of performance. Only when the
antecedent variable is found to lead to improvements in multiple measures of performance,
the positive relationship between that particular variable and firm performance should be
accepted.
14. Performance studies seem to be standalone projects. Expect for studies by Ketkar and Sett
(2009, 2010), Chand and associates (Chand and Katou, 2007; Chand 2010) and Singh
(2003a,b, 2004), and Gaur and colleagues (Singh and Gaur 2009; Gaur and Kumar 2009;
Gaur et al. 2011), the authors have not seen researchers building on/extending their previous
works. Unless researchers plan and carry out a long-term research program on the topic of
organizational performance, there is very little that can be gained. Organization performance
gets affected by a multitude of factors: employee performance, group-level performance,
firm size, age, structure, culture etc. To be able to make any substantial headway, a focused
long-term research program is required.
15. Out of all the topics that have been studied in relation to organizational performance,
corporate governance is one topic where the results have been inconclusive. There is need to

54

 
 examine closely the reasons for disagreement and conducting rigorous research in order to
ascertain the actual relationships.
16. Studies on organizational performance make extensive use of data released by organization
to the media or that published in their annual reports. Authenticity of the data being reported
in the press and reports is a concern. It is assumed that the companies are reporting fairly to
the regulatory bodies as misrepresentation will attract legal action.
17. As mentioned earlier, we were open to reviewing any study that had been done on
organizational performance of not-for-profit organizations. To our surprise, we found not
even a single study on not-for-profit organizations. The review suggests that there is a vast
gap in the literature on not-for-profit organizations and researchers should focus their
attention on these organizations.
18. Replication studies are needed in social sciences (King 2001; Yong 2012). Findings that have
been established need to be continuously revalidated in different work contexts in order to
provide evidence of their generalizability. It is essential that studies that have been performed
in a particular cultural and/or industrial context should be performed in other contexts so as
to provide support/evidence for the generalizability of the results.

A Process Framework of Organizational Performance

Based on our review and survey of literature on organizational performance, we have developed
a suggestive multiple-level process framework linking antecedent variables to organizational
performance. The model is presented in Figure 1 and incorporates most of the observations made
in the gaps and limitations section and presents a comprehensive listing of possible variables that
can affect organizational performance. If the model is persevered with, it may provide a lot more
insights to OB and management researchers. At the least, it should enlighten researchers to the
intricacies involved in performance research.

55

 
 Figure 1. A Process Framework of Organizational Performance
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS 

H4 H5
INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL 
INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL  EMPLOYEE  SUBJECTIVE MEASURES OF 
BEHAVIORAL 
VARIABLES  PERFORMANCE  ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 
OUTCOMES 
Psychological Capacities,  Creativity, Job  Performance compared to competitors; 
H1 OCB, Job Satisfaction,  H2
Needs, Values, Spiritual  Performance, Sales per  H3 Perceptions of organization’s 
Job Involvement, 
Inclination, Identification,  month, Service Quality,  effectiveness/financial performance; Ability 
Commitment, 
Conflict Resolution  Customer Satisfaction,  to achieve goals set by stakeholders 
Engagement, Lower  H16
Strategies; Ethics  Revenue Generated 
turnover intentions
H23 
H8 H9 H10
GROUP LEVEL OF ANALYSIS 

GROUP‐LEVEL  GROUP‐LEVEL 
GROUP‐LEVEL 
BEHAVIORAL  H21 
VARIABLES  H7 PERFORMANCE 
H6  OUTCOMES 
Communication, group  Project performance, 
structure, leadership,  Teamwork, trust,  Project Innovation, Sales 
H11
power and politics  Group OCB, Group  per month project success 
Engagement  H12

H17

ORGANIZATION LEVEL OF ANALYSIS CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES (MODERATORS)  H19

H24  External Business Environment, Industry Type, Sector, Age, 
H14  H15 H18
Strategic Orientation, Regulatory Environment, National 
Culture, Organizational Culture, Location

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 
ORGANIZATION‐LEVEL VARIABLES 
H20 Objective Measures:  
HRM Practices, Structure, Size, CEO Leadership, Top 
Accounting Measures: E.g., ROA, ROI 
Management Team Diversity, Corporate Social  H13
Financial Measures: E.g., Beta, EPS, P/E 
Responsibility, Corporate Governance, Organizational 
ratio, Total Shareholder Return 
Learning, Organizational Communication; Monitoring 
Market Measures: E.g., EVA, MVA, 
Mechanisms H22 
  Tobin’s Q, WACC
Note: Relationships of variables in italics with organizational performance has not been studied
 It will be useful to conclude this chapter, not only with a plea for more research but also
with a short list of hypotheses that can provide direction to researchers interested in this topic.
H1: Individual qualities (e.g. positive psychological capacities, achievement motivation,
spiritual inclination, conscientiousness) will be positively related to individual-level behavioral
outcomes like work engagement, creativity, greater earnings per employee.
H2: Greater employee performance will lead to greater perceptions of organizational
effectiveness. Employee qualities (e.g. positive psychological capacities, achievement
motivation, spiritual inclination, conscientiousness) will lead to greater organizational
performance and thus greater perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Employee behavioral
outcomes (e.g., work engagement, OCB) and employee performance (e.g., employee-level
innovation) will mediate the relationship between employee qualities and (perceptions of)
organizational effectiveness.
H3: Group-level variables (e.g., open communication, modular structure, and
transformational leadership) will lead to greater display of positive group-level behavioral
outcomes (e.g. teamwork, GOCB [Group OCB]).
H4: Group-level behavioral outcomes (e.g. teamwork, GOCB) will lead to better group-
level performance (project success, greater sales per month). Group-level behavioral outcomes
will mediate the relationship between positive group-level antecedent variables and group-level
performance.
H5: Individual-level behavioral outcomes (e.g., OCB, job involvement, commitment,
engagement) will be related to group-level behavioral outcomes. Employee who exhibit greater
levels of positive workplace behaviors (e.g., OCB, engagement) will influence the members of
their groups and will be instrumental in achieving greater levels of positive group behaviors.
H6: Greater levels of positive group behaviors will be associated with better employee
performance. A group which is more cohesive and has better interpersonal relationships is more
likely to positively influence individual performance. Higher levels of employee performance
will be positively associated with higher levels of group performance.
H7: Higher levels of group performance will be positively associated with organizational
performance. Employee performance when aggregated to group level should be positively
related to organizational performance.
H8: Organization-level variables (flexible and modular organization design,
transformational leadership, better corporate governance, top management team diversity) will
be positively associated with organization-level performance.
H9: Organization-level antecedent variables will be positively related to positive group-
level behavioral outcomes (e.g. teamwork, group OCB).
H10: Contextual variables (e.g. industry type, sector, firm age, strategic orientation,
national culture, organizational culture, location of the organization) will moderate the
relationships between employee behaviors and employee performance, such that the degree of
associations will vary across different levels of contextual variables.

57

 
 H11: Contextual variables (e.g. industry type, sector, firm age, strategic orientation,
national culture, organizational culture, location of the organization) will moderate the
relationships between group-level behaviors and group-level performance, such that the degree
of associations will vary across different levels of contextual variables.
H12: Contextual variables (e.g. industry type, sector, firm age, strategic orientation,
national culture, organizational culture, location of the organization, regulatory environment,
external environment) will moderate the relationships between organization-level antecedent
variables and organizational performance, such that the degree of associations will vary across
different levels of contextual variables.
H13: Subjective measures of organizational performance are indicative of actual
organizational performance and are likely to be positively associated with objective measures of
organizational performance.
H14: Organizational performance will have a reciprocal influence on the organization-
level antecedent variables (e.g. the type of HRM practices adopted, selection of top management
team, organizational structure, CSR measures, board size, board independence, organizational
communications, organizational learning).
H15: Organization-level antecedent variables (e.g. HRM practices) can influence
employee psychological variables (e.g. psychological capacities) thereby affecting employee
workplace behavior (e.g. creative performance behaviors). It is, therefore, likely that
organization-level antecedent variables will be associated with individual-level antecedent
variables.
H16: Organization-level antecedent variables are likely to influence group-level
antecedent variables. For example, the decisions taken at the organizational level about the
leadership, the structure of the organization, the HRM policies are likely to influence the
constitution of teams, the way group performance is evaluated, the interpersonal dynamics
amongst group members, the leadership of groups.
We would like to conclude this section with a caution. While the use of schematic
presentation (a shown in Figure 1) is an effective way of consolidating the review process, there
is a need to understand that this is only an academic artifact which may have a limited
correspondence with the complex reality in which these variables operate and influence the
outcome variable of interest (i.e. organizational performance). There may be some possible real-
life moderating/confounding variables that may impact the relationships in directions not
hypothesized. It will be wrong to assume that the relationships interact in a simple, straight-
forward linear direction as shown in the model. The model is only an abstraction of reality and
its complexity is limited only by our inability to measure and characterize non-linear
phenomenon involving multiple variables. Though, the model presented is quite comprehensive
and attempts to represent the complex reality there may be much more hidden below the surface.

58

 
CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The chapter attempts to present a comprehensive review of the researches that have happened in
the area of organizational performance and related constructs. Effort has been made to cover the
researches that have happened in the period from 2003 to 2015. While the study intended to
focus on studies that have happened in the Indian cultural context it was impossible for us to
concentrate only on Indian studies given that most of the definitions of organizational
performance related research constructs and the research design and methodology have been
borrowed from the West. It would be unfair to present a review of organizational performance
research without citing the seminal works that have happened in this area in the West.
The chapter presents a review of the ongoing debate on the issue of measurement of
performance at various levels of analysis, and the associated challenges. Next, the study
documents the research that has linked individual-level, group-level and organization-level
variables to organizational performance. Not only does the chapter presents a description of
studies but also presents their critical appreciation bringing out salient points, theoretical and
conceptual contributions. Important areas, themes, and issues that need attention are attempted to
be brought into focus in the discussion section. In the end, a causal framework linking
organizational performance to individual-, group-, and organization-level variables has been
presented. The model incorporates the insights gained from the survey, and presents a detailed,
multiple-level process framework that links antecedent variables to organizational performance.
The framework provides a set of working hypotheses that should set the course of future
organizational performance research in the Indian context.
We have tried to keep our presentation of important concepts as simple as possible and
avoid overloading of the reader’s mind with unnecessary and unimportant details. Our attempt
has been to locate the organizational performance research happening in India in the context of
performance related research happening in other parts of the world. The writing style of this
chapter has been kept simple in order to cater not only to those who have been working in this
area but also to those who are just beginning their research in this area. We sincerely hope that
the chapter will make a strong case for organization performance as an important and interesting
area of research and will help in initiating a series of performance studies in the Indian context.

REFERENCES

Aggarwal-Gupta, M., and Vohra, N. 2010. ‘Measuring Effectiveness of Schools in India: A

Multiple Stakeholder Framework’, e-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership,
8(2), pp. 1-22.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., and Kalleberg, A. L. 2000. ‘Manufacturing Advantage:
Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off’, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Arthur, J. B. 1994. ‘Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and
Turnover’, Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): pp. 670-687.

59

 
Awasthy, R. and Gupta, R. K. 2004, ‘How do Indian Executives Define Organizational
Effectiveness?’, Indian Journal of Indian Relations, 39(3): pp. 281-297.
Azmi, F. T. 2010. ‘Devolution of HRM and Organizational Performance: Evidence from India’,
International Journal of Commerce and Management, 20(3): pp. 217-231.
Bae, J., and Lawler, J. J. 2000. ‘Organisational and HRM Strategies in Korea: Impact on
Organisation Performance in an Emerging Economy’, Academy of Management Journal,
43(3); pp. 502-517.
Bamel, U. K., Santosh Rangnekar, and Rastogi, R 2011. ‘Managerial Effectiveness in Indian
Organizations: Reexamining an Instrument in an Indian Context’, Research and Practice in
Human Resource Management, 19(1): pp. 70-78.
Barney, J. 1991. ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Journal of
Management, 17(1): pp. 99-120.
Bartel, A. P. 2004. ‘Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance: Evidence
from Retail Banking’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57(2): pp. 181-203.
Baruch, Y., and Ramalho, N. 2006. ‘Communalities and Distinctions in the Measurement of
Organizational Performance and Effectiveness Across For-Profit and Nonprofit Sectors’,
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1): pp. 39-65
Batt, R. 2002. ‘Managing Customer Services: Human Resource Practices, Quit Rates, and Sales
Growth’, Academy of Management Journal, 45(3): pp. 587-597.
Becker, B., and Gerhart, B. 1996. ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management on
Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects’, Academy of Management Journal,
39(4): pp. 779-801.
Bhatnagar, J. 2006. ‘Measuring Organizational Learning Capability in Indian Managers and
Establishing Firm Performance Linkage: An Empirical Analysis’, The Learning
Organization, 13(5): pp. 416-433.
Bhatnagar, J. and Sharma, A. 2005. ‘The Indian Perspective of Strategic HR Roles and
Organizational Learning Capability’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16(9): pp. 1711–1739.
Biswas, S., Giri, V.N. and Srivastava, K. B.L. 2007. ‘Assessing the Impact of Organizational
Culture and Communication on Employee Performance and Organizational Effectiveness’,
Psychological Studies, 52(1): pp. 20-28.
Biswas, S., Srivastava, K.B.L. and Giri, V. N. 2007, ‘Human Resource Management, Individual
Behaviour and Organizational Effectiveness: A Study in Indian Organizations’, Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1): pp. 33-50.
Björkman, I. and Budhwar, P. 2007. ‘When in Rome? Human Resource Management and the
Performance of Foreign Firms Operating in India’, Employee Relations, 29(6): pp. 595-610.
Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. 1968. ‘Corporate Excellence through Grid Organisation
Development’, Houston: Gulf.
Borman, W. C. and Stephan J. M. 1997. ‘Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The
Meaning for Personnel Selection Research’, Human Performance, 20(2): pp. 99-109.
Boxall, P., and Macky, K. 2009. ‘Research and Theory on High-Performance Work Systems:
Progressing the High-Involvement Stream’, Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1):
pp. 3-23.
Bryson, A., Forth, J., and Kirby, S. 2005. ‘High-Involvement Management Practices, Trade
Union Representation and Workplace Performance in Britain’, Scottish Journal of Political
Economy, 52(3): 451-491.

60

 
Chakraborty, D. and Chakraborty, S.K. 2006. ‘The Niskam Karma Principle: Its Relevance to
Effectiveness and Ethics’, IIMB Management Review, 18(2): pp. 115-125.
Chand, M. 2010. ‘The Impact of HRM Practices on Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and
Performance in the Indian Hotel Industry’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21(4): pp. 551-566.
Chand, M. and Anastasia A. K. 2007. ‘The Impact of HRM Practices on Organizational
Performance in the Indian Hotel Industry’, Employee Relations, 29(6): pp. 576-594.
Chandler, A. D. 1962. ‘Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise’,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chauhan, V. S., Dhar. U. and Pathak, R.D. 2005. ‘Factorial Constitution of Managerial
Effectiveness: Re-examining an Instrument in Indian Context’, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 20(2): pp. 164-177.
Combs, G. M., Clapp-Smith, R. and Nadkarni, S. 2010. ‘Managing BPO Service Workers in
India: Examining Hope on Performance Outcomes’, Human Resource Management, 49(3):
pp. 457-476.
Daft, R. L. 2013. ‘Understanding the Theory and Design of Organization’, Delhi, India:
Cengage.
Das, D., Dharwadkar, R. and Brandes, P. 2008, ‘The Importance of Being Indian: Identity
Centrality and Work Outcomes in an Off-Shored Call Center in India’, Human Relations,
61(11): pp. 1499-1530.
Delery, J. E., and Doty, D. H. 1996. ‘Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource
Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance
Predictions’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4); 802-835.
Denison, D. R. 1990. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Wiley.
Denison, D. R., Janovics, J. and Joana Yong 2006. ‘Diagnosing Organizational Culture:
Validating a Model and Method’, Working Paper, Denison Consulting.
Denison, D. R. and Neale, W.S. 1996. ‘Denison Organizational Culture Survey’, Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Aviat.
Deshpande, R., John, U. F. and Bowman, D. 2004. ‘Tigers, Dragons, and Others: Profiling High
Performance in Asian Firms’, Journal of International Marketing, 12(3): pp. 5-29.
Dhiman, R. K. 2009. ‘The Elusive Employee Stock Option Plan-Productivity Link: Evidence
from India’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(6): pp.
542-563.
Dixit, K. and Pal. R. 2010. ‘The Impact of Group Incentives on Performance of Small Firms:
Hausman-Taylor Estimates’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 31(6): pp. 403-414.
Dwivedi, N. and Jain, A. K. 2005. ‘Corporate Governance and Performance of Indian Firms: The
Effect of Board Size and Ownership’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 17(3):
pp. 161-172.
Dyer, L., and Reeves, T. 1995. ‘Human Resource Strategies and Firm Performance: What Do
We Know and Where Do We Need to Go?’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 6(3): pp. 656-670.
Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrel-Cook, G., and Frink, D. D.
1998. ‘Toward a Social Context Theory of the Human Resource Management Organization
Effectiveness Relationship’, Human Resource Management Review, 8(8): 235-264.

61

 
Fey, C. F., Björkman, I., and Pavlovskaya, A. 2000, ‘The Effect of Human Resource Practices on
Firm Performance in Russia’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
11(1): pp. 1-18.
Galbraith, J. R. 1972. ‘Organization Design: An Information Processing View’, in Jay W. Lorsch
and Paul R. Lawrence (eds.), Organization Planning: Concepts and Cases. Homewood, IL:
Irwin Dorsey, pp. 49-74.
Garg, A. K. 2007. ‘Influence of Board Size and Independence on Firm Performance: A Study of
Indian Companies’, Vikalpa, 32(3): pp. 39-60.
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., and Sambamurthy, V. 2006. ‘Emergent by Design: Performance
and Transformation at Infosys Technologies’, Organization Science, 17(2): pp. 277-286.
Gaur, A. S. and Kumar, V. 2009. ‘International Diversification, Business Group Affiliation and
Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from India’, British Journal of Management, 20: pp.
172–186.
Gaur, S. S., Vasudevan, H. and Gaur, A. S. 2011. ‘Market Orientation and Manufacturing
Performance of Indian SMEs: Moderating Role of Firm Resources and Environmental
Factors’, European Journal of Marketing, 45 (7/8): pp. 1172-1193
Ghosh, S. 2010. ‘Firm Performance and CEO Pay: Evidence from Indian Manufacturing’,
Journal of Entrepreneurship, 19(2): pp. 137-147.
Godard, J. 2004. ‘A Critical Assessment of the High-Performance Paradigm’, British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 42(2): pp. 349-378.
Gupta, R. K. and Panda, A. 2009. ‘Culture, Institutions and Organizations in India’, in G. Misra
(ed.), Psychology in India, (vol. 2), Social and Organizational Processes. New Delhi:
Pearson, pp. 215-355.
Gupta, V. and Singh, S. 2010a. ‘Developing a Set of High Performance HRM Practices and
Exploring its Relationship with OCB and Organizational Justice’, Proceeding of 2010
Meeting of Southern Management Association, pp. 464-469.
Gupta, V. and Singh, S. 2010b. ‘High Performance HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship
Behavior, and Positive Psychological Capital: A Relational Perspective’, Indian Institute of
Management Lucknow, India Working Paper No. WPS 2010-11/16.
-------- 2010c. ‘Linking HRM Practices and Employee Creativity through Positive Psychological
Capital’, Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, India Working Paper No. WPS 2010-
11/17.
------- 2013. ‘Linking Leadership to Employee Creativity through Work Motivation,
Psychological Capital and Organizational Justice Perceptions: A Study of Indian RandD
Professionals’, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indian Institute of Management,
Lucknow, India.
Gupta, V. K. and Batra, S. 2015. ‘Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance in Indian
SMEs: Universal and Contingency Perspectives’, International Small Business Journal, pp.
1-23. Doi: 10.1177/0266242615577708
Guthrie, J. P. 2001. ‘High Involvement Work Practices, Turnover and Productivity: Evidence
from New Zealand’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): pp. 180-190.
Hambrick, D. C. and Phyllis A. M. 1984. ‘Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of
its Top Managers’, Academy of Management Review, 9(2): pp. 193-206.
Harrison, J. and Sexton, C. 2004. ‘The Paradox of the Not-for-Profit Hospital’, Health Care
Manager, 23(3): pp. 192-204.

62

 
Hennig-Thurau, T., and Thurau, C. 2003. ‘Customer Orientation of Service Employees-Toward a
Conceptual Framework of a Key Relationship Marketing Construct’, Journal of
Relationship Marketing, 2(1-2): pp. 1-32.
Ho, C.-T., and Zhu, D.-S. 2004. ‘Performance Measurement of Taiwan’s Commercial Banks’,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(5): pp. 425-433.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal,
38(3): pp. 635-672.
Jackling, B., and Johl, S. 2009. ‘Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from India’s
Top Companies’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4) pp. 492–509.
Jacquemin, A. P. and Charles H. B. 1979. ‘Entropy Measure of Diversification and Corporate
Growth’, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 27(4): pp. 359-369.
Jain, A. K. 2012. ‘Impact of Organizational Size and Alliance Formations on Perceived
Organizational Performance’, The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3): 559-574.
Jain, S. K. and Bhatia, M. 2007. ‘Market Orientation and Business Performance: The Case of
Indian Manufacturing Firms’, Vision, 11(1): pp. 15-33.
Jameson, M., Prevost, A., and Puthenpurackal, J. 2014. ‘Controlling Shareholders, Board
Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from India’, Journal of Corporate Finance, 27:
pp. 1–20.
Jaworski, B. J. and Kohli, A. K. 1993. ‘Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences’,
Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 53-70.
Joshi, H., Chawla, D. and Farooquie, J. A. 2014. ‘Segmenting Knowledge Management (KM)
Practitioners and its Relationship to Performance Variation – Some Empirical Evidence’,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(3): pp. 469-493.
Kamath, G. B. 2008. ‘Intellectual Capital and Corporate Performance in Indian Pharmaceutical
Industry’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(4): pp. 684-704.
Kanungo, R. N. and Mishra, S. 2004. ‘Motivation, Leadership and Human Performance’, in
Janak Pandey (ed.), Psychology in Indian Revisited: Development in the Discipline, 3:
Applied social and Organizational Psychology. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 302-341.
Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton 1996. ‘The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy
into Action’, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kasturi, P., Alexei G. Orlov, and Roufagalas, J. 2006. ‘HRM Systems Architecture and Firm
Performance: Evidence from SMEs in a Developing Country’, International Journal of
Commerce and Management, 16(3/4): pp. 178-196.
Kaul, V. K. 2003. ‘Product-Market Diversity, Resource Deployment and Performance’, Vikalpa,
28(3): pp. 15-29.
Ketkar, S. and Sett, P.K. 2009. ‘HR Flexibility and Firm Performance: Analysis of a Multi-Level
Causal Model’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5): pp.
1009-1038.
------- 2010. ‘Environmental Dynamism, Human Resource Flexibility and Firm Performance:
Analysis of a Multi-Level Causal Model’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21(8): pp. 1173-1206.
Khandekar, A. and Sharma, A. 2005. ‘Managing human resource capabilities for sustainable
competitive advantage: An empirical analysis from Indian Global Organizations’, Education
and Training, 47(8/9): pp. 628-639.

63

 
-------- 2006. ‘Organizational Learning and Performance: Understanding Indian Scenario in
Present Global Context’, Education Training, 48(8/9): pp. 682-692.
Khandwalla, P. N. 1988a. ‘Organizational Effectiveness’, in Janak Pandey (ed.), Psychology in
India: The State-of-the-Art, (vol. 3): Organizational Behaviour and Mental Health. New
Delhi: Sage, pp. 97-215.
------- 1988b. ‘OB for Social Development: A Position Paper’, in Pradip N. Khandwalla (ed.),
Social Development: A New Role for the Organizational Sciences. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 6-
44.
------- 2003. ‘Corporate Creativity’, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.
Khandwalla, P. N. and Mehta, K. 2004. ‘Design of Corporate Creativity’, Vikalpa, 29(1): pp. 13-
28.
Khanna, T. and Rivkin, J. W. 2001. ‘Estimating the Performance Effects of Business Groups in
Emerging Markets’, Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): pp. 45–74.
Konrad, Alison M. 2006. ‘Engaging Employees through High-Involvement Work Practices’,
Ivey Business Journal, 1-6.
Kota, H. B. and Tomar, S. 2010. ‘Corporate Governance Practices in Indian Firms’, Journal of
Management and Organization, 16. pp. 266-279.
Krishnan, S. K. and Singh, M. 2010. ‘Outcomes of Intention to Quit of Indian IT Professionals’,
Human Resource Management, 49(3): pp. 421-437.
Kumar, N. and Singh, J.P. 2012. ‘Outside Directors, Corporate Governance and Firm
Performance: Empirical Evidence from India’, Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting,
4(2): pp. 39-55.
------- 2013., ‘Effect of Board Size and Promoter Ownership on Firm Value: Some Empirical
Findings from India’, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 88-98.
Kumar, Rajesh B. 2004, ‘Effect of ESOPs on Performance, Productivity and Risk’, IIMB
Management Review, 16(1): pp. 9-19.
Kumar, S. and Gulati, R. 2010. ‘Measuring Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of Indian
Public Sector Banks’, The International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 59(1): pp. 51-74.
Kumar, S. and Singh, S. 2006. ‘Indian Nationalized Banks: An Empirical Study on Factors
Influencing Effectiveness’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(1): pp. 73-90.
…………. 2009. ‘Readiness to Compete Globally: A Case Study of DMRC’, in Krishna Kumar and
P.R. Bhatt (eds.), Global Competition and Competitiveness of Indian Corporates:
Measurement and Analysis. New Delhi: Macmillan, pp.265-281.
Kunnanatt, J. T. 2008. ‘Strategic Question in Indian Banking Sector: Are Indian Bank Managers
Achievement Oriented’, Journal of Management Development, 27(2): pp. 169-186.
Lahiri, S., Kedia, B. L., and Mukherjee, D. 2012. ‘The impact of management capability on the
resource–performance linkage: Examining Indian outsourcing providers’, Journal of World
Business, 47: pp. 145–155.
Lawler, E. E. 1986, The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-Involvement Organization. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E, and Hall, D. T. 1970. ‘Relationship of Job Characteristic to Job Involvement,
Satisfaction and Intrinsic Motivation’, Journal of applied Psychology, 54(4): pp. 305-312.
Lawrence, P. R., and Lorsch, J. W. 1967. ‘Organization and Environment: Managing
Differentiation and Integration’, Boston: Harvard University Press.

64

 
Loshali, S., and Krishnan, V. R. 2013. ‘Strategic Human Resource Management and Firm
Performance: Mediating Role of Transformational Leadership’, Journal of Strategic Human
Resource Management, 2(1): pp. 9-19
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. ‘Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance:
Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry’,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review’, 48(2): pp. 197-221.
Macky, K., and Boxall, P. 2008. ‘High-Involvement Work Processes, Work Intensification and
Employee Well-Being: A Study of New Zealand Worker Experiences’, Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources, 46(1): 38-55.
Malik, O. R., and Kotabe, M. 2009. ‘Dynamic Capabilities, Government Policies, and
Performance in Firms from Emerging Economies: Evidence from India and Pakistan’,
Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): pp. 421-450.
Maloles, C. M. 1977. ‘The Determinants of Customer Retention’, Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. The University of the City of New York. New York, NY.
Marchington, M. and Grugulis, I. 2000. ‘Best Practice’ Human Resource Management: Perfect
Opportunity or Dangerous Illusion?’ The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 11(6): pp. 1104-1124.
Menon, A. G., and Mohanty, B. 2012. ‘Organizational Performance: A Multidimensional
Perspective’, in Shailendra Singh (ed.), Global Competition and Competitiveness of Indian
Corporates. New Delhi: Macmillan.
Messersmith, J. G., and Guthrie, J. P. 2010. ‘High Performance Work Systems in Emergent
Organizations: Implications for Firm Performance’, Human Resource Management, 49(2):
pp. 241- 264.
Miles, R. E., and Snow, C. C. 1978. ‘Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process’, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
------- 1984. ‘Designing Strategic Human Resource Systems’, Organizational Dynamics, 13(1):
36-52.
Mishra, S. and Suar, D. 2010. ‘Does Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Firm
Performance of Indian Companies?’, Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4): pp. 571-601.
Mittal, R.K., Sinha, N. and Singh, A. 2008. ‘An Analysis of Linkage between Economic Value
Added and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Management Decision, 46(9): pp. 1437-1443.
Mohr, L. A., and Bitner, M. J. 1995. ‘Process Factors in Service Delivery: What Employee
Effort Means to Customers’, in Teresa A. Swartz, David E. Bowen and Stephen W. Brown
(eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management. Greenwich: JAI Press, pp. 91-
117.
Mondal, A. and Ghosh, S. K. 2012. ‘Intellectual Capital and Financial Performance of Indian
Banks’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(4): pp. 515–530.
------- 2013. ‘The Relevance of Intellectual Capital Valuation: Indian Evidence’, International
Journal of Financial Management, 3(2): pp. 1-9.
Moorman, R. H. 1993. ‘The Influence of Cognitive and Affective Based Job Satisfaction on
Relationship between Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior’, Human
Relations, 46(6): pp. 759-776.
Mott, P. E. 1972. ‘The Characteristic of Effective Organizations’, New York: Harper and Row.
Muduli, A. 2015. ‘High Performance Work System, HRD Climate and Organisational
Performance: An Empirical Study’, European Journal of Training and Development, 39(3):
pp. 239–257.

65

 
Nadkarni, S. and Herrmann, P. 2010. ‘CEO Personality, Strategic Flexibility and Firm
Performance: The Case of the Indian Business Process Outsourcing Industry’, Academy of
Management Journal, 53(5): pp. 1050-1073.
Nigam, A. K., Nongmaithem, S., Sharma, S. and Tripathi, N. 2011. ‘The Impact of Strategic
Human Resource Management on the Performance of Firms in India: A Study of Service
Sector Firms’, Journal of Indian Business Research, 3(3): pp. 148-167.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. 1988. ‘SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale
for Measuring Consumers Perceptions of Service Quality’, Journal of Retailing, 64(1): pp.
12-40.
Paré, G., and Tremblay, M. 2007. ‘The Influence of High-Involvement Human Resources
Practices, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors on
Information Technology Professionals Turnover Intentions’, Group and Organization
Management, 32(3): pp. 326-357.
Paul, A. K., and Anantharaman, R. N. 2003. ‘Impact of People Management Practices on
Organisational Performance: Analysis of a Causal Model’, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14(7): pp. 1246-1266.
Pfeffer, J. 1994. ‘Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the
Workforce’, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Piercy, N. F., Low, G. S., and Cravens, D. W. 2011. ‘Country differences concerning sales
organization and salesperson antecedents of sales unit effectiveness’, Journal of World
Business, 46: pp. 104–115.
Pil, F. K., and Macduffie, J. P. 1996. ‘The Adoption of High-Involvement Work Practices’,
Industrial Relations, 35(3): pp. 423-455.
Porter, M. E. 1996. ‘What is Strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, 74(6): pp. 61-78.
Powell, S. 2004. ‘Spotlight: The Challenges of Performance Measurement’, Management
Decision, 42(8): pp. 1017-1023.
Prakash, Y. and Gupta, M. 2007. ‘Relationship between Organization Structure and Firm-Level
Innovation in the Manufacturing Sector of India’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
45(2): pp. 191-216.
Priyadarshini, R. R. G., and Venkatapathy, R. 2005. ‘Performance and HRD: A Study among
Various Types of Banks’, South Asian Journal of Management, 12(3): pp. 52-66.
Quinn, R. E., and Rohrbaugh, J. 1983. ‘A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a
Competing Value Approach to Organizational Analysis’, Management Science, 29(3): pp.
363-377.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., and Harley, B. 2000. ‘Employees and High-Performance Work
Systems: Testing Inside the Black Box’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4): 501-
531.
Rameshan, P. and Singh, S. 2005. ‘Quality of Services of Primary Health Centres: Health Care
Delivery Managers Perspective’, in R. Padaki, N.M. Agarwal, C. Balaji and Gopal P.
Mahapatra (eds.), Emerging Asia: An HR Agenda. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, pp. 173-
186.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., and Johnson, G. 2009. ‘Measuring Organizational
Performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice’, Journal of Management, 35(3): pp.
718-804.
Roberts, K. H. and O’Reilly, C. A. 1974. ‘Measuring Organizational Communication’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 59(3): pp. 321-326.

66

 
Rogers, E. W., and Wright, P. M. 1998. ‘Measuring Organizational Performance in Strategic
Human Resource Management: Problems, Prospects and Performance Information
Markets’, Human Resource Management Review, 8(3): pp. 311-331.
Rose, R. C., and Kumar N. 2006. ‘The Influence of Organizational and Human Resource
Management Strategies on Performance’, Performance Improvement, 45(4): pp. 18-24.
Roy, S., Nagpaul P.S. and Mohapatra K.J.P. 2003. ‘Developing a Model to Measure the
Effectiveness of Research Units’, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 23(12): pp. 1514-1531.
Saini, R. 2013. ‘Management Practices on Selected Industries: A Structural Equation Modeling
Approach’, Management and Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 8(4): pp.
577-592.
Samantara, R. 2004. ‘Conflict Management Strategies and Organisational Effectiveness’, Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(3): pp. 298-323.
Santra, T., and Giri, V. N. 2008. ‘Effect of Organizational Structure on Organizational
Effectiveness through Face-to-Face Communication’, The ICFAI Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 6(2): pp. 28-38.
Sarkar, J. and Sarkar, S. 2009. ‘Multiple Board Appointments and Firm Performance in
Emerging Economies: Evidence from India’, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 17: pp. 271–
293.
Sathye, M. 2005. ‘Privatization, Performance and Efficiency: A Study on Indian Banks’,
Vikalpa, 30(1): pp. 7-16.
Scarpello, V., and Campbell, J. P. 1983. ‘Job Satisfaction: Are All the Parts There?’, Personnel
Psychology, 36(3): pp. 577-600.
Schnake, M. E. 1983. ‘An Empirical Assessment of the Effects of Affective Response in the
Measurement of Organizational Climate,’ Personnel Psychology, 36(4): pp. 791-804.
Sharda, K. and Chatterjee, L. 2011. ‘Configurations of outsourcing firms and organizational
performance: A study of outsourcing industry in India’, Strategic Outsourcing: An
International Journal, 4(2): pp. 152-178.
Sharma, B. R. 1973. ‘A Survey of Research on Organisation and Administration: A Trend
Report’, in ICSSR, A Survey of Research in Management Volume 1. New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing House, pp. 129-283.
Sharma, M. and Kaur, G. 2011. ‘Workplace Empowerment and Organizational Effectiveness: An
Empirical Investigation of Indian Banking Sector’, Academy of Banking Studies Journal,
10(2): pp. 105-120.
Siddiqi, M. A. and Sahaf, M.A. 2009. ‘Customer Orientation of Service Employees and
Organizational Performance: Empirical Evidence from Indian Banking’, Decision, 36(2):
pp. 133-153.
Singh, D. A. and Gaur, A. S. 2009. ‘Business Group Affiliation, Firm Governance and Firm
Performance: Evidence from China and India’, Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 17(4): pp. 411–425.
Singh, K. 2003a. ‘Strategic HR Orientation and Firm Performance in India’, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4): pp. 530-543.
------- 2003b. ‘The Effect of Human Resources Practices on Firm Performance in India’, Human
Resource Development International, Human Resource Development International, 6(1):
pp. 101–116.

67

 
------- 2004. ‘Impact of HR Practices on Perceived Firm Performance in India’, Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 42(3): pp. 301-317.
Singh, S. 2012. ‘Enhancing Organizational Competitiveness: Role of Organizational Culture’, in
Singh, Shailemdra (ed.), Global Competition and Competitiveness of Indian Corporates. New
Delhi: Macmillan, pp.67-82.
Singh, S., Singh, K.N. and Bhattacharya, A. 2006. ‘Enhancing Organizational Competitiveness:
Role of Organizational Culture and Human Resource Policies’, Paper presented at conference
on Global Competitiveness at the Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, May 24-25.
------- 2008. ‘High Performance Organizations: Relationship with Human Resource Policies and
Practices’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(4): pp. 507-527.
Singh, S. and Kumar, S. 2009. ‘Readiness to Compete Globally: A Case Study of NTPC’, in
Kumar, Krishna and P.R. Bhatt (eds.), Global Competition and Competitiveness of Indian
Corporates: Measurement and Analysis. New Delhi: Macmillan, pp.282-301.
Sinha, A. K. 2009. ‘Individual and Group-Level Processes in Organizations’, in G. Misra (ed.),
Psychology in India, Vol. 2: Social and Organizational Processes. New Delhi: Pearson, pp.
215-355.
Sinha, D. 1972. ‘Industrial Psychology: A Trend Report’, in S.K. Mitra (ed.), A Survey of
Research in Psychology. New Delhi: ICSSR, pp. 175-237.
------ 1974. ‘Job Satisfaction and Job Behavior’, in S.K. Roy and A Sree Kumar Menon (eds.),
Motivation and Organizational Effectiveness. New Delhi: SRC for Industrial Relations and
Human Resource, pp. 136-74.
Sinha, J.B.P. 1981. ‘Organizational Dynamics’, in Udai Pareek (ed.), A Survey of Research in
Psychology, 1971-76. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, pp. 415-475.
Som, A. 2008. ‘Innovative Human Resource Management and Corporate Performance in the
Context of Economic Liberalization in India’, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(7): pp. 1278-1297.
Sony, M., and Naik, S. 2012. ‘Six Sigma, Organizational Learning and Innovation: An
Integration and Empirical Examination’, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 29(8): pp. 915-936.
Stmupf, S. A., Doh, J. P., and Tymon, Jr., W. G. 2010. ‘The Strength of HR Practices in Indian
and Their Effects on Employee Career Success, Performance, and Potential’, Human
Resource Management, 49(3): pp. 353-375.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. 1997. ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’,
Strategic Management Journal, 18: pp. 509–33.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. ‘Organizations in Action’, New York: McGraw Hill.
U.S. Department of Labor 1993. ‘High Performance Work Practices and Firm Performance.
Washington’, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vakkuri, J., and Meklin, P. 2006. ‘Ambiguity in Performance Measurement: A Theoretical
Approach to Organizational Uses of Performance Measurement’, Financial Accountability
and Management, 22(3): pp. 235-250.
Vijaykumar, A. and Sridevi, S. 2010, ‘Does the Firm Size Matter? An Empirical Enquiry into the
Performance of Indian Automobile Firms’, Metamorphosis, 9(2): pp. 42-54.
Vishnu, S. and Gupta, V.K. 2014. ‘Intellectual Capital and Performance of Pharmaceutical
Firms in India’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(1): pp. 83-99.

68

 
 Vohra, N., Rawat, A. and Pandey, N. 2003. ‘Review of organizational behaviour research in
India: Journey from 1990-2002’, Indian Psychological Abstracts and Reviews, 10(2): pp.
221-313.
Wagonner, D. B., Neely, A. D., and Kennerley, M. P. 1999. ‘The Forces that Shape
Organizational Performance Measurement System: An Interdisciplinary Review’,
International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61: pp. 53-60.
Wall, T. D. and Stephen, J. W. 2005. ‘The Romance of Human Resource Management and
Business Performance and the Case for Big Science’, Human Relations, 58(4): pp. 429-462.
Walton, R. E. 1985. ‘From Control to Commitment in the Workplace’, Harvard Business
Review, 63(2): pp. 77-84.
Weber, M. 1987. ‘Bureaucracy’, in Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott (eds.) Classics of
Organizational Theory, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, pp. 73-78.
Wood, S. J. 1999. ‘Human Resource Management and Performance’, International Journal of
Management Reviews, 1(4): 367-413.
Wright, P. M., and Boswell, W. R. 2002. ‘Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis of
Micro and Macro Human Resource Management Research’, Journal of Management, 28(3):
pp. 247–276
Wright, P. M., Gardener, T. M., and Moynihan, L. M. 2003. ‘The Impact of HR Practices on
Performance of Business Units’, Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3): pp. 21-36.
Wright, P. M., and McMahan, G. C. 1992. ‘Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human
Resource Management’, Journal of Management, 18(2): pp. 295-320.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., and McWilliams, A. 1994. ‘Human Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based Perspective’, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 5(2): pp. 301-326.
Wrigley, L. 1970. ‘Divisional Autonomy and Diversification’, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Harvard Business School.
Yeung, A. K., Brockbank, J. W., and Ulrich, D. 1991. ‘Organisational Culture and Human
Resource Practices: An Empirical Assessment’, in Richard W. Woodman and William A.
Pasmore (eds.), Research in Organisational Change and Development. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, pp. 59-82.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, Jr., J. W., and Lepak, D. P. 1996. ‘Human Resource
Management, Manufacturing Strategy and Firm Performance’, Academy of Management
Journal, 39(4): 836-866.
Zhang, H. and Agarwal, N. C. 2009. ‘The Mediating Roles of Organizational Justice on the
Relationships between HR Practices and Workplace Outcomes: An Investigation in China’,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3): 676-693. 

69

View publication stats