Chapter 4

Data Analysis and Interpretation

 Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

“If we have data, let’s look at data. If all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.”

— Jim Barksdale

This chapter investigates the data for analysis and interpretation for achieving the
research objectives. The chapter comprises of 4 subsections. Section 1 displays the
general analysis -respondent’s profile, tools used for HR analytics, application of HR
analytics and challenges in implementation of HR analytics. Section 2 displays the
common method variance study to ascertain the reliability of the data. The study was
made by three techniques – Harman single factor test, Common latent factor, and
Comprehensive CFA marker approach. Section 3 displays Factor analysis and
Section 4 briefs the Measurement Model, Path Analysis, Testing the moderator and
mediation impact on the study and PLS predict. The output and interpretations are
followed with each study made to achieve the objectives.

4.1 General Analysis

The empirical study was made through a structured questionnaire. The survey method
helped us in measuring the association of constructs with the adoption of HR analytics
and its consequences on strategic workforce management. The questionnaire was
prepared on google forms and data was collected online. Questionnaire was sent to
520 respondents across India. 492 respondents reverted with filled questionnaires and
478 were selected for the study after removing incomplete questionnaires.

A) Respondents profile

The study appreciates the responses from 478 respondents, among them 326 (62.8%)
were females and 152 (31.8%) were males. The number of female respondents were
more as we encountered more females in HR department in IT industry in India
(Brandl, Mayrhofer and Reichel, 2008). The 266 (55.6%) respondents were less than
40 years of age and 212 (44.4%) were 40 years and above. The majority of

66
 Chapter 4

respondents were post graduate (49.8%) followed by graduate (32.2%), professional

certification (7.5%), doctorate (6.7%) and undergraduate (3.8%). The maximum of
respondents were HR system experts (46.9%) who are closely working with HR data
and routine task study. 20.9% of respondents were HR managers, 16.5% were HR
generalist, 12.6% were HR specialist and 3.1% were HR director. The 262 (54.8%)
respondents are working across MSME (Micro, Small and Medium enterprises) and
216 (45.2%) are working in large organisation of IT industry in India. 226 (47.3%)
respondents have up to 2 years of experience working on HR analytics and 252
(52.7%) respondents have more than 2 years of experience working on HR analytics
where 289 (60.5%) of respondents have undergone no training to work on HR
analytics. Table 4.1 shows the respondent‘s profile – gender, age, education,
designation, type of organisation, experience of working on HR analytics and do the
respondents undergone training on HR analytics.

Table 4.1: Respondent’s profile

Aspects Frequency Percent Cumulative percent

Gender

Male 152 31.8 31.8

Female 362 68.2 100

Age

Less than 40 266 55.6 55.6

40 and above 212 44.4 100

Education

Undergraduate 18 3.8 3.8

Graduate 154 32.2 36

Post Graduate 238 49.8 85.8

Doctorate 32 6.7 92.5

Professional 36 7.5 100

Certification

67
 Chapter 4

Designation

HR Generalist 79 16.5 16.5

HR Specialist 60 12.6 29.1

HR Manager 100 20.9 50

HR Director 15 3.1 53.1

HR System Expert 224 46.9 100

Type of organisation

Micro, Small and 262 54.8 54.8

Medium Enterprises

Large Organisations 216 45.2 100

Experience of working on HR analytics

Up to 2 years 226 47.3 47.3

More than 2 years 252 52.7 100

Undergone HR Analytics Training

Yes 189 39.5 39.5

No 289 60.5 100

B) Tools used for HR analytics

HR practitioners had a good transformation journey from arranging documents to

HRIS to generating reports and now to dashboard and analysis for decision making.
The time is demanding them to play the role of Strategic Business Partner and not just
as facilitator or coordinator. Analytics is one step for them to meet the rising needs of
the business. Study was initiated with an understanding of recent tools used by them
for analysis. Figure 4.1 shows the result from our data that R language is used more
than other tools. To ascertain the results, we asked multiple response questions to our
respondents about the analytical tools they are using at their workplaces. The results
were analysed on dichotomous analysis by counting ‗yes‘ which is shown in Table
4.2. As per the results, R language is most accepted and used analytical tool with
32.2% of response rate followed by Power BI (22.3%), Tableau (17.5%) and Python
(15.9%).

68
 Chapter 4

Table 4.2: Analytical tools used for HR analytics

TOOL USED FOR HR CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY PERCENT
ANALYTICS PERCENT
Tableau 84 17.5 17.5
R 154 32.2 49.7
SPSS 38 7.9 57.6
Python 76 15.9 73.5
Power BI 106 22.3 95.8
Visier 20 4.2 100

Tools used for HR analytics

180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Tableau R SPSS Python Power BI Visier

FREQUENCY PERCENT

Figure 4.1: Tools used for HR Analytics

C) Application of HR Analytics

Daily HR receive good number of data related to employees. They hold a major
responsibility of analysing this data and generate meaningful reports covering all
major functionalities. To ascertain the results, we asked multiple response questions
to our respondents about the application of HR analytics in their tasks. The results
were analysed on dichotomous analysis by counting ‗yes‘ which is shown in Table 4.3
which shows HR are making most use of HR analytics in HR planning (78%)
followed by Training and Development (75%), Recruitment (61%), Quality
Improvement (45%), Performance Evaluation (44%), Employee satisfaction (42%),
Employee Empowerment (41%), Career Management (31%), Employee Retention
(26%), Knowledge Management (25%). The least applied areas are Employee

69
 Chapter 4

engagement (24%), Employee turnover (23%) and Potential Management (22%).

Figure 4.3 shows a graphical presentation of application of HR analytics.

Table 4.3: Application of HR Analytics

APPLICATION OF HR ANALYTICS FREQUENCY PERCENT

HR Planning 372 78
Career Management 150 31
Recruitment 292 61
Performance Evaluation 208 44
Employee Satisfaction 200 42
Employee Engagement 114 24
Employee Empowerment 198 41
Employee Turnover 108 23
Knowledge Management 120 25
Quality Improvement 214 45
Employee Retention 126 26
Potential Management 104 22
Training and Development 360 75

Application of HR Analytics
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

FREQUENCY PERCENT

Figure 4.2: Application of HR Analytics

70
 Chapter 4

D) Challenges in implementation of HR Analytics

Every new concept, technology or innovation invites some challenges. The case with
HR analytics adoption is similar as the HR practitioners found themselves struggling
with the numbers, systems and technology (Roger, 1983). Table 4.4 shows the mean
values and standard deviation of the challenges in implementation of HR analytics.

Table 4.4: Challenges in implementation of HR analytics

MEAN STANDARD
CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF HR ANALYTICS
DEVIATION
Low analytical skills in HR department 2.19 0.577
Time constraints is there into proper implementation of talent
2.47 0.684
acquisition strategies
Accuracy in organizational challenges 2.23 0.610
Data collection is problematic 2.34 0.691
Faces difficulties in data security 2.21 0.741
The quality of data is not appropriate for analytics 2.30 0.718
Teamwork environment issues 2.31 0.668
It has high investment cost 2.35 0.639
It has high operational cost 2.31 0.655

All mean values are more than 2, which depicts HRs working in IT industry in India
agreed that these challenges are there in implementation of HR analytics. The HR
professionals considers time constraint into proper implementation of talent
acquisition strategies as the biggest challenge (Mean = 2.47) followed by investment
cost (Mean = 2.35) and problems in data collection (Mean = 2.34).

E) General Descriptive Analysis

The mean and standard deviation of each statement of the construct along with the
general questions are calculated. Based on each statement of the construct a code is
assigned. All the antecedents – general self-efficacy (GSE), quantitative self-efficacy
(QSE), effort expectancy (EE), performance expectancy (PE), social influence (SI),
tool availability (TA) and data availability (DA) are scaled on seven-point Likert
scale. All the segments of strategic workforce management – task performance (TP),
empowerment practice (EP), strategic participation (SP) and training and development
(TND) are scale on five-point Likert scale.

71
 Chapter 4

General Self-Efficacy

In 2001, Ajzen stated in his studies that the perceived behavioural control is different
form the self-efficacy. The use of any technology is not related to what a person has
done in past or willing to do in future (Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Ajzen, 2001;
Shahbaz et.al., 2019). The factor is related to attitude, acceptance to change and
willingness to find solutions (Fred, 2016). Davenport (2013) stated that adopting
analytics is like adopting technology. This as factor is studied and results are in the
Table 4.5. We include seven statements, and their mean and standard deviation values
are obtained. The results shows that GSE5 have maximum mean with 5.79, followed
by GSE4 (5.76), GSE6 (5.69), GSE3 (5.58), GSE7 (5.56), GSE2(5.46) and GSE1
(5.41).

Table 4.5: General self-efficacy statements

Code Standard
Statements Mean
Assigned Deviation
HR Analytics is easy to use. GSE1 5,41 1,23
HR Analytics is convenient to use. GSE2 5,46 1,29
I can use HR Analytics without much effort. GSE3 5,58 1,30
I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort
GSE4 5,76 1,20
related to HR Analytics.
When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find
GSE5 5,79 1,11
several solutions through HR analytics.
If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. GSE6 5,69 1,25
I can usually handle whatever comes my way through HR
GSE7 5,56 1,28
Analytics.

Quantitative Self – Efficacy

The complexities of the adopting the new technology and the need to widen the scope
of knowledge, quantitative self-efficacy is included to study as an antecedent of HR
analytics adoption. The studies have shown that attitudes are influenced by knowledge
and self-efficacy is dependent on the belief that a person can perform (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 2000). Quantitative self-efficacy as factor to adoption of HR analytics is
studied and results are in the Table 4.6. We include five statements, and their mean

72
 Chapter 4

and standard deviation values are obtained. The results shows that QSE3 has
maximum mean of 5.63 followed by QSE4 (5.61), QSE5 (5.50), QSE2 (5.32), QSE1
(5.26) and QSE6 (5.24).

Table 4.6: Quantitative self-efficacy statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

I find using mathematical and/or statistical
QSE1 5,26 1,40
measurements interesting.
I worry about my ability to solve
QSE2 5,32 1,51
mathematical and/or statistical problems.
I enjoy working with mathematical and/or
QSE3 5,63 1,40
statistical measures.
I find mathematical and/or statistical
QSE4 5,61 1,38
measures challenging.
Math and/or statistics are one of my
QSE5 5,50 1,40
favourite subjects.
I get nervous when I use mathematics
QSE6 5,24 1,59
and/or statistics.

Effort Expectancy

Venkatesh et.al., (2012) postulated individual inclination for persuasion or adopting

new as a factor of acceptance of technology. Learning attitude makes a big difference
in adoption of analytics for those who are not technology inclined (Yeong et.al.,
2012). The readiness to learn, adopt new and accept changes in the work with
commitment is a new dimension to know the impact on adoption (Brockbank, 2018).
Effort expectancy as factor to adoption of HR analytics is studied and results are in
the Table 4.7. The results shows that EE4 has maximum mean of 5.85 followed by
EE3 (5.60), EE2 (5.58) and EE1 (5.41).

Table 4.7: Effort expectancy statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

It would be easy for me to become skillful
EE1 5,41 1,14
at using HR Analytics.
Learning to use HR Analytics is easy for
EE2 5,58 1,20
me.
It is easy for me to become skillful at using
EE3 5,60 1,12
HR Analytics.
My role related to HR Analytics is clear. EE4 5,85 1,10

73
 Chapter 4

Performance Expectancy:

Johnston and Warkentin (2010) and Venkatesh et al. (2012) stated that every individual
has its own career plan and aspirations, where they seek if adoption can improve their job
performance. The individual will be inclined to adopt any new technology only if they see
a better performance or improved job quality. Although the new concept might not be
easy to use, resulting in more learning sessions by the users. This may give negative
results as all individuals might not think alike and refuse for upcoming challenges which
lead us to study performance expectancy as a factor of adoption of HR Analytics and the
results are in Table 4.8. The results shows that PE2 has maximum mean of 5.71 followed
by PE3 (5.63), PE1 (5.48) and PE4 (5.47).

Table 4.8: Performance expectancy statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

I would find the use of HR Analytics useful
PE1 5,48 1,21
in my job.
Using HR Analytics enables me to
PE2 5,71 1,20
accomplish tasks more quickly.
Using HR Analytics increases my job
PE3 5,63 1,21
performance.
The use of HR Analytics is not very visible
PE4 5,47 1,32
in my organization

Tool Availability

To deploy new technology as practice it‘s important that the organization make use of
appropriate system, software, and tools. The efforts are required to provide necessary
skills sets to work on these tools to analysis the data, visualize and make feasible
decisions. Carlson and Kavanagh (2011) postulated that new technique to viewing
data has changed the organization‘s evaluation process for human capital. The right
application of knowledge and tools has become a necessity to make best use of
analytics on HR data. The studies have claimed that we are short of skilled analyst in
HR domain, and we need to train the HR professionals. Tool availability was studied
as a factor of adoption of HR Analytics. The results are shown in Table 4.9. The
results shows that TA5 has maximum mean of 5.73 followed by TA4 (5.71), TA3
(5.68), TA2 (5.51) and TA1 (5.35).

74
 Chapter 4

Table 4.9: Tool availability statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

I have a full array of HR Analytics tools
TA1 5,35 1,26
available at work.
My company has invested heavily in HR
TA2 5,51 1,30
Analytics tools.
Before deciding whether to use any HR
Analytics applications, I am able to TA3 5,68 1,14
properly try them out.
I have had a great deal of opportunity to try
TA4 5,71 1,24
various HR Analytics applications.
I know where I can go to satisfactorily try
TA5 5,73 1,15
out various uses of HR Analytics.

Data Availability:

Data is a basis on which analytics is performed. The structured data is a constructive

mode to draw insights (Venkatesh et.al., 2012). HR have a storage of data related to
people, projects, and processes which they wish to administer for drawing insights
and better decision making (Togt and Rasmussen, 2017). Each department store data
in their own working format and metrics looks entirely different. This makes
integration a difficult process (George and Kamalanabhan, 2016). The sincere efforts
are required to streamline data to make it useful for analytics. The studies have
recommended the organizations to structure their data and provide scope for analysing
after integration. Data availability was studied as a factor of HR Analytics and results
are in Table 4.10. The result shows that DA4 has maximum mean of 5.72 followed by
DA2 (5.70), DA3 (5.62) and DA1(5.56).

Table 4.10: Data availability statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

My organization‘s database has all the data
DA1 5,56 1,27
I need to use HR Analytics software.
My organization‘s HR system collects data
DA2 5,70 1,25
from all HR interactions.
My organization uses the same
DA3 5,62 1,31
system/platforms for all HR activities.
My company‘s database has an interface
DA4 5,72 1,30
that is compatible with other systems.

75
 Chapter 4

Social Influence

Individual thoughts, actions and decisions are easily be influenced by society and social
circle. The adoption of HR analytics can be influenced by peer group, social media,
society and annual reports of the organizations. If the HR practitioners considers the
benefits, the adoption will be convenient but adversely if they reject than it will
negatively impact the process. The desire to work on new tool can be just an attraction
gained from the buzz created by the media but that necessary does not mean that it will be
a success for all (Johnston, 2006). Social influence was studied as a factor of adoption of
HR Analytics and results are shown in Table 4.11. The results state that SI5 has
maximum mean of 5.58 followed by SI4 (5.56), SI3(5.51), SI2(5.48) and SI1(5.25).

Table 4.11: Social influence statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

People who influence my behavior think
SI1 5,25 1,22
that I should use HR Analytics.
People who are important to me think that I
SI2 5,48 1,27
should use HR Analytics.
The senior management of this
organization has been helpful in the use of SI3 5,51 1,15
HR Analytics.
In general, the organization has supported
SI4 5,56 1,18
the use of HR Analytics.
Because of my use of HR Analytics, others
in my organization will see me as a more SI5 5,58 1,22
valuable employee

Adoption of HR analytics

The adoption of new technique often faces restriction from its users, organisers of
policies, finance section and management delays. HR and team leaders have to take
diligent steps to make adoption a smooth process. Keeping the up and downs into the
consideration we had studied the level of adoption of HR analytics. Table 4.12 shows
the results where LOA4 has maximum mean of 5.73 followed by LOA3 (5.69), LOA5
(5.62), LOA2 (5.55) and LOA1 (5.16).

76
 Chapter 4

Table 4.12: Adoption of HR analytics statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

My organization is putting a policy in place to
LOA1 5,16 1,41
use HR Analytics.
I am beginning to explore using HR Analytics. LOA2 5,55 1,31
I am interested in using HR Analytics. LOA3 5,69 1,22
I am recommending my organization invest in
LOA4 5,73 1,26
HR Analytics.
I use HR Analytics for some specific tasks. LOA5 5,62 1,30

Task Performance

Every change comes with responsibility, challenges, and stress. The adoption of HR
analytics comes with new experiences for its users. Task performance brings a focus
on accomplishment of task or assigned job with efficiency and effectiveness
(Koopmans, 2014). The employees have to focus on both quality and speeding up
with quantity of tasks. This comes with up-to-date knowledge and maintaining
accuracy. Task performance was studied as a consequence of adoption of HR
analytics in reference to strategic workforce management. Table 4.13 shows the
results where TP2 has maximum mean of 4.33 followed by TP4 (4.24), TP6 (4.22),
TP5 (4.21), TP3 (4.15) and TP1 (4.03).

Table 4.13: Task performance statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

With the use of HR Analytics I managed to
TP1 4,03 0,74
plan my work so that it was done on time.
HR Analytics gives me a focus on the
TP2 4,33 0,81
results that I had to achieve in my work.
I was able to separate main issues from
TP3 4,15 0,74
side issues at work by use of HR Analytics.
I knew how to set the right priorities
TP4 4,24 0,73
through HR Analytics.
I was able to perform my work well with
minimal time and effort because of HR TP5 4,21 0,76
Analytics.
HR Analytics enables the collaboration
TP6 4,22 0,68
with others was very productive.

77
 Chapter 4

Empowerment practices

HR Analytics aims at right decision making which gives authority to its user to make
some of the decisions based on the insights drawn from the analysis. The employees
can keep a track on the expenses, progress of work, timeline and delivery of project.
In the entire course of project, data and insights helps the employees to stand on the
right side of action (Pare and Tremblay, 2000). This led us to study empowerment
practices as a consequence of HR Analytics as a base of strategic workforce
management. Table 4.14 shows the results for empower practices statements where
EP6 has a maximum mean of 4.14 followed by EP8 (4.13), EP5 (4.09), EP7 (4.09),
EP2 (4.03), EP4 (4.02) and EP1 (3.93).

Table 4.14: Empowerment practices statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

In my organization, my work unit plays a
EP1 3,93 0,67
strategic role through HR Analytics.
Employees in my work unit have a lot of
autonomy in regard to project management EP2 4,03 0,81
provided through HR Analytics.
My supervisor manages our unit‘s budgets
EP3 4,07 0,77
through HR Analytics.
HR Analytics helps my work unit by giving
liberty to employees in the conduct of their EP4 4,02 0,73
work
Employees in my work unit are extensively
involved in the recruitment process because EP5 4,09 0,78
of HR Analytics.
Employees in my work unit are regularly
consulted in technological investments EP6 4,14 0,76
decisions because of HR Analytics.
Employees‘ empowerment in my work unit is
EP7 4,09 0,76
highly valued with exercising HR Analytics.
My work unit is considered as a strategic
division in my organization because of HR EP8 4,13 0,69
Analytics.

Training and Development

The insights from data contributed well, in defining the need and areas of training and
development for the employees of the organisation. Waseem et al., 2013 stated that a

78
 Chapter 4

systematic training program is a journey which can be achieved through a process and
right check. The efficiency of training is determined through HR Analytics. Thus, we
studied training and development as a strategic workforce management factor
determined as a consequence of HR Analytics. Table 4.15 shows the results of
training and development where TND3 has maximum mean of 4.10 followed by
TND4 (4.08), TND5 (4.08), TND2 (4.07), TND6 (4.05) and TND1 (3.86).

Table 4.15: Training and development statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

HR Analytics is used in my organization
for determining systematic techniques used TND1 3,86 0,71
in for specific training needs.
HR Analytics plays a crucial role in
conducting Training programs by external TND2 4,07 0,76
consultants.
HR Analytics provides effective
communication which is necessary for TND3 4,10 0,68
delivering quality training.
The training efficiency is determined
TND4 4,08 0,80
through HR Analytics.
HR Analytics assesses the opportunities
you have to engage in training and
TND5 4,08 0,70
education activities that are beyond that
needed in your job.
HR Analytics determines the financial
support you can receive from your TND6 4,05 0,81
employer for further education.

Strategic Participation

Strategic partnering, strategic planning and strategic manpower management is

possible today through strategic participation of employees (Al-Omaria, Alomaria,
& Aljawarneha, 2019). This led to self-motivated employees helping the
organisation to improve the processes and technique of working. (Qudah et al.,
2020). We studied strategic participation as a consequence of HR Analytics
adoption influencing strategic workforce management. Table 4.16 shows the results
of statements asked in respect of strategic participation where SP2 has maximum
mean of 4.24 followed by SP4 (4.23), SP3 (4.09), SP5 (4.09) and SP1 (3.98).

79
 Chapter 4

Table 4.16: Strategic participation statements

Statements Code Assigned Mean Standard Deviation

HR Analytics helps in synchronizing company‘s
SP1 3,98 0,64
strategy and HR planning.
HR Analytics enables effective communication
system that supports the integration of strategic SP2 4,24 0,69
planning and HR planning.
The circulation of information to all staff at all
administration levels are administered through SP3 4,09 0,70
HR Analytics.
HR Analytics enables the company to allow
employees to submit their suggestions for SP4 4,23 0,80
strategy formation.
HR Analytics enables the company to allow
employees to submit their suggestions for SP5 4,09 0,71
strategy implementation.

4.2 Common Method Variance Study

Method variance study was performed on the collected data to ensure the data is bias
free. We used constructs from different sources and adopted different scales to avoid
method biasness and have introduced the marker variable in the questionnaire at the
time of collecting data. Marker variables are the indicators of some other variables
which are not related to the study. This is a concept focusing upon reducing or
eliminating common method variance. Williams et.al., (2010) has emphasized on the
unrelated construct in the survey instrument. These unrelated factors can be -
modernity, large city, symbolic patriotism, tolerance for ambiguity, trust, work
engagement, power distance, price consciousness, price premium, professional
identification, friendship, justice, change of attitude, commitment, liking sports,
physical development, financial interest, tenure, job satisfaction, leadership (Williams
et.al., 2010; Simmering, 2015). It was stated by authors that if these unrelated factors
are present in the survey constructs than it will lower the correlations between the
measured and manifested variables (Lindell and Whitney, 2001; William et.al., 2010;
Eichhorn, 2014). In the present study to avoid the possibilities of biasness in the data
further a marker variable – liking for sport (Simmering et.al., 2015), that is, cricket as
a variable was chosen and questions were asked on the likeliness of the game, which
were added in the survey instrument following the comprehensive CFA marker
approach (Williams et.al., 2010).

80
 Chapter 4

Table 4.17: Results of Harman single test

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component % of Component % of % of
Total Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total Cumulative % Total Cumulative %
Variance Variance Variance
1 23.821 36.648 36.648 23.821 36.648 36.648 33 .352 .541 90.459
2 4.040 6.215 42.863 34 .335 .515 90.974
3 3.363 5.173 48.037 35 .331 .510 91.484
4 2.578 3.966 52.002 36 .315 .485 91.968
5 2.287 3.518 55.521 37 .309 .476 92.444
6 2.129 3.276 58.797 38 .295 .454 92.898
7 1.945 2.992 61.788 39 .275 .423 93.321
8 1.713 2.635 64.424 40 .270 .415 93.736
9 1.416 2.179 66.602 41 .259 .398 94.134
10 1.272 1.957 68.559 42 .246 .378 94.513
11 1.125 1.731 70.290 43 .231 .355 94.868
12 1.058 1.627 71.917 44 .227 .349 95.217
13 .944 1.452 73.369 45 .220 .338 95.555
14 .875 1.346 74.715 46 .213 .328 95.883
15 .836 1.286 76.001 47 .205 .315 96.198
16 .793 1.220 77.221 48 .198 .305 96.503
17 .726 1.117 78.338 49 .187 .288 96.791
18 .711 1.094 79.433 50 .178 .274 97.065
19 .660 1.016 80.448 51 .173 .266 97.331
20 .617 .950 81.398 52 .171 .264 97.595
21 .595 .915 82.313 53 .165 .254 97.849
22 .572 .880 83.193 54 .161 .247 98.096
23 .554 .852 84.045 55 .156 .239 98.335
24 .516 .793 84.838 56 .143 .220 98.555
25 .476 .732 85.571 57 .139 .214 98.769
26 .441 .678 86.249 58 .131 .201 98.971
27 .425 .654 86.902 59 .121 .187 99.157
28 .419 .645 87.547 60 .113 .174 99.332
29 .407 .626 88.173 61 .102 .157 99.489
30 .398 .612 88.785 62 .092 .141 99.630
31 .376 .579 89.364 63 .089 .138 99.768
32 .360 .554 89.918 64 .078 .120 99.888
65 .073 .112 100.000

81
 Chapter 4

This marker variable is completely unrelated to the study and has no relation with any of
the construct studies in HR analytics research. Richardson et.al., (2009) defined such
variable as an ideal marker variable. We tested the data using three techniques: Harman
one factor approach, Common latent factor and Comprehensive CFA marker approach.

A) Harman one factor approach

Firstly, conducted Harman one factor analysis in SPSS. According to this approach we
put all the items of each construct included in the study into factor analysis to determine
the majority of the variance explained by one single general factor (Fuller et al., 2016).
Principal component analysis was employed for single general factor with un-rotated
factor solution. The result in Table 4.17 shows that the first factor estimates the total
variance of 36.6% which is well less than the threshold value of 50% recommended by
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, there are 12 resultant factors, with 71% total variance
explained, so one factor is not explaining majority of the variance. This analysis describes
that there is no method biasness exists in the present study.

B) Common Latent Factor (CLF)

Second technique which we took in this study is common latent factor (CLF) analysis.
This method is applied in AMOS and model in CLF (Figure 4.3) was created. First we
create latent factor which hold the common variance among all observed variables in
the model. Then establish path from this CLF to all observed variables in the model
constrained equal variance let us say ―a‖ (Table 4.18). This CLF is also constrained
variance as ―1‖. The latent factor is not covaried with other factors in the analysis.
Although other than latent factor others have a covariance. The results of this
technique will be seen in two ways. First, common method variance is the square of
common variance of each path and compare it with the threshold value of 50 percent
(Eichhorn B R, 2014). In the present study the common variance of each path is 0.353
with a significant t-value. The CMV is the square of 0.353 which comes out 0.124
(12.4%) which is much less than threshold value. Secondly, compare the standardized
regression weight of each variable in the model with CLF to without CLF model.
Further, if the difference is more than 0.200 Gaskin J (2021) then consider CMV is
present in the model. While comparing the resultant standardized regression weight,
found that the difference of standardized regression weight of each variable is less
than 0.200 (Table 4.19). Hence no CMV is present in this study.

82
 Chapter 4

Table 4.18: Results of CLF

Relations Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Relations Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

GSE3 <--- GSE 1.000 GSE3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

GSE7 <--- GSE .930 .044 21.068 *** GSE7 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

GSE5 <--- GSE .801 .039 20.597 *** GSE5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

GSE4 <--- GSE .860 .042 20.245 *** GSE4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

GSE1 <--- GSE .868 .044 19.567 *** GSE1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

GSE2 <--- GSE .907 .047 19.224 *** GSE2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

GSE6 <--- GSE .858 .045 19.107 *** GSE6 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

QSE3 <--- QSE 1.000 QSE3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

QSE2 <--- QSE .988 .048 20.777 *** QSE2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

QSE1 <--- QSE .983 .042 23.194 *** QSE1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

QSE5 <--- QSE .878 .045 19.648 *** QSE5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

QSE4 <--- QSE .759 .046 16.655 *** QSE4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

QSE6 <--- QSE .550 .060 9.162 *** QSE6 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EE3 <--- EE 1.000 EE3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EE2 <--- EE 1.152 .063 18.338 *** EE2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EE1 <--- EE .930 .059 15.674 *** EE1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EE4 <--- EE .798 .057 13.986 *** EE4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

PE2 <--- PE 1.000 PE2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

PE3 <--- PE 1.005 .051 19.516 *** PE3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

PE1 <--- PE .936 .051 18.293 *** PE1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

PE4 <--- PE .601 .063 9.537 *** PE4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SI3 <--- SI 1.000 SI4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SI5 <--- SI 1.005 .066 15.213 *** TA4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SI2 <--- SI 1.114 .056 19.848 *** TA2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SI1 <--- SI 1.039 .054 19.157 *** TA3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SI4 <--- SI .993 .052 19.071 *** TA5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TA4 <--- TA 1.000 TA1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TA2 <--- TA .979 .048 20.208 *** DA4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TA3 <--- TA .857 .043 20.039 *** DA2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TA5 <--- TA .830 .044 19.021 *** DA3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TA1 <--- TA .884 .049 18.152 *** DA1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

DA4 <--- DA 1.000 LOA4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

DA2 <--- DA 1.001 .048 20.930 *** LOA3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

83
 Chapter 4

Relations Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Relations Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

DA3 <--- DA .969 .050 19.319 *** LOA2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

DA1 <--- DA .973 .050 19.445 *** LOA1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

LOA4 <--- LOA 1.000 LOA5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

LOA3 <--- LOA .964 .054 17.819 *** TP1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

LOA2 <--- LOA 1.046 .059 17.777 *** TP5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

LOA1 <--- LOA 1.128 .064 17.688 *** TP6 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

LOA5 <--- LOA .845 .061 13.942 *** TP3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TP1 <--- TP 1.000 TP4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TP5 <--- TP .894 .070 12.758 *** TP2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TP6 <--- TP .835 .063 13.148 *** EP4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TP3 <--- TP .854 .068 12.494 *** EP8 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TP4 <--- TP .833 .068 12.178 *** EP2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TP2 <--- TP 1.039 .080 13.038 *** EP6 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP4 <--- EP 1.000 EP7 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP8 <--- EP .748 .044 16.843 *** EP5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP2 <--- EP .896 .053 16.918 *** EP3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP6 <--- EP .863 .052 16.742 *** EP1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP7 <--- EP .840 .053 15.734 *** TND4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP5 <--- EP .802 .055 14.575 *** TND6 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP3 <--- EP .740 .055 13.413 *** TND2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

EP1 <--- EP .401 .053 7.538 *** TND1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TND4 <--- TND 1.000 TND5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TND6 <--- TND .946 .046 20.646 *** TND3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TND2 <--- TND .815 .043 18.854 *** SP4 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TND1 <--- TND .598 .041 14.763 *** SP3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TND5 <--- TND .536 .042 12.855 *** SP2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

TND3 <--- TND .446 .042 10.514 *** SP5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SP4 <--- SP 1.000 SP1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SP3 <--- SP .446 .050 9.007 *** SI3 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SP2 <--- SP .501 .052 9.644 *** SI5 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SP5 <--- SP .507 .052 9.688 *** SI2 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

SP1 <--- SP .265 .045 5.892 *** SI1 <--- CLF .353 .018 19.381 *** a

84
 Chapter 4

Figuree 4.3: Model with CLF

85
 Chapter 4

Table 4.19: Difference of Standardized Regression Weight

Estimate (Without Estimate (Without

Variables Estimate (CLF) Difference Variables Estimate (CLF) Difference
CLF) CLF)

GSE3 0.832 0.843 0.011 DA3 0.793 0.822 0.029

GSE7 0.831 0.843 0.012 DA1 0.826 0.799 -0.027

GSE5 0.832 0.83 -0.002 LOA4 0.82 0.82 0

GSE4 0.824 0.817 -0.007 LOA3 0.828 0.825 -0.003

GSE1 0.794 0.796 0.002 LOA2 0.821 0.82 -0.001

GSE2 0.789 0.783 -0.006 LOA1 0.813 0.814 0.001

GSE6 0.775 0.79 0.015 LOA5 0.695 0.694 -0.001

QSE3 0.879 0.886 0.007 TP1 0.792 0.763 -0.029

QSE2 0.796 0.816 0.02 TP5 0.726 0.734 0.008

QSE1 0.908 0.854 -0.054 TP6 0.737 0.743 0.006

QSE5 0.781 0.788 0.007 TP3 0.718 0.727 0.009

QSE4 0.707 0.732 0.025 TP4 0.686 0.698 0.012

QSE6 0.436 0.502 0.066 TP2 0.702 0.698 -0.004

EE3 0.818 0.82 0.002 EP4 0.825 0.851 0.026

EE2 0.843 0.84 -0.003 EP8 0.805 0.788 -0.017

EE1 0.766 0.768 0.002 EP2 0.77 0.791 0.021

EE4 0.712 0.719 0.007 EP6 0.692 0.755 0.063

PE2 0.829 0.838 0.009 EP7 0.714 0.723 0.009

PE3 0.839 0.847 0.008 EP5 0.7 0.699 -0.001

PE1 0.813 0.814 0.001 EP3 0.576 0.665 0.089

PE4 0.53 0.512 -0.018 EP1 0.51 0.485 -0.025

SI3 0.808 0.84 0.032 TND4 0.869 0.888 0.019

SI5 0.818 0.835 -0.017 TND6 0.777 0.819 0.042

SI2 0.836 0.83 0.006 TND2 0.75 0.796 0.046

SI1 0.814 0.825 -0.011 TND1 0.781 0.76 -0.021

SI4 0.795 0.817 -0.022 TND5 0.715 0.715 0

TA4 0.871 0.867 -0.004 TND3 0.632 0.651 0.019

TA2 0.818 0.821 0.003 SP4 0.727 0.852 0.125

TA3 0.81 0.812 0.002 SP3 0.717 0.735 0.018

TA5 0.786 0.794 0.008 SP2 0.691 0.701 0.01

TA1 0.763 0.772 0.009 SP5 0.529 0.692 0.163

DA4 0.849 0.876 0.027 SP1 0.671 0.637 -0.034

DA2 0.847 0.84 -0.007

86
 Chapter 4

C) Comprehensive CFA Marker Technique

Stage I: Model comparisons. The model fit results of the analyses for each model are
shown in Table 4.20, displaying the values of chi-square, degrees of freedom, and
Comparative Fit Index (CFI). It is revealed from the table that values of CFI in initial
model (Figure 4.4) are shorter than threshold value of the 0.9. The reason of this may
in part reflect the relatively large number (65) of items for the substantive variables
and the resultant constrained parameters in the factor loading matrix. In order to find
out the effect of method marker variable on loadings and to test the null hypothesis
that there is no impact of method marker variable on items comparison of Baseline
Model (Figure 4.5) and Method-C (Figure 4.6) Model were conducted. The
comparison gives in a chi-square difference of 68.4 with four degree of freedom,
which is less than the 0.05 so reject the hypothesis. This indicates that there is an
impact of marker variable on items.

Table 4.20: Chi-square and Model Comparison Test

Model CMIN (χ2) DF CFI

Initial Model 7811.573 2132 0.784

Baseline Model 7853.97 2146 0.783

Method-C Model 7785.579 2142 0.786

Method-U Model 7534.219 2082 0.793

Method-R Model 7536.675 2146 0.795

Chi-Square Model Comparison Test

Model χ2 DF

Baseline Vs Method-C Model 68.4* 4

Method-C Vs Method-U Model 251.36* 60

Method-U Vs Method-R Model 2.46 64

*p<0.05

87
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.4: Initial model

88
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.5: Baseline Model ((Restricted variance of Marker Variable)

89
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.6: Model C (Where all items have restricted variance “a”)

90
 Chapter 4

In the next step, a comparison was computed between the Method-U (Figure 4.7) and
Method-C models to determine if the impact of the method marker variable was equal
for all of the 65 items loading on the substantive indicators. This comparison also
tested the null hypothesis that the method factor loadings are equal on each item. The
result of chi-square difference is 251.36 with 60 degree of freedom. As the p value is
less than 0.05, testing supports the rejection of the hypothesis that method marker
loading is equal on every item, hence different impact on items. In this study,
Method-U Model represents the best model for accounting for marker variance on
substantive indicators. The standardized factor loadings for the Method-U Model are
shown in Table 4.21. The values range from .342 to .900 and significant (p<.05). In
Marker Variable column marker factor loadings from Method-U Model mentioned,
some of the items were statistically significant at the p < .01 level and 0.05 level,
some were insignificant this indicating that the item was contaminated by a source of
method variance captured by the marker variable. These values were ranged from .00
to .236. The square of these loading specifies the percentage of variance in the item
associated with the marker variable. Median amount of marker variance in each
indicator was 0.6%. Finally, the correlations among the substantive latent variables
from the Method-U are ranged from 0.3 to 0.8.

Table 4.21: Standardized Factor Loading of Method-U Model

Marker
S. N0. Items GSE QSE EE PE SI TA DA LOA TP EP TND SP
Variable
1 GSE3 .830* .143**
*
2 GSE7 .824 .190*
*
3 GSE5 .828 .079
4 GSE4 .813* .090
5 GSE1 .778* .175*
6 GSE2 .778* .096**
*
7 GSE6 .783 .103**
8 QSE3 .880* .110**
9 QSE2 .807* .125**
*
10 QSE1 .836 .185*
*
11 QSE5 .770 .172*
*
12 QSE4 .733 .054
13 QSE6 .492* .100**
14 EE3 .818* .060
15 EE2 .834* .105**
16 EE1 .769* .028
17 EE4 .719* .037
*
18 PE2 .836 .057

91
 Chapter 4

Marker
S. N0. Items GSE QSE EE PE SI TA DA LOA TP EP TND SP
Variable
19 PE3 .847* .028
20 PE1 .814* .027
21 PE4 .503* .193*
22 SI3 .828* .138**
*
23 SI5 .834 .067
24 SI2 .812* .196*
25 SI1 .807* .195*
*
26 SI4 .818 .051
27 TA4 .866* .030
28 TA2 .817* .102**
29 TA3 .815* -.004
*
30 TA5 .790 .089
31 TA1 .778* -.056
32 DA4 .874* .047
33 DA2 .841* .000
34 DA3 .821* .049
35 DA1 .803* -.068
36 LOA4 .818* .040
37 LOA3 .824* .025
38 LOA2 .826* -.073
39 LOA1 .815* .021
40 LOA5 .691* .108**
41 TP1 .762* .011
42 TP5 .734* -.101**
43 TP6 .743* -.067
44 TP3 .728* .015
45 TP4 .701* .083
46 TP2 .697* -.083
47 EP4 .843* .114*
*
48 EP8 .792 .021
49 EP2 .784* .110**
50 EP6 .744* .137**
*
51 EP7 .721 .064
52 EP5 .686* .160*
53 EP3 .664* .041
54 EP1 .494* -.037
55 TND4 .900* .050
56 TND2 .814* .008
57 TND6 .808* .146**
58 TND1 .755* .042
59 TND5 .671* .201*
60 TND3 .342* .030
61 SP4 .829* .190*
62 SP3 .732* .097**
63 SP2 .672* .236*
*
64 SP5 .681 .118**
*
65 SP1 .653 -.004
66 M2 .280a
67 M3 . 130a
68 M4 .070a

*Significant at 0.000, ** significant at 0.05

92
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.7: Model U (No restriction on item variance)

93
 Chapter 4

The comparison was computed to evaluate the marker variable effects on factor
correlation parameter estimates. Method-R (Figure 4.8) Model known as restricted
model was constructed to perform the test in a method described by Schaubroeck,
Ganster, and Fox (1992) and L.J. Williams et al. (1996). The Method-R model is
precisely same as the Method-U Model with one difference i.e. fixed correlation
parameters of the Method-R model that was obtained in the Baseline Model.
Therefore, the Method-R model contained 65 marker variable factor loadings linking
the marker variables to each indicator of the substantive variables. The correlation
between all the construct remained same correlation of baseline model is mentioned in
Table. The purpose of comparison of the Method-U and Method-R Models is to check
the effect of Marker Variable on correlation among constructs with a null hypothesis
of there is no Impact of Marker Variable on correlation among constructs. The result
of chi-square difference is 2.46 with 64 degrees of freedom. As the p value (1.000) is
more than 0.05, testing fail to reject the null hypothesis. Results of prior to this test
indicated that marker variable effects are significant and denotes significant effects in
the Method-U model. While the result of this comparison determined that the effects
of the marker variable did not significantly bias on factor correlation estimates. Thus,
there was not a significant difference between the Baseline Model factor correlations
and the Method-U factor correlations. Table 4.22 shows a summarized and
comparative view of all correlation among the constructs from initial to Method-R
Model.

94
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.8: Model R (Correlation is restricted)

95
 Chapter 4

Table 4.22: Summarized View of Correlation Among Constructs in All Models with
Sensitivity Analysis

Latent Construct Initial Baseline Method- C Method- U Method- R Method- S

GSE <--> QSE 0.302 0.302 0.302 0.302 0.302 0.3
GSE <--> EE 0.374 0.375 0.374 0.377 0.375 0.373
GSE <--> PE 0.384 0.384 0.383 0.395 0.386 0.388
GSE <--> SI 0.402 0.402 0.402 0.397 0.403 0.397
GSE <--> TA 0.416 0.416 0.409 0.404 0.411 0.406
GSE <--> DA 0.417 0.418 0.417 0.422 0.418 0.422
GSE <--> LOA 0.424 0.424 0.421 0.421 0.42 0.423
GSE <--> TP 0.427 0.427 0.426 0.422 0.426 0.423
GSE <--> EP 0.44 0.44 0.439 0.454 0.444 0.46
GSE <--> TND 0.446 0.446 0.445 0.456 0.449 0.451
GSE <--> SP 0.455 0.455 0.454 0.44 0.455 0.441
QSE <--> EE 0.456 0.456 0.456 0.453 0.455 0.451
QSE <--> PE 0.46 0.461 0.46 0.465 0.464 0.465
QSE <--> SI 0.466 0.466 0.466 0.47 0.464 0.475
QSE <--> TA 0.47 0.471 0.471 0.475 0.472 0.476
QSE <--> DA 0.471 0.471 0.47 0.479 0.475 0.484
QSE <--> LOA 0.473 0.473 0.462 0.461 0.467 0.465
QSE <--> TP 0.478 0.477 0.477 0.48 0.479 0.477
QSE <--> EP 0.479 0.479 0.473 0.467 0.474 0.464
QSE <--> TND 0.494 0.495 0.495 0.497 0.498 0.498
QSE <--> SP 0.496 0.496 0.496 0.487 0.496 0.482
EE <--> PE 0.497 0.497 0.497 0.492 0.496 0.49
EE <--> SI 0.498 0.498 0.498 0.497 0.497 0.488
EE <--> TA 0.498 0.498 0.498 0.489 0.497 0.484
EE <--> DA 0.498 0.498 0.497 0.5 0.499 0.5
EE <--> LOA 0.502 0.502 0.501 0.486 0.503 0.481
EE <--> TP 0.505 0.505 0.505 0.492 0.505 0.493
EE <--> EP 0.511 0.511 0.511 0.51 0.514 0.512
EE <--> TND 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.519 0.517 0.515
EE <--> SP 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.529 0.527
PE <--> SI 0.532 0.532 0.531 0.53 0.532 0.53
PE <--> TA 0.536 0.536 0.535 0.537 0.538 0.538
PE <--> DA 0.541 0.541 0.54 0.537 0.542 0.536
PE <--> LOA 0.545 0.545 0.544 0.531 0.544 0.527
PE <--> TP 0.553 0.553 0.553 0.556 0.553 0.554
PE <--> EP 0.554 0.554 0.553 0.566 0.56 0.561
PE <--> TND 0.554 0.554 0.555 0.544 0.555 0.546
PE <--> SP 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.558 0.558

96
 Chapter 4

Latent Construct Initial Baseline Method- C Method- U Method- R Method- S

SI <--> TA 0.561 0.561 0.561 0.561 0.561 0.563
SI <--> DA 0.562 0.563 0.562 0.548 0.566 0.544
SI <--> LOA 0.562 0.562 0.562 0.564 0.563 0.566
SI <--> TP 0.566 0.566 0.56 0.558 0.559 0.561
SI <--> EP 0.567 0.567 0.566 0.565 0.566 0.563
SI <--> TND 0.575 0.576 0.572 0.566 0.571 0.564
SI <--> SP 0.575 0.575 0.574 0.572 0.568 0.572
TA <--> DA 0.581 0.581 0.581 0.581 0.583 0.581
TA <--> LOA 0.593 0.593 0.593 0.593 0.595 0.593
TA <--> TP 0.598 0.598 0.598 0.591 0.6 0.587
TA <--> EP 0.604 0.604 0.604 0.606 0.608 0.6
TA <--> TND 0.616 0.616 0.615 0.606 0.618 0.606
TA <--> SP 0.628 0.628 0.628 0.627 0.629 0.627
DA <--> LOA 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.628 0.63 0.628
DA <--> TP 0.635 0.635 0.631 0.627 0.629 0.63
DA <--> EP 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.645 0.644
DA <--> TND 0.645 0.646 0.645 0.642 0.648 0.641
DA <--> SP 0.656 0.655 0.644 0.639 0.649 0.643
LOA <--> TP 0.683 0.683 0.683 0.683 0.685 0.681
LOA <--> EP 0.685 0.685 0.685 0.69 0.687 0.688
LOA <--> TND 0.694 0.694 0.694 0.694 0.695 0.694
LOA <--> SP 0.703 0.703 0.703 0.701 0.703 0.699
TP <--> EP 0.711 0.711 0.711 0.71 0.712 0.72
TP <--> TND 0.736 0.736 0.736 0.735 0.736 0.746
TP <--> SP 0.767 0.767 0.767 0.766 0.767 0.764
EP <--> TND 0.778 0.777 0.777 0.784 0.781 0.781
EP <--> SP 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.781 0.774
TND <--> SP 0.806 0.806 0.806 0.809 0.808 0.807

Stage II: Reliability decomposition. The purpose of the second phase of the study was
to decompose observed values of total reliability associated with the measurement of
the twelve latent constructs into substantive and method portions. Table reveals the
obtained reliability information for the, GSE, QSE, EE, PE, SI, TA, DA, LOA, TP,
SP, EP, TND latent construct and the un-decomposed marker latent construct. The
table depicts the overall reliability values from estimate of the Baseline Model and
values obtained with the decomposition using the Method-U estimates. The values
specify that the measurement of all of the latent constructs obtained adequate overall

97
 Chapter 4

reliability ranged from 0.847 to 0.933. Referring Table 4.23, the decomposition value
point out that SP was most affected by method variance, with a method component
value of .026, whereas EP and TND have considerably low 0.010 and 0. 011
respectively. DA with 0.000, TA, LOA and TP with 0.001depecits no or least affected
by method variance. In terms of percentage of the total reliabilities, these method
components accounted for SP (3.03%), QSE (2.62%), and SI (2.39%) high values in
the present study. As compare to low values of DA (0.01%) and LOA (0.09%).

Table 4.23: Reliability Decomposition

Reliability
Latent Total Substantive Method % Reliability Marker
Variable Reliability Reliability Reliability Variable
GSE 0.933 0.905 0.022 2.34
QSE 0.897 0.863 0.024 2.62
EE 0.867 0.849 0.005 0.53
PE 0.846 0.820 0.008 1.00
SI 0.917 0.880 0.022 2.39
TA 0.907 0.899 0.001 0.16
DA 0.902 0.900 0.000 0.01
LOA 0.896 0.890 0.001 0.09
TP 0.871 0.877 0.001 0.11
EP 0.898 0.881 0.010 1.11
TND 0.899 0.851 0.011 1.17
SP 0.847 0.806 0.026 3.03

Stage III: Sensitivity analysis- Table shows the correlations relating the latent
variables from the all examined models (Initial to Method-S Model). Initial and
Baseline model values which do not include even for method factor loadings are taken
for comparison with those obtained from the Method-C, Method-U Method-R and
Method-S (Figure 4.9) Models. This is evident from Table 4.23, introduction of the
manipulation of the method factor loadings brings only a small corresponding change
in the factor correlations. From the Baseline Model, all substantive factor correlations
were significant. This pattern is continued when method effects were introduced in
the Method-U Model, as the correlations among the latent variables remained

98
 Chapter 4

significant, although their values were changed somewhat. When sizes of the method
factor loadings were restricted to values associated with the upper end of the .05
confidence interval in the Method-S model, the correlations between the latent
variables remained to be significant and relatively unchanged.

Figure 4.9: Model S (Restricted variance with upper limit)

99
 Chapter 4

B) KMO and Bartlett’s test:

To study the antecedents and consequences with adoption level of HR analytics,

factor analysis was adopted. The method minimizes the number of variables with high
loadings on each factor. All the seven identified antecedents and four consequences
were studied with each statement. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was performed to test
the adequacy of the sample shown in Table 4.25. The results shows that the KMO
value for GSE is .930, QSE is .851, EE is .807, PE is .796, SI is .880, TA is .899, DA
is .831, LOA is .861, TP is .812, EP is .901, TND is .838 and SP is .802, which are
above the recommended value of 0.6. Thus, the data approves the sampling adequacy.

The Bartlett‘s test was conducted to know the proportion of variance in the variables
and to tests the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. The results
in Table 4.25 shows the P-value less than 0.05 which shows factors could be useful on
the data and confirming that each item shared some common variance with each item.
Keeping all the indicators, factor analysis was conducted. The extraction was carried
out by principal component analysis which was determined by Kaiser Criterion. The
percentage of variance are obtained from the extraction and rotation sums of squared
loadings. Table 4.24 shows the factor loadings for each variable. The factor loading
was obtained after the method of varimax rotation with Kaiser normalisation was
applied. The results as per extraction method – principal component analysis show
that all components have one component and rotated component matrix gives only
one component for all the factors i.e., GSE, QSE, EE, PE, TA, DA, SI, TP, EP, TND
and SP.

Factor loading shows the correlation coefficient for the variable and factor, thus factor
loading explains the variance by the variable on that factor. The results of factor
loading shows that the component of each factor have values more than 0.5, which
shows that high variance by the variable on the factor.

101
 Chapter 4

Table 4.25: KMO-Bartlett’s test results

Total p- Factor
Construct KMO
Variance (%) value Loading
General Self-Efficacy (GSE) 71.17 .930 .000
I am able to use HR Analytics without much effort. .865
(GSE3)
I can usually handle whatever comes my way through .863
HR Analytics. (GSE7)
When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find
.860
several solutions through HR analytics. (GSE5)
I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort
related to HR Analytics. (GSE4) .844
HR Analytics is easy to use. (GSE1)
HR Analytics is convenient to use. (GSE2) .829
If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. .823
(GSE6)
.820
Quantitative Self-Efficacy (QSE) 66 .851 .000
I enjoy working with mathematical and/or statistical .883
measures (QSE3)
I worry about my ability to solve mathematical and/or .867
statistical problems. (QSE2)
I find using mathematical and/or statistical
.850
measurements interesting. (QSE1)
Math and/or statistics are one of my favorite
subjects.(QSE5) .818
I find mathematical and/or statistical measures
challenging.(QSE4) .815
I get nervous when I use mathematics and/or statistics
(QSE6) .611
Effort Expectancy (EE) 71.31 .807 .001
It is easy for me to become skillful at using HR .880
Analytics. (EE3)
Learning to use HR Analytics is easy for me. (EE2) .865
It would be easy for me to become skillful at using HR .843
Analytics. (EE1)
My role related to HR Analytics is clear. (EE4)
.787
Performance Expectancy (PE) 67.46 .796 .001
Using HR Analytics enables me to accomplish tasks .880
more quickly. (PE2)
Using HR Analytics increases my job .877
performance.(PE3)
I would find the use of HR Analytics useful in my job.
.861
(PE1)
The use of HR Analytics is not very visible in my
organization. (PE4 .643

Social Influence (SI) 75.03 .880 .000

The senior management of this organization has been

102
 Chapter 4

Total p- Factor
Construct KMO
Variance (%) value Loading
helpful in the use of HR Analytics. (SI3) .875
Because of my use of HR Analytics, others in my
organization will see me as a more valuable .871
employee.(SI5)
People who are important to me think that I should use
.866
HR Analytics. (SI2)
People who influence my behavior think that I should
use HR Analytics. (SI1) .861
In general, the organization has supported the use of HR
Analytics. (SI4) .859
Tool Availability (TA) 72.89 .899 .000
I have had a great deal of opportunity to try various HR .890
Analytics applications. (TA4)
My company has invested heavily in HR Analytics tools. .857
(TA2)
Before deciding whether to use any HR Analytics
.856
applications, I am able to properly try them out.(TA3)
I know where I can go to satisfactorily try out various
uses of HR Analytics. (TA5) .838
I have a full array of HR Analytics tools available at
work. (TA1) .827
Data Availability 77.21 .831 .001
My company‘s database has an interface that is .899
compatible with other systems. (DA4)
My organization‘s HR system collects data from all HR .883
interactions. (DA2)
My organization uses the same system/platforms for all
.872
HR activities. (DA3)
My organization‘s database has all the data I need to use
HR Analytics software. (DA1) .861

Level Of Adoption (LOA) 70.61 .861 .001

I am recommending my organization invest in HR .862
Analytics. (LOA4) .858
I am interested in using HR Analytics. (LOA3) .855
I am beginning to explore using HR Analytics. (LOA2) .851
My organization is putting a policy in place to use HR
Analytics. (LOA1)
.773
I use HR Analytics for some specific tasks. (LOA5)

Task Performance (TP) 54.99 .812 .000

HR Analytics enables the collaboration with others was .770
very productive. (TP 6)
With the use of HR analytics I managed to plan my work .754
so that it was done on time. (TP1)
I knew how to set the right priorities through HR
.753
Analytics. (TP4)
I was able to perform my work well with minimal time
and effort because of HR Analytics. (TP5) .731
I was able to separate main issues from side issues at

103
 Chapter 4

Total p- Factor
Construct KMO
Variance (%) value Loading
work by use of HR Analytics. (TP3) .728
HR Analytics gives me a focus on the results that I had
to achieve in my work. (TP2) .712
Empowerment Practices (EP) 58.33 .901 .000
HR Analytics helps my work unit by giving liberty to .856
employees in the conduct of their work. (EP4)
My work unit is considered as a strategic division in my .812
organization because of HR Analytics. (EP8)
Employees in my work unit have a lot of autonomy in .804
regard to project management provided through HR
Analytics. (EP2)
.799
Employees in my work unit are regularly consulted in
technological investments decisions because of HR
Analytics. (EP6)
Employees‘ empowerment in my work unit is highly .784
valued with exercising HR Analytics. (EP7)
Employees in my work unit are extensively involved in .755
the recruitment process because of HR Analytics. (EP5)
My supervisor manages our unit‘s budgets through HR .725
Analytics. (EP3)
In my organization, my work unit plays a strategic role .523
through HR Analytics. (EP1)
Training and Development (TND) 66.51 .838 .000
The training efficiency is determined through HR .887
Analytics. (TND4)
HR Analytics determines the financial support you can .840
receive from your employer for further education.
(TND6)
.814
HR Analytics plays a crucial role in conducting Training
programs by external consultants. (TND2)
.814
HR Analytics is used in my organization for determining
systematic techniques used in for specific training needs.
(TND1)
HR Analytics assesses the opportunities you have to .792
engage in training and education activities that are
beyond that needed in your job. (TND5) .739
HR Analytics provides effective communication which
is necessary for delivering quality training. (TND3)
Strategic Participation (SP) 62.19 .802 .000
HR Analytics enables the company to allow employees .855
to submit their suggestions for strategy formation. (SP4)
The circulation of information to all staff at all .796
administration levels are administered through HR
Analytics. (SP3)
.773
HR Analytics enables effective communication system
that supports the integration of strategic planning and
HR planning. (SP2)
HR Analytics enables the company to allow employees .759
to submit their suggestions for strategy implementation.
(SP5) .757
HR Analytics helps in synchronizing company‘s strategy
and HR planning. (SP1)

104
 Chapter 4

4.4 Structural Model and Path Analysis

A) Psychometric Checks

In the study, the questionnaire which was adapted has twelve constructs and sixty-five
items to measure the antecedents of adoption of HR analytics and its consequences on
the strategic workforce management. Hair Jr. et.al., (2010) provided the criterion
where the psychometric checks were assessed by examining the reliability and
validity of measurement model. This check is performed by Partial Least Square
Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS software version 3.0. The
study is exploratory in nature and explains the key constructs, therefore, PLS-SEM
was used. The control variables which were formative in nature, were used as
composite. The combination of reflective and formative constructs made the
application of PLS-SEM appropriate as it set off on reflective constructs (Hair et.al.,
2017). Hair et.al., (2017) stated that the PLS-SEM is also called as soft-modelling
where, PLS-SEM can handle complex cause – effect smodels, can study small sample
sizes and highly flexible, thus, confirms the suitability as sixty five items to study
builds complex structure.

B) Measurement Model

After getting positive results from factor analysis, measurement model assessment is the
first step in Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling. Measurement model is
performed to compare the theoretical proposed model with the collected data from the
actual sample. We have 12 constructs in total to study, where 7 constructs are antecedents
of adoption of HR analytics, LOA, a construct itself and 4 constructs are its consequence
on strategic workforce management. The assessment for reflective constructs in
measurement model consists of four steps – indicator reliability, internal consistency,
convergent validity, and discriminant validity to step ahead for structural modelling.

Indicator reliability analysis

Indicator reliability is the first step of measurement model. Alhassan et. al., (2020)
stated that the indicator reliability study expresses the extent, a variable or set of
variables are consistent to its measure. The outer loading – indicator was performed to
measure the indicator reliability. The indicator‘s outer loading shows that the

105
 Chapter 4

indicators of reflective constructs have common to be a part of that construct. The

results in Table 4.26 shows the p-value to be less than 0.05 and hence the results are
accepted and approves the indicator reliability study.

Table 4.26: Indicator’s outer loading

Original T Statistics
P Values 2,50% 97,50%
Sample (O) (|O/STDEV|)
DA1 <- DA 0,265 22,558 0,000 0,241 0,287
DA2 <- DA 0,302 24,594 0,000 0,281 0,330
DA3 <- DA 0,270 26,360 0,000 0,250 0,291
DA4 <- DA 0,300 28,912 0,000 0,282 0,324
EE1 <- EE 0,290 22,697 0,000 0,268 0,318
EE2 <- EE 0,284 18,111 0,000 0,252 0,315
EE3 <- EE 0,299 23,756 0,000 0,276 0,326
EE4 <- EE 0,312 20,982 0,000 0,286 0,344
EP2 <- EP 0,168 12,724 0,000 0,142 0,195
EP3 <- EP 0,196 13,324 0,000 0,171 0,230
EP4 <- EP 0,158 11,931 0,000 0,128 0,181
EP5 <- EP 0,216 13,760 0,000 0,190 0,252
EP6 <- EP 0,151 10,493 0,000 0,123 0,180
EP7 <- EP 0,184 15,883 0,000 0,161 0,207
EP8 <- EP 0,186 15,484 0,000 0,163 0,211
GSE1 <- GSE 0,154 13,434 0,000 0,131 0,176
GSE2 <- GSE 0,190 14,741 0,000 0,168 0,220
GSE3 <- GSE 0,168 19,486 0,000 0,150 0,184
GSE4 <- GSE 0,190 19,140 0,000 0,172 0,211
GSE5 <- GSE 0,156 18,669 0,000 0,140 0,173
GSE6 <- GSE 0,166 16,401 0,000 0,146 0,186
GSE7 <- GSE 0,162 18,867 0,000 0,145 0,178
LOA1 <- LOA 0,244 27,437 0,000 0,228 0,263
LOA2 <- LOA 0,241 28,940 0,000 0,226 0,258
LOA3 <- LOA 0,247 24,922 0,000 0,228 0,266
LOA4 <- LOA 0,248 27,720 0,000 0,232 0,267
LOA5 <- LOA 0,207 20,888 0,000 0,187 0,226
PE1 <- PE 0,374 27,351 0,000 0,348 0,402
PE2 <- PE 0,370 26,987 0,000 0,344 0,398
PE3 <- PE 0,376 33,806 0,000 0,355 0,400
QSE1 <- QSE 0,242 10,640 0,000 0,196 0,286
QSE2 <- QSE 0,212 8,124 0,000 0,155 0,256

106
 Chapter 4

Original T Statistics
P Values 2,50% 97,50%
Sample (O) (|O/STDEV|)
QSE3 <- QSE 0,307 11,036 0,000 0,266 0,377
QSE4 <- QSE 0,151 4,393 0,000 0,067 0,202
QSE5 <- QSE 0,247 7,941 0,000 0,195 0,319
SI1 <- SI 0,235 26,350 0,000 0,219 0,255
SI2 <- SI 0,239 31,321 0,000 0,226 0,256
SI3 <- SI 0,223 28,278 0,000 0,207 0,238
SI4 <- SI 0,214 25,197 0,000 0,198 0,231
SI5 <- SI 0,243 26,755 0,000 0,227 0,263
SP1 <- SP 0,192 7,643 0,000 0,136 0,236
SP2 <- SP 0,212 8,836 0,000 0,155 0,252
SP3 <- SP 0,336 12,021 0,000 0,292 0,402
SP4 <- SP 0,270 15,013 0,000 0,234 0,305
SP5 <- SP 0,251 11,731 0,000 0,210 0,296
TA1 <- TA 0,203 22,387 0,000 0,184 0,220
TA2 <- TA 0,246 27,188 0,000 0,231 0,266
TA3 <- TA 0,238 25,882 0,000 0,221 0,258
TA4 <- TA 0,249 28,459 0,000 0,234 0,269
TA5 <- TA 0,234 28,939 0,000 0,219 0,251
TND1 <- TND 0,221 17,613 0,000 0,197 0,246
TND2 <- TND 0,180 13,249 0,000 0,153 0,207
TND3 <- TND 0,229 13,946 0,000 0,202 0,268
TND4 <- TND 0,210 21,791 0,000 0,191 0,229
TND5 <- TND 0,212 13,873 0,000 0,181 0,242
TND6 <- TND 0,178 13,841 0,000 0,150 0,201
TP1 <- TP 0,243 10,779 0,000 0,204 0,291
TP2 <- TP 0,195 10,419 0,000 0,160 0,234
TP3 <- TP 0,209 12,521 0,000 0,178 0,244
TP4 <- TP 0,217 11,998 0,000 0,186 0,257
TP5 <- TP 0,193 10,750 0,000 0,155 0,226
TP6 <- TP 0,224 12,272 0,000 0,193 0,265

Internal consistency analysis

Internal consistency analysis is the second step in measurement model study.

Traditionally internal consistency analysis is made by studying the criteria of
Cronbach alpha. Through Cronbach alpha the consistency of the output is studied.
The Cronbach alpha of all constructs should be more than 0.7 of the threshold limits

107
 Chapter 4

(Nunnally, 1978). Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) stated that in exploratory research
the threshold limit of composite reliability is between 0.6 and 0.7 and for advance
research it is between 0.7 and 0.9. The recommendations for rho A as a measure of
internal consistency with threshold limit of 0.7 is also acceptable (Dijkstra and
Henseler, 2015). The Table 4.27 shows the results of Cronbach alpha to be more than
0.7 as it is a exploratory research, thus the values are acceptable. The rho A values are
also more than 0.7, which shows the collected data is also acceptable as per internal
consistency analysis.

Table 4.27: Internal consistency analysis

Composite Average Variance

Constructs Cronbach's Alpha rho_A
Reliability Extracted (AVE)
DA 0,902 0,905 0,931 0,772
EE 0,865 0,865 0,908 0,713
EP 0,903 0,907 0,923 0,631
GSE 0,932 0,935 0,945 0,711
LOA 0,895 0,900 0,923 0,706
PE 0,873 0,873 0,922 0,797
QSE 0,907 0,938 0,930 0,729
SI 0,917 0,918 0,938 0,750
SP 0,847 0,873 0,890 0,619
TA 0,907 0,910 0,931 0,729
TND 0,899 0,901 0,922 0,664
TP 0,871 0,874 0,903 0,607

Convergent validity analysis

It is the third step in the measurement model study which is evaluated after indicator
reliability study and internal consistency analysis. Hair et.al., (2016) explains that the
convergent analysis is the extent to which a measure positively correlates with the any
other replacement or alternative measure of the same construct. The convergent
validity analysis study focuses on the average variance extracted (AVE) which is the
grand mean of the squared loadings of the indicators from the construct (Hair et.al,
2016). AVE value more than 0.5 is acceptable (Hair et.al., 2019) for approving

108
 Chapter 4

convergent validity. The results in Table 4.27 shows the values for AVE for all
constructs are more than 0.5, which shows that more than 50% of variance in the
indicator is explained by its construct. The assure the results further composite
reliability was also performed stating the acceptable values to be more than 0.7 (Hair
et.al., 2013). The Table 4.27 shows all the values for each construct is above 0.7.
Thus, the data satisfies the convergent validity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is an empirical test to know how much a construct is distinct

from other in the path model study. Fornell and Larcker criterion (1981) is a most
conservative and recommended study to test the discriminant validity of the
constructs. Fornell and Larcker criterion makes a comparison between each square
root of AVEs values and the inter-construct correlation with all other constructs in the
structural model. The stated measurement criteria are that the construct should not
exhibit shared variance to any other construct whose value is greater than its AVE
value. Table 4.28 shows the results of Fornell and Larcker criterion. The results shows
that the values are within the prescribed limits. Thus, the study accepts the
discriminant validity of the constructs for measurement model study.

Table 4.28: Fornell-Larcker Criterion – discriminant validity of the model

DA EE EP GSE LOA PE QSE SI SP TA TND TP

DA 0.88
EE 0.52 0.84
EP 0.46 0.38 0.79
GSE 0.44 0.69 0.46 0.84
LOA 0.53 0.57 0.46 0.51 0.84
PE 0.61 0.55 0.44 0.52 0.57 0.89
QSE 0.33 0.45 0.43 0.46 0.28 0.40 0.85
SI 0.71 0.58 0.54 0.57 0.62 0.61 0.41 0.87
SP 0.42 0.48 0.47 0.43 0.38 0.35 0.48 0.49 0.79
TA 0.71 0.63 0.50 0.52 0.64 0.65 0.45 0.74 0.50 0.85
TND 0.39 0.39 0.58 0.45 0.45 0.51 0.46 0.53 0.59 0.52 0.81
TP 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.34 0.50 0.38 0.54 0.42 0.78

109
 Chapter 4

Cross loading is another approach to test the discriminant validity of the construct.
This approach is not rigorous but recommended to ensure the collected data surpasses
all criteria. This technique studies the cross loading among each construct. The
indicator for the study is that it should exhibits at least 0.7 loading towards its own
construct and should not contain cross loading towards any other construct which is a
part of measurement model (Hair et.al., 2014). The results in Table 4.29 shows that
the construct value towards its own construct is more than 0.7 and towards other its
less. Therefore, as per the study, the results establish discriminant validity of
constructs in the measurement model.

Table 4.29: Cross Loading

DA EE EP GSE LOA PE QSE SI SP TA TND TP

DA1 0,86 0,41 0,34 0,37 0,44 0,56 0,30 0,58 0,27 0,63 0,33 0,39
DA2 0,89 0,51 0,37 0,41 0,50 0,57 0,24 0,62 0,31 0,64 0,30 0,40
DA3 0,87 0,43 0,42 0,40 0,44 0,47 0,27 0,62 0,42 0,61 0,36 0,41
DA4 0,90 0,47 0,48 0,38 0,49 0,55 0,35 0,66 0,47 0,63 0,40 0,43
EE1 0,39 0,84 0,36 0,57 0,47 0,42 0,33 0,40 0,39 0,48 0,33 0,32
EE2 0,49 0,86 0,31 0,64 0,46 0,53 0,41 0,55 0,38 0,61 0,32 0,37
EE3 0,40 0,88 0,30 0,60 0,49 0,45 0,38 0,47 0,40 0,50 0,31 0,32
EE4 0,48 0,80 0,30 0,52 0,51 0,47 0,39 0,55 0,45 0,54 0,38 0,37
EP2 0,45 0,27 0,78 0,34 0,34 0,42 0,38 0,48 0,45 0,42 0,50 0,35
EP3 0,31 0,33 0,75 0,39 0,39 0,24 0,30 0,40 0,42 0,37 0,42 0,27
EP4 0,42 0,27 0,84 0,38 0,32 0,41 0,42 0,46 0,39 0,43 0,51 0,35
EP5 0,32 0,32 0,80 0,39 0,43 0,40 0,28 0,39 0,34 0,39 0,47 0,27
EP6 0,35 0,23 0,78 0,33 0,30 0,29 0,29 0,39 0,36 0,36 0,43 0,29
EP7 0,33 0,28 0,79 0,35 0,37 0,34 0,36 0,40 0,30 0,37 0,43 0,36
EP8 0,39 0,36 0,81 0,36 0,37 0,38 0,40 0,46 0,39 0,44 0,47 0,40
GSE1 0,40 0,55 0,44 0,82 0,39 0,45 0,40 0,50 0,36 0,48 0,41 0,38
GSE2 0,34 0,55 0,32 0,83 0,48 0,43 0,33 0,47 0,29 0,42 0,36 0,33
GSE3 0,39 0,59 0,40 0,86 0,43 0,45 0,41 0,53 0,36 0,49 0,35 0,36
GSE4 0,38 0,61 0,33 0,85 0,48 0,47 0,40 0,50 0,36 0,47 0,38 0,38
GSE5 0,33 0,58 0,37 0,86 0,40 0,42 0,40 0,44 0,37 0,37 0,34 0,28
GSE6 0,42 0,60 0,40 0,82 0,42 0,45 0,38 0,43 0,39 0,43 0,41 0,28
GSE7 0,37 0,58 0,47 0,86 0,41 0,40 0,44 0,49 0,41 0,41 0,41 0,39
LOA1 0,46 0,42 0,47 0,42 0,86 0,49 0,24 0,54 0,31 0,55 0,46 0,37
LOA2 0,50 0,44 0,38 0,44 0,86 0,49 0,20 0,55 0,33 0,54 0,39 0,37
LOA3 0,45 0,52 0,38 0,45 0,86 0,50 0,26 0,56 0,31 0,54 0,38 0,42

110
 Chapter 4

DA EE EP GSE LOA PE QSE SI SP TA TND TP

LOA4 0,45 0,55 0,38 0,47 0,86 0,52 0,23 0,51 0,33 0,56 0,38 0,42
LOA5 0,39 0,47 0,32 0,36 0,77 0,39 0,24 0,44 0,33 0,49 0,28 0,30
PE1 0,55 0,50 0,38 0,48 0,51 0,88 0,30 0,56 0,34 0,56 0,46 0,39
PE2 0,52 0,46 0,39 0,46 0,51 0,90 0,38 0,51 0,31 0,58 0,47 0,40
PE3 0,57 0,52 0,42 0,45 0,51 0,90 0,38 0,56 0,29 0,59 0,42 0,38
QSE1 0,27 0,34 0,37 0,38 0,24 0,42 0,90 0,33 0,36 0,42 0,43 0,32
QSE2 0,32 0,37 0,39 0,40 0,21 0,31 0,84 0,41 0,48 0,47 0,49 0,32
QSE3 0,30 0,45 0,44 0,46 0,30 0,37 0,92 0,37 0,41 0,41 0,39 0,30
QSE4 0,30 0,30 0,31 0,28 0,15 0,22 0,76 0,29 0,41 0,28 0,35 0,30
QSE5 0,23 0,42 0,32 0,42 0,24 0,36 0,85 0,37 0,42 0,32 0,32 0,25
SI1 0,61 0,48 0,46 0,50 0,55 0,53 0,36 0,86 0,43 0,65 0,45 0,44
SI2 0,64 0,47 0,47 0,46 0,56 0,53 0,38 0,87 0,40 0,64 0,44 0,45
SI3 0,61 0,54 0,46 0,52 0,52 0,51 0,34 0,87 0,45 0,65 0,47 0,40
SI4 0,58 0,51 0,51 0,48 0,50 0,49 0,40 0,85 0,45 0,62 0,49 0,44
SI5 0,62 0,52 0,43 0,50 0,56 0,55 0,32 0,87 0,42 0,64 0,44 0,42
SP1 0,22 0,38 0,24 0,30 0,22 0,20 0,37 0,25 0,73 0,27 0,36 0,20
SP2 0,25 0,40 0,30 0,33 0,25 0,34 0,36 0,34 0,74 0,36 0,51 0,29
SP3 0,43 0,36 0,38 0,32 0,39 0,30 0,40 0,44 0,83 0,48 0,52 0,34
SP4 0,34 0,44 0,51 0,45 0,31 0,36 0,41 0,48 0,85 0,47 0,54 0,35
SP5 0,34 0,32 0,39 0,29 0,29 0,18 0,35 0,37 0,77 0,32 0,37 0,30
TA1 0,60 0,53 0,45 0,41 0,47 0,54 0,34 0,60 0,41 0,82 0,40 0,45
TA2 0,64 0,51 0,46 0,41 0,57 0,56 0,36 0,63 0,45 0,86 0,45 0,45
TA3 0,57 0,59 0,39 0,51 0,55 0,55 0,40 0,63 0,40 0,86 0,45 0,42
TA4 0,61 0,58 0,44 0,47 0,58 0,62 0,41 0,66 0,44 0,89 0,48 0,51
TA5 0,62 0,49 0,41 0,43 0,54 0,50 0,40 0,62 0,42 0,84 0,45 0,47
TND1 0,41 0,31 0,48 0,34 0,39 0,47 0,43 0,49 0,47 0,48 0,82 0,43
TND2 0,34 0,29 0,51 0,37 0,32 0,37 0,39 0,44 0,45 0,44 0,80 0,32
TND3 0,29 0,30 0,44 0,33 0,41 0,38 0,24 0,36 0,46 0,35 0,77 0,24
TND4 0,33 0,35 0,52 0,40 0,37 0,47 0,44 0,46 0,49 0,48 0,87 0,37
TND5 0,27 0,38 0,41 0,39 0,38 0,40 0,39 0,40 0,53 0,39 0,81 0,30
TND6 0,28 0,27 0,50 0,37 0,32 0,38 0,37 0,44 0,48 0,43 0,82 0,37
TP1 0,44 0,32 0,28 0,34 0,40 0,43 0,27 0,43 0,25 0,45 0,33 0,81
TP2 0,36 0,27 0,26 0,29 0,32 0,34 0,16 0,36 0,26 0,42 0,32 0,75
TP3 0,32 0,33 0,36 0,33 0,34 0,33 0,32 0,40 0,34 0,42 0,33 0,78
TP4 0,31 0,37 0,35 0,35 0,36 0,33 0,28 0,39 0,29 0,42 0,34 0,76
TP5 0,35 0,29 0,31 0,26 0,32 0,30 0,27 0,35 0,30 0,37 0,27 0,78

111
 Chapter 4

Heterotrait Monotrait ratio of correlation (HTMT) is a new criterion established to

study the discriminant validity of constructs observing the shortcomings of Fornell
and Larcker criterion and cross loading on being insufficiently sensitive to detect
many problems related to discriminant validity. HTMT technique was proposed by
Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt in 2015 and stated that HTMT ratio is the mean value
of the item correlation of the constructs relative to the geometric mean of the average
correlation for items measuring the same construct. The threshold value is less than
0.85 for HTMT ratio indicating the distinctiveness of the constructs. The results in
Table 4.30 shows that the HTMT ratio value for each construct is less than 0.85 and
hence it accepts the discriminant validity of constructs in measurement model and
ensuring goodness of fit.

Table 4.30: HTMT ratio

Original Sample (O) 2,50% 97,50%

EE -> DA 0,588 0,453 0,704
EP -> DA 0,51 0,406 0,606
EP -> EE 0,417 0,323 0,507
GSE -> DA 0,483 0,347 0,605
GSE -> EE 0,768 0,669 0,843
GSE -> EP 0,501 0,417 0,576
LOA -> DA 0,592 0,465 0,7
LOA -> EE 0,649 0,554 0,732
LOA -> EP 0,504 0,392 0,603
LOA -> GSE 0,556 0,449 0,655
PE -> DA 0,69 0,591 0,769
PE -> EE 0,637 0,513 0,746
PE -> EP 0,5 0,389 0,604
PE -> GSE 0,576 0,462 0,675
PE -> LOA 0,645 0,539 0,734
QSE -> DA 0,369 0,242 0,488
QSE -> EE 0,498 0,377 0,606
QSE -> EP 0,476 0,361 0,581
QSE -> GSE 0,494 0,383 0,605
QSE -> LOA 0,296 0,173 0,415
QSE -> PE 0,438 0,316 0,539
SI -> DA 0,775 0,69 0,842
SI -> EE 0,653 0,548 0,739
SI -> EP 0,592 0,506 0,672
SI -> GSE 0,616 0,509 0,718

112
 Chapter 4

Original Sample (O) 2,50% 97,50%

SI -> LOA 0,682 0,582 0,774
SI -> PE 0,676 0,563 0,766
SI -> QSE 0,454 0,33 0,569
SP -> DA 0,459 0,331 0,579
SP -> EE 0,56 0,446 0,648
SP -> EP 0,528 0,431 0,616
SP -> GSE 0,484 0,378 0,58
SP -> LOA 0,428 0,314 0,542
SP -> PE 0,406 0,296 0,515
SP -> QSE 0,553 0,444 0,644
SP -> SI 0,544 0,448 0,635
TA -> DA 0,789 0,711 0,84
TA -> EE 0,715 0,613 0,797
TA -> EP 0,554 0,446 0,65
TA -> GSE 0,565 0,454 0,661
TA -> LOA 0,704 0,605 0,791
TA -> PE 0,727 0,627 0,811
TA -> QSE 0,489 0,373 0,592
TA -> SI 0,808 0,735 0,869
TA -> SP 0,549 0,446 0,649
TND -> DA 0,436 0,311 0,541
TND -> EE 0,442 0,315 0,561
TND -> EP 0,648 0,546 0,733
TND -> GSE 0,492 0,379 0,598
TND -> LOA 0,493 0,382 0,596
TND -> PE 0,568 0,452 0,661
TND -> QSE 0,516 0,424 0,605
TND -> SI 0,586 0,488 0,669
TND -> SP 0,667 0,582 0,753
TND -> TA 0,578 0,473 0,664
TP -> DA 0,521 0,384 0,635
TP -> EE 0,469 0,332 0,589
TP -> EP 0,462 0,344 0,565
TP -> GSE 0,446 0,317 0,56
TP -> LOA 0,505 0,378 0,616
TP -> PE 0,495 0,365 0,612
TP -> QSE 0,387 0,261 0,507
TP -> SI 0,555 0,429 0,658
TP -> SP 0,437 0,317 0,544
TP -> TA 0,605 0,481 0,709
TP -> TND 0,469 0,347 0,572

113
 Chapter 4

C) Structural model

The establishment of measurement model helps us to study structural model

assessment. The study is meant to explore the relationship of the constructs with their
predictive capability of the proposed model (Hair et.al., 2017). Hair et.al., (2020)
suggested the bootstrapping process without changing the sign to get the p-value for
the developed hypothesis. The study includes collinearity assessment, significance
and structural relevance of the relationships established in the model and assessment
of Rsquare.

Collinearity Assessment

Collinearity is the first step of assessment for structural modelling. This assessment is
made to assess the collinearity between the predictor constructs established in the
structural model, that is, by examining the correlation between the exogenous
constructs. To execute the assessment, variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated
which is the reciprocal of tolerance. The threshold limit is of 5, that is, all the values
less than 5 confirms the absence of collinearity concerns in the model (Pallant, 2010;
Hair et.al., 2020). Table 4.31 shows the VIF inner model and the results are less than
5 which represents no presence of collinearity

Table 4.31: Variance inflation factor – inner model

DA EE EP GSE LOA PE QSE SI SP TA TND TP

DA 2,511
EE 2,426
EP
GSE 2,196
LOA 1 1 1 1
PE 2,053
QSE 1,403
SI 2,849
SP
TA 3,127
TND
TP

114
 Chapter 4

The VIF for the outer model threshold value should be less than 5 (Hair et.al., 2020)
and the results in Table 4.32 shows that all the of the constructs are less than 5. Thus,
we can assure there is no collinearity issues in the constructs of the structural model.

Table 4.32: VIF for outer model

VIF Outer model VIF Outer model

DA1 2,367 QSE3 3,533
DA2 2,668 QSE4 2,076
DA3 2,603 QSE5 2,367
DA4 3,04 SI1 2,745
EE1 2,203 SI2 2,7
EE2 2,264 SI3 2,852
EE3 2,48 SI4 2,677
EE4 1,755 SI5 2,759
EP2 2,414 SP1 1,768
EP3 1,877 SP2 1,871
EP4 3,037 SP3 1,923
EP5 2,05 SP4 2,436
EP6 2,198 SP5 1,77
EP7 2,17 TA1 2,154
EP8 2,469 TA2 2,505
GSE1 2,558 TA3 2,454
GSE2 2,526 TA4 3,064
GSE3 3,037 TA5 2,337
GSE4 2,699 TND1 2,37
GSE5 2,92 TND2 2,851
GSE6 2,471 TND3 1,858
GSE7 3,01 TND4 3,66
LOA1 2,591 TND5 2,478
LOA2 2,688 TND6 2,899
LOA3 2,485 TP1 2,096
LOA4 2,583 TP2 1,918
LOA5 1,869 TP3 2,16
PE1 2,19 TP4 1,909
PE2 2,392 TP5 1,983
PE3 2,445 TP6 1,914
QSE1 3,268
QSE2 2,514

115
 Chapter 4

Path coefficient assessment

After ensuring no collinearity in the predictor constructs of the structural model, the
next step is to examine the significance of path coefficients, that is, the hypothesis
relationships. The bootstrapping process was conducted in SmartPLS to assess the
significance of path coefficients. Alhassan et.al., (2020) explained that the
bootstrapping is a non-parametric resampling procedure which focuses on examining
the variability of the sample data other than the parametric assumptions and drawing
two-tailed distribution to test the precision of the estimates. T-statistics are drawn for
direct and indirect effects under the bootstrapping process (Hair et.al., 2016).

After examining the significance of path coefficient, the relevance of path coefficient
was explored. Hair et.al., (2016) has recommended the examination of relevance of
significant relationships with the established constructs. In the study Hair et.al. (2016)
has stated that the significant relationship in the model is not largely influenced by its
size. The PLS-SEM is used with the intention to examine the significant and relevant
relationships between the constructs both endogenous and exogenous. The Figure
4.10 shows the path relationships between the constructs and its relative significance.

The study executes the bootstrapping assessment at 95% confidence interval and 5%
level of significance for two-tailed T-statistics at the value of 1.96 (Hair et.al., 2011).
In the way to establish significance of the path relationship one must ensure that the
confidence interval results of bootstrapping should not have zero as the confidence
interval (Hair et.al., 2016). Referring to the results in the Table 4.33 of bootstrapping
with t-values for the direct effect shows the acceptable results (p-value < 0.05) for the
following hypothesis:

H1: General Self-Efficacy is significantly associated to adoption of HR Analytics:

General self- efficacy as a factor has 10.4% significant impact on adoption of
HR analytics.

H2: Quantitative Self Efficacy is significantly associated to adoption of HR

Analytics: Quantitative self-efficacy (QSE) as a factor has -12.4% significant

116
 Chapter 4

impact on adoption of HR analytics. Since the values is negative, therefore,

there is a negative impact of QSE on HR analytics.

H3: Effort Expectancy is significantly associated to adoption of HR Analytics:

Effort expectancy as factor has 17.6% significant impact on adoption of HR
analytics.

H4: Performance Expectancy is significantly associated to adoption of HR

Analytics: Performance expectancy as a factor has 16.9% significant impact
on adoption of HR analytics.

H6: Tool Availability is significantly associated to adoption of HR Analytics: Tool

availability as a factor has 26% significant impact on adoption of HR
analytics.

H7: Social Influence is significantly associated to adoption of HR Analytics:

Social influence as a factor has 22.4% significant impact on adoption of HR
analytics.

H8: Adoption of HR Analytics has significant impact on Strategic Workforce

Management.

Strategic workforce management is studied through task performance,

empowerment practices, training and development and strategic participation.

H8(a): Adoption of HR Analytics has significant impact on Task

performance: Adoption of HR analytics has 45.1% significant impact
on task performance.

H8(b): Adoption of HR Analytics has significant impact on Empowerment

practices: Adoption of HR analytics has 46.1% significant impact on
empowerment practices.

H8(c): Adoption of HR Analytics has significant impact on Training and

development: Adoption of HR analytics has 45% significant impact on
training and development.

117
 Chapter 4

H8(d): Adoption of HR Analytics has significant impact on Strategic

participation: Adoption of HR analytics has 38.3% significant impact
on strategic participation.

All are hypothesis are accepted since p-value is less than 0.05 and all these factors
verifies the association with adoption of HR adoption. In all the accepted factors QSE
has negative value which shows QSE is influencing adoption of HR analytics
negatively.

The p-value for the association of data availability (DA) on adoption of HR analytics
has negative value (-0.11) and p-value is more than 0.05 and hence H5: Data
Availability is significantly associated to adoption of HR Analytics, is rejected.

Table 4.33: Path coefficient – Direct effect

Original Sample Standard Inference from

T Statistics
Path Relation Sample Mean Deviation P Values the test results for
(|O/STDEV|)
(O) (M) (STDEV) the hypothesis

GSE -> LOA 0,104 0,105 0,043 2,436 0,015 Accepted (H1)

QSE -> LOA -0,124 -0,122 0,030 4,108 0,000 Accepted (H2)

EE -> LOA 0,169 0,170 0,046 3,636 0,000 Accepted (H3)

PE -> LOA 0,176 0,177 0,037 4,712 0,000 Accepted (H4)

DA -> LOA -0,011 -0,011 0,043 0,253 0,801 Rejected (H5)

TA -> LOA 0,260 0,258 0,053 4,938 0,000 Accepted (H6)

SI -> LOA 0,224 0,224 0,054 4,154 0,000 Accepted (H7)

LOA -> TP 0,451 0,454 0,054 8,307 0,000 Accepted (H8(a))

LOA -> EP 0,461 0,464 0,046 9,953 0,000 Accepted (H8(b))

LOA -> TND 0,450 0,453 0,048 9,342 0,000 Accepted (H8(c))

LOA -> SP 0,383 0,388 0,047 8,212 0,000 Accepted (H8(d))

118
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.10: Path coefficient and its relevant significance

119
 Chapter 4

R square assessment

After assessing the path coefficient and its relevance with all the constructs of the
structural model, the assessment for fitness of good of the model was made. The index
for goodness of fit was calculated which defines the operational solution to the
problem (Tenenhaus et.al., 2005). The index was popularly executed to examine the
global validation of the model using PLS-SEM. Therefore, assessment was made to
ascertain the fitness of the proposed model by identifying Standard Root Mean
Squared Residual (SRMR) (Henseler et.al., 2015). SRMR measures the unweighted
least squares discrepancy, geodesic discrepancy, Chi-square and NIF index. Bailey
et.al., (2017) and Pappas (2017) suggested to calculate SRMR to check the goodness
of fit for the model. If the threshold value is less than 0.08 than the results are
accepted to be good fit (Henseler et al., 2016). Table 4.34 shows the SRMR values
ascertained on the saturated model and estimated model. The results show the values
less than 0.08 indicating goodness of fit of the proposed model.

Table 4.34: SRMR

Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) 95% 99%

Saturated Model 0,053 0,031 0,034 0,035
Estimated Model 0,129 0,04 0,046 0,05

After assessing the SRMR values, the coefficient of determination (R2) is measured
which represents the combined effect of exogenous latent variables on the
endogenous latent variables (Hair et.al., 2014). R2 values above 0.2 is considered to
be good as Shiva et.al., (2020) stated it to be high explanatory power referring to
behaviour science studies. The results in Table 4.35 shows a high explanatory power
for LOA, EP, TND and TP as values are more than 0.2. The results for SP are lower
than 0.2, hence shows low explanatory power.
Table 4.35: R square

R Square R Square Adjusted

EP 0,213 0,211
LOA 0,515 0,508
SP 0,147 0,145
TND 0,202 0,200
TP 0,203 0,201

120
 Chapter 4

Effect Size test

To study the strength of independent variables relationship, F2 test was executed. This
test studied the contribution of each exogenous independent variable on endogenous
dependent variable. Table 4.36 represents the F2 results which explains the
endogenous variables (LOA) that are projection of exogenous variables in the
structural model. The values turning 0.02 shows a small effect, 0.15 shows a medium
effect and 0.35 shows a large effect. Referring to the results in the Table 4.36, EP
(0.270), TND (0.253) and TP (0.255) shows effect between medium to large and SP
(0.172) is close to medium effect.

Table 4.36: F2 test

DA EE EP GSE LOA PE QSE SI SP TA TND TP

DA 0
EE 0,024
EP
GSE 0,01
LOA 0,270 0,172 0,253 0,255
PE 0,031
QSE 0,023
SI 0,036
SP
TA 0,045
TND
TP

D) Mediation Analysis

Mediation analysis is the performed after confirming the results of R square.

Mediation analysis is made with mediator variables that absorbs the part of
relationships between the exogenous and endogenous constructs of the model (Hair
et.al., 2016). The study was made by analysing the indirect effect between the
mediator variable and exogenous latent construct (GSE, QSE, PE, EE, SI, TA and
DA) together studying the relation between the mediator variable and the endogenous

121
 Chapter 4

latent construct (strategic workforce management studied through TP, SP, TND and
EP). To execute the study, the bootstrapping process of PLS-SEM was used as it
makes no assumptions with the distribution of variables (Hair et.al., 2016). Table 4.37
shows the specific indirect effect results. On analysing the results, exogenous latent
constructs show acceptable values i.e., p-value < 0.05 for following hypothesis:

H9: Adoption of HRA has a mediating impact between general self-efficacy and
strategic workforce management: To understand the mediation impact of adoption of
HR analytics on general self-efficacy and strategic workforce management, all the
segments of strategic workforce management were studied - H9(a) GSE-LOA-TP
(4.7%), H9(b) GSE-LOA-SP (4%), H9(c) GSE-LOA-TND (4.7%) and H9(d) GSE-
LOA-EP (4.8%).

H10: Adoption of HRA has a mediating impact between quantitative self-efficacy and
strategic workforce management: To understand the mediation impact of adoption of
HR analytics on quantitative self-efficacy and strategic workforce management, all
the segments of strategic workforce management were studied - H10(a) QSE-LOA-
TP (-5.6%), H10(b) QSE-LOA-SP (-4.8%), H10(c) QSE-LOA-TND (-5.6%) and
H10(d) QSE-LOA-EP (-5.7%).

H11: Adoption of HRA has a mediating impact between effort expectancy and
strategic workforce management: To understand the mediation impact of adoption of
HR analytics on effort expectancy and strategic workforce management, all the
segments of strategic workforce management were studied - H11(a) EE-LOA-TP
(7.6%), H11(b) EE-LOA-SP (6.5%), H11(c) EE-LOA-TND (7.6%) and H11(d) EE-
LOA-EP (7.8%).

H12: Adoption of HRA has a mediating impact between performance expectancy and
strategic workforce management: To understand the mediation impact of adoption of
HR analytics on performance expectancy and strategic workforce management, all the
segments of strategic workforce management were studied - H12(a) PE-LOA-TP
(7.9%), H12(b) PE-LOA-SP (6.8%), H12(c) PE-LOA-TND (7.9%) and H12(d) PE-
LOA-EP (8.1%).

122
 Chapter 4

H14: Adoption of HRA has a mediating impact between tool availability and strategic
workforce management: To understand the mediation impact of adoption of HR
analytics on tool availability and strategic workforce management, all the segments of
strategic workforce management were studied - H14(a) TA-LOA-TP (11.7%), H14(b)
TA-LOA-SP (10%), H14(c) TA-LOA-TND (11.7%) and H14(d) TA-LOA-EP (12%).

H15: Adoption of HRA has a mediating impact between social influence and strategic
workforce management: To understand the mediation impact of adoption of HR
analytics on social influence and strategic workforce management, all the segments of
strategic workforce management were studied - H15(a) SI-LOA-TP (10.1%), H15(b)
SI-LOA-SP (8.6%), H15(c) SI-LOA-TND (10.1%) and H15(d) SI-LOA-EP(10.3%).

Since the p-value for all these hypotheses is less than 0.05 therefore all these
hypotheses are accepted, i.e., adoption of HR analytics has mediating effect between
GSE and strategic workforce management, QSE and strategic workforce
management, EE and strategic workforce management, PE and strategic workforce
management, TA and strategic workforce management and SI and strategic workforce
management.

The p-value is more than 0.05 for adoption of HRA mediating impact between data
availability and strategic workforce management (H13), hence H13 is rejected.

Table 4.37: Mediation effect

Original Sample Standard

T Statistics
Path Relation Sample Mean Deviation P Values 2,50% 97,50% Inference
(|O/STDEV|)
(O) (M) (STDEV)
GSE -> LOA -> TP 0,047 0,048 0,021 2,274 0,023 0,012 0,094 Accepted
GSE -> LOA -> SP 0,040 0,041 0,017 2,316 0,021 0,010 0,078 (H9):
HRA has
GSE -> LOA -> TND 0,047 0,048 0,020 2,292 0,022 0,011 0,094 mediation
GSE -> LOA -> EP 0,048 0,049 0,020 2,340 0,019 0,012 0,094 effect

QSE -> LOA -> TP -0,056 -0,055 0,015 3,851 0,000 -0,088 -0,030 Accepted
QSE -> LOA -> SP -0,048 -0,047 0,011 4,225 0,000 -0,072 -0,028 (H10):
HRA has
QSE -> LOA -> TND -0,056 -0,055 0,014 3,943 0,000 -0,086 -0,031 mediation
QSE -> LOA -> EP -0,057 -0,057 0,015 3,859 0,000 -0,089 -0,031 effect

EE -> LOA -> TP 0,076 0,077 0,022 3,484 0,000 0,037 0,122 Accepted
EE -> LOA -> SP 0,065 0,066 0,020 3,319 0,001 0,032 0,107 (H11):

123
 Chapter 4

Original Sample Standard

T Statistics
Path Relation Sample Mean Deviation P Values 2,50% 97,50% Inference
(|O/STDEV|)
(O) (M) (STDEV)
EE -> LOA -> TND 0,076 0,076 0,021 3,677 0,000 0,038 0,117 HRA has
mediation
EE -> LOA -> EP 0,078 0,078 0,022 3,530 0,000 0,038 0,124 effect
PE -> LOA -> TP 0,079 0,080 0,019 4,153 0,000 0,046 0,120 Accepted
PE -> LOA -> SP 0,068 0,069 0,017 3,978 0,000 0,038 0,105 (H12):
HRA has
PE -> LOA -> TND 0,079 0,080 0,020 3,948 0,000 0,043 0,123 mediation
PE -> LOA -> EP 0,081 0,082 0,020 4,009 0,000 0,045 0,125 effect

DA -> LOA -> TP -0,005 -0,004 0,020 0,251 0,802 -0,042 0,035 Rejected
(H13):
DA -> LOA -> SP -0,004 -0,004 0,017 0,249 0,804 -0,037 0,030
HRA has
DA -> LOA -> TND -0,005 -0,005 0,020 0,251 0,802 -0,043 0,034 no
mediation
DA -> LOA -> EP -0,005 -0,005 0,020 0,248 0,804 -0,045 0,035 effect
TA -> LOA -> TP 0,117 0,118 0,030 3,885 0,000 0,065 0,182 Accepted
TA -> LOA -> SP 0,100 0,100 0,025 4,056 0,000 0,057 0,152 (H14):
HRA has
TA -> LOA -> TND 0,117 0,117 0,028 4,103 0,000 0,066 0,177 mediation
TA -> LOA -> EP 0,120 0,120 0,030 4,019 0,000 0,069 0,185 effect

SI -> LOA -> TP 0,101 0,102 0,028 3,573 0,000 0,051 0,162 Accepted
SI -> LOA -> SP 0,086 0,087 0,025 3,479 0,001 0,043 0,138 (H15):
HRA has
SI -> LOA -> TND 0,101 0,102 0,029 3,490 0,000 0,050 0,162 mediation
SI -> LOA -> EP 0,103 0,104 0,028 3,744 0,000 0,054 0,163 effect

E) Adoption of HR analytics and Moderation Effect

Adoption of HR is a course of action for HR practitioners. The HR experts are dealing

with huge number of employees related data every day and to draw insights from that
data has become an important task for them. Many HRs have experienced change of role
and responsibilities with technology-HR integration phase. The introduction of numbers,
statistics, technology, machine learning created an unknown fear to use among its users
(Vidgen et.al., 2017). Pre-requisites of adoption demanded an attention for ease in
adoption (Analytics et.al., 2010). While considering the various aspects of adoption, tools
to be used created a wave of concern in its own way (Ben-gal, 2019). The strong fear has
created the predetermined notions among the users of analytics made the process of
adoption delayed in many cases. On a contrary, many HR practitioners claimed that their
adoption process turned comfortable with organisation support and training. The studies

124
 Chapter 4

have revealed that type of organisation structure has an impact in the adoption of HR
analytics process, together if the training is provided before actual implementation of
analytical tools, have supported the use of action. Keeping the studies in mind, type of
organisation – Large organisation and MSME (micro, small and medium enterprises) and
training of HR analytics are studied as a moderator for adoption of HR analytics towards
strategic workforce management.

The study of moderating variables was introduced in the theoretical framework (Adams,
Nelson and Todd, 1992). The concept of moderation analysis was initiated to predict the
validity of the model and confirms the impact of moderators for adoption of HR analytics
(Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008). Chin, Marcolin and Newsted
(2003) conducted a comprehensive study knows as Partial Least Square latent variable
modelling. This approach measues the interaction effects of the moderators on the
structural relationships by using Monte Carlo Simulation study which is a improved
version of previous studies. Henseler and Chin (2010) has provided with their findings on
conducting the potential moderator analysis in PLS-SEM. They also introduced the
product indicator approach and explained the shortcomings of LISREL approach about
analytical errors and incomplete solutions. Henseler and Fassott (2010) has introduced
two stage approach where the moderator analysis and independent variables are
measured. So far two stage approach is considered one of the best technique to study the
moderator analysis.

Type of Organisation as a moderator

Work satisfaction, job commitment, strategic participation are more driven by the nature
and type of organisation (Saha and Kumar, 2017). Grossi et.al., (2015) has stated in their
research that the employee‘s performance and acceptance to change in largely dependent
on the organisational culture, type and size as it is driven more with the investment and
efforts required. Kalsi and Kiran (2013) suggested that the quality, coordination, success
and thought process of the employees are formed by the managerial practices an
organisation defines. MSME are presently growing in number in India and many received
support from Indian government under ―Make in India‖ umbrella. These organisations
might start with small, but their investment and right selection of talent have helped them
to come a long way despite the tragic COVID-19 (Banu and Suresh, 2020). The

125
 Chapter 4

foundation and culture are ruling to integrate the MSMEs with IT and ITES (Indrakumar,
2020). Adoption of HR analytics was not a cake walk for MSMEs rather it was well
defined strategic move (Saxena et.al., 2020). Large organisations have capital to
investment and strong experiences and connections which helps them to research well
before introducing change. Adoption of analytics was a planned task for them. Strategic
planning and understanding the pros and cons were part of it (Performance Report, 2015).
The culture, support, quality and leadership are driving the change in large enterprises
(KPMG, 2012). Any new approach or technology has to undergo a series of action of test
like usability, adaptability, sustainability and future scope, an organisation performs these
analysis before introducing any change in the organisation. Large organisations being big
in size and extensive in work pressures do execute this analysis to assure their move will
bring results to them (Potter, 2003). Understanding the type of organisation can impact
the success or failure of any process, project or technology adoption and based on these
findings, type of organisation was studied as a in adoption of HR analytics towards
strategic workforce management.

The moderation effects of type of organisation were estimated through the multi-Group
analysis (MGA) techniques. To study the type of organisation as moderator, the sample
was divided into two groups: large organisation and micro, small and medium
organisations. The model was then estimated for the two groups and verified the
significance for both the groups separately for the structural model. The outcomes of the
MGA were studied through Henseler-MGA non-parametric analysis. This technique
studies the differences between the path coefficients of the two groups and this technique
is used to study the group differences in PLS-SEM (Hair et.al., 2017). After that,
Parametric test (Two-tailed test) and Welch-Satterthwaite test were applied to ascertain
where there is any significant difference between adoption of HR analytics across large
organisation and MSME organisation. In addition to this boot strapping was also
performed to analysis the relationships of adoption of HR analytics.

PLS-MGA results in Table 4.38 revealed that EP, SP and TND have no impact of
moderator as p-value is not less than 0.05, which signifies that there is no significant
difference between large organisation and MSME organisation in the above stated
structural relationship, rejecting the moderating effect for EP, SP and TND. TP have

126
 Chapter 4

shown a significance with p-value of 0.016, that means there is a significant difference in
large organisation and MSME organisation with task performance and structural
relationships, hence, accepting hypothesis.

The results are further analysed with parametric test (t=2.05; p<0.05). The results in Table
4.39 shows that TP is significantly different at 5% level of difference, defining the
significant difference between large and MSME organisation with TP and structural
relationships. The p-value is more than 0.05 for EP, SP and TND, thus rejecting the
hypothesis.

Executing the Welch Satterthwait Test (t=2.05, p-value<0.05) in Table 4.40 revealed that
except TP (p-value = 0.017), all constructs were insignificant (p-value >0.05) to adoption
of HR analytics towards strategic workforce management, that is, there is no significant
difference between large and MSME organisation with the structural relationships,
rejecting hypothesis. All the three test reveals that for TP there is significant difference
between large and MSME organisation with the structural relationships.

Table 4.38: PLS MGA

Path Coefficients-diff p-Value original 1-tailed p-Value new (Large

(Large Organization - (Large Organization vs Organization vs
MSMEOrganization) MSMEOrganization) MSMEOrganization)
LOA -> EP 0,059 0,259 0,519
LOA -> SP 0,165 0,034 0,069
LOA -> TND 0,02 0,411 0,823
LOA -> TP 0,266 0,008 0,016

Table 4.39: Parametric Test

Path Coefficients-diff t-Value(Large p-Value (Large

(Large Organization - Organization vs Organization) vs
MSMEOrganization) MSMEOrganization) MSMEOrganization)
LOA -> EP 0,059 0,647 0,518
LOA -> SP 0,165 1,851 0,065
LOA -> TND 0,02 0,224 0,823
LOA -> TP 0,266 2,43 0,015

127
 Chapter 4

Table 4.40: Welch Satterthwait Test

Path Coefficients-diff t-Value(|Large p-Value (Large

(Large Organization - Organization vs Organization vs
MSMEOrganization) MSMEOrganization) MSMEOrganization)
LOA -> EP 0,059 0,646 0,519
LOA -> SP 0,165 1,849 0,066
LOA -> TND 0,02 0,224 0,823
LOA -> TP 0,266 2,414 0,017

The group level results from PLS MGA, Parametric test and Welch Satterthwait test
shows insignificant effect of type of organisation on EP, SP and TND. The results
show significance with TP, that is, type of organisation has an impact as a moderator
for TP. Referring to the boot strapping study, which is made at individual level in
Table 4.41, shows the path coefficient difference (Large organisation – MSME
organisation) as all positive values for all the four segments of strategic workforce
management, which means, large organisation has more impact than the MSME
organisations. All the t-values are positive, and p-values is less than 0.05, which
shows level of adoption (LOA) impact is more on strategic workforce management.
Individually all are significant, and type of organisation has an impact as a moderator.
Figure 4.11 and 4.12 shows the path coefficient for the moderators – type of
organisation – large organisation and MSME organisation respectively and its
relevant significance. Since we studied strategic workforce management through task
performance, strategic participation, training and development and empowerment
practices, the results found to be significant for all the factors. Therefore, here we
accept the hypothesis H16 as type of organisation has a moderating impact on
adoption of HR Analytics and strategic workforce management.

128
 Chapter 4

Table 4.41: Mean difference

Path Coefficients- Path Path t- p-

Path Path STDEV t- p- 97.5%
diff (Large Coefficients Coefficients STDEV Value Value 2.5% (Large 97.5% (Large 2.5% (MSME
Coefficients Coefficients - Value - Value - (MSME
Organization - Mean - Mean - - Large - - Organization) Organization) Organization)
- Large - MSME MSME MSME MSME Organization)
MSMEOrganization) Large MSME Large Large

LOA -> TND 0,461 0,441 0,059 0,467 0,448 0,066 0,061 7,024 7,229 0,000 0,000 0,363 0,598 0,284 0,559

LOA -> EP 0,491 0,432 0,165 0,496 0,440 0,060 0,069 8,142 6,238 0,000 0,000 0,335 0,566 0,163 0,418

LOA -> SP 0,456 0,292 0,02 0,463 0,302 0,060 0,066 7,653 4,389 0,000 0,000 0,325 0,583 0,308 0,553

LOA -> TP 0,551 0,285 0,266 0,554 0,301 0,061 0,092 9,018 3,095 0,000 0,002 0,417 0,656 0,132 0,453

129
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.11: Path coefficient for large organisation as a moderator

Figure 4.12: Path coefficient for MSME organisation as a moderator

130
 Chapter 4

HR Analytics Training as a moderator

Knowledge sharing and knowledge management is a top priority in the IT and ITES
organisation where learning of new techniques and technology never ends (Noor and
Nasirun, 2015). Many organisations irrespective of large or small or medium, have
started to count on competitive advantage through knowledge management (Pee &
Kankanhali, 2015). These organisations incorporate the effective of knowledge
management if they are involved with the services (Noor and Nasirun, 2015). The
concept of knowledge sharing gets started as soon as an employee joins the
organisation in the form of training. Training is considered important not only in the
joining process, but also when there is a new initiation of project, exist of employee
leads to knowledge transfer and training and when new technology is introduced or
about to introduce (McAdam & Reid, 2000). In case of adoption of HR analytics by
the HRs in IT organisations, have faced the situation where some non-tech resources
got opened to technical work processes. To bring this new work scenario a routine
and quality driven work its important to have knowledge sharing and training. The
studies devise that training can have an impact on adoption of HR analytics towards
strategic workforce management, therefore, investigating HR analytics training as a
moderator in the structural model.

The moderation effects of HR analytics training were estimated through the multi-
Group analysis (MGA) techniques. To study the HR analytics training as a moderator,
the sample was divided into two groups: with HR analytics training and without HR
analytics training. The model was then estimated for the two groups and verified the
significance for both the groups separately for the structural model. The outcomes of
the MGA were studied through Henseler-MGA non-parametric analysis. This
technique studies the differences between the path coefficients of the two groups and
this technique is used to study the group differences in PLS-SEM (Hair et.al., 2017).
After that, Parametric test (Two-tailed test) and Welch-Satterthwaite test were applied
to ascertain where there is any significant difference between adoption of HR
analytics across with HR analytics training and without training. In addition to this
boot strapping was also performed to analyse the relationships of adoption of HR
analytics on strategic workforce management with training and without training.

131
 Chapter 4

Table 4.42: PLS-MGA and Parametric test – With and without Training

PLS -MGA Parametric test Welch Satterthwait Test

Path p-Value p-Value new p-Value p-Value
Path Coefficients- t-Value(|With Path Coefficients- t-Value(|With
Coefficients-diff original 1-tailed (With (With (With
diff (With Training vs diff (With Training vs
(With Training - (With Training Training vs Training vs Training vs
Training - Without Training - Without
Without vs Without Without Without Without
Without Training) Training|) Without Training) Training|)
Training) Training) Training) Training) Training)
LOA -> EP -0,116 0,912 0,175 -0,116 1,377 0,169 -0,116 1,352 0,178
LOA -> SP 0,095 0,132 0,265 0,095 1,053 0,293 0,095 1,117 0,265
LOA -> TND -0,031 0,625 0,75 -0,031 0,337 0,737 -0,031 0,325 0,745
LOA -> TP 0,167 0,044 0,088 0,167 1,576 0,116 0,167 1,718 0,087

Table 4.43: Boot strapping – With and without Training

Path
Path
Path Coefficients- Path p-
Path Coefficients STDEV STDEV t-Value t-Value p-Value 2.5% 97.5% 2.5% 97.5%
Coefficients diff (With Coefficients Value
Coefficients Mean (With (Without (With (Without (Without (With (With (Without (Without
(Without Training - Mean (With
(With Trg) (Without Trg) Trg) Trg) Trg) Trg) Training) Training) Training) Training)
Trg) Without (With Trg) Trg)
Trg)
Training)
LOA -> EP 0,423 0,539 -0,116 0,426 0,543 0,069 0,051 6,095 10,524 0,000 0,000 0,274 0,55 0,433 0,634
LOA -> SP 0,453 0,358 0,095 0,463 0,363 0,058 0,063 7,802 5,701 0,000 0,000 0,328 0,557 0,23 0,474
LOA -> TND 0,451 0,481 -0,031 0,456 0,484 0,078 0,053 5,794 9,018 0,000 0,000 0,284 0,592 0,366 0,576
LOA -> TP 0,559 0,392 0,167 0,567 0,396 0,061 0,076 9,164 5,144 0,000 0,000 0,417 0,66 0,233 0,533

132
 Chapter 4

PLS-MGA results in Table 4.42 revealed that there is no impact on EP, SP, TND and
TP of moderator (HR analytics training) as p-value is not less than 0.05. Hence, there
is no significant relation of training (with and without) with the structural
relationships. The results are further analysed with parametric test (t=2.05; p<0.05).
The results in Table 4.42 shows that all the constructs are insignificant as t is less than
2.05 and p is more than 0.05. According to the study the adoption of HR analytics
does not differ in its application towards strategic workforce management. Executing
the Welch Satterthwait Test (t=2.05, p-value<0.05) in Table 4.42 revealed all
constructs were insignificant to adoption of HR analytics towards strategic workforce
management.

The group level results from PLS MGA, Parametric test and Welch Satterthwait test
shows insignificant effect of HR analytics training on EP, SP, TND and TP. Referring
to the boot strapping study which is made at individual level in Table 4.43, shows the
path coefficient difference (With training – Without training) as positive value for
LOA – SP and LOA – TP, which means that the HR analytics training has more
impact on SP and TP than without training. The path coefficient difference (With
training – Without training) is negative for LOA – EP and LOA – TND, which mean
without HR analytics training has more impact on EP and TND than with training. All
the t-values are positive and p-values are less than 0.05, which is, training has impact
on structural relations with LOA. Individually all are significant and HR analytics
training has an impact as a moderator. Figure 4.13 and 4.14 shows the path coefficient
for the moderators – With and without HR analytics training respectively and its
relevant significance to strategic workforce management which is studied through
task performance, strategic participation, training and development and empowerment
practices. The results found to be significant for all the factors of strategic workforce
management, i.e., p-value < 0.05. Therefore, here we accept H17 which is HR
Analytics training has a moderating impact on adoption of HR analytics and strategic
workforce management.

133
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.13: Path coefficient model with HR analytics training

Figure 4.14: Path coefficient model – Without HR analytics Training

134
 Chapter 4

PLS predict

Ensuring the data meets all the quality standards, that shows data reliability and
validity, builds a base for PLS predict. PLS predict is different from the concepts of
training and holdout samples that are used to estimate and evaluates the model on
prediction grounds. A training sample consists of a section of overall data set which is
used to evaluate the model‘s parameters, that are, path study, loading and indicator
weights. The unused part of training set is known as holdout sample set (Hair et.al,
2018). In order to predict the value, independent construct‘s indicators of cases of
holdout sample are used on the selected dependent construct‘s indicators. This is
applied to the training set to get the prediction (Shmueli et.al., 2016).

Shmueli et.al., (2016) has provided with the knowledge and steps for calculating
predictive performance of the model and stated this technique to be better than
blindfolding. As per the technique, a cross-validation between the training set and
sample set are made and PLS predict is applied for cross-validation. When we apply
the PLS predict the samples are splitted randomly into folds called as subsets. K=10
was considered for getting the sub-groups (Shmueli et.al., 2016; Singh and Bala,
2020). The results in the form of root mean squared error (RMSE), the absolute mean
error and Q2 were analysed. RMSE will hold value and analysed only in the case of
normalised data (Witten et.al., 2016). In case of non-normalised data, MAE is
analysed. MAE studies the average magnitude of the errors in the prediction-set
irrespective of the directions whether over or under. It studies the average absolute
difference between the actual observation and the prediction values, considering the
individual differences have equal weights. The MAPE analysis is an intuitive study
showing predictive errors in form of percentage metric. Thus, it is considered
independent from the manifest variable scaling (Shmueli et.al., 2016). MAPE has
number of limitations as it is not defined with zero value for manifest variables. This
is considered as a drawback, as it is not defined at the composite level and causes
potential singularity problems (Tofallis, 2015).

135
 Chapter 4

Sharma et.al., (2019a) in their studies stated the efficacy of the three statistics in PLS-
Sem model were tested and postulated that MAE and RMSE reliably emerged as a
best model balance fit with the predictive powers. On the other, MAPE turns to be
emerged with incorrect specific models. The naïve benchmarks shows that MAE,
MAPE and RMSE are scaled to have higher predictive power with the smaller values
as their absolute levels are difficult to study as their values are dependent upon the
scaling made on dependent constructs resulting in arbitrary threshold. Shmueli et.al.,
(2016) stated the application of simple indicator level average is a naïve benchmark
when considering the training sample. The study is similar to the blindfolding based
Q2 statistic in PLS-SEM (Stone, 1974). This Q2 predict is considered as naïve
benchmark. This makes use of mean values of the variables of training set as
prediction variables from the holdout set. A positive result in Q2 predict ascertains
that the prediction error in the path model is smaller than the naïve benchmark‘s
prediction error.

If the Q2 predict value is zero or less, that indicates that the predictive power of PLS-
SEM analysis could not perform better than the naïve benchmark. With Q2 predict >
0, RMSE for symmetric and MAE for non-symmetric data values are compared with
the naïve LM benchmarks. If the result PLS-SEM < LM , in terms of RMSE or MAE
for none of the indicator, then it is considered as model lacks predictive power. If
PLS-SEM < LM for the minority of the dependent constructs, ascertains that the
model has low predictive power. If PLS-SEM < LM for a majority of indicators, then
it shows medium prediction power. If PLS-SEM < LM for all indicators, then the
model is said to be high predictive power.

The data is non-symmetrical in nature; therefore, MAE of PLS-SEM is compared

with LM. The results in Table 4.44 shows that statements SP1, TND1, TP1 and TP3
have MAE of PLS-SEM < MAE of LM, signifying a low model predict.

136
 Chapter 4

Table 4.44: PLS predict

PLS LM
MAE Q²_predict MAE Q²_predict
EP5 0,540 0,159 0,528 0,271
EP6 0,563 0,123 0,537 0,245
EP4 0,478 0,162 0,471 0,337
EP2 0,562 0,159 0,546 0,309
EP8 0,508 0,171 0,463 0,300
EP7 0,537 0,132 0,511 0,263
EP3 0,546 0,134 0,512 0,314
SP2 0,544 0,119 0,519 0,195
SP3 0,487 0,149 0,452 0,284
SP5 0,481 0,091 0,455 0,333
SP4 0,613 0,180 0,486 0,388
SP1 0,374 0,074 0,409 0,207
TND2 0,531 0,157 0,506 0,318
TND4 0,540 0,193 0,499 0,371
TND6 0,548 0,156 0,525 0,317
TND1 0,392 0,182 0,429 0,349
TND3 0,481 0,135 0,466 0,180
TND5 0,474 0,156 0,460 0,241
TP5 0,557 0,115 0,548 0,092
TP1 0,413 0,172 0,432 0,248
TP4 0,538 0,152 0,538 0,162
TP3 0,503 0,143 0,514 0,152
TP6 0,492 0,149 0,469 0,214
TP2 0,623 0,143 0,593 0,167

4.5 Summary

This chapter outlined the statistical results on the collected data based on the
objectives of the study. It was found from the data that general self-efficacy,
quantitative self-efficacy, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, tool availability
and social influence has a significant impact on adoption of HR analytics and later
influence the strategic workforce management which was studied through task

137
 Chapter 4

performance, empowerment practices, strategic participation and training and

development. Except data availability for both impact on adoption of HR analytics
and impact on strategic workforce management. Type of organisation and HR
analytics training has a moderating impact. The next chapter discusses the
interpretation and implications.

138