Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59
DOI 10.1007/s12646-017-0384-z
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
A Scale to Measure Perceptions of Organizational Maturity
T. J. Kamalanabhan1 • K. Kothandaraman1
Received: 8 August 2016 / Accepted: 19 January 2017 / Published online: 11 February 2017
 National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2017
Abstract While there are several standard scales in use for
measuring various dimensions of human resource man-
agement, research is very limited in terms of scale devel-
opment for variables that form part of the People
Capability Maturity Model (PCMM) for organizational
maturity. This study covers a perception measurement
scale for people governance variables and organizational
maturity developed, validated with industry experts and
statistically tested. The scale was developed with 113 items
grouped into 11 variables covering governance, staffing,
performance management, rewards, quality, training,
organizational maturity and business outcomes around
staff, firm and customer aspects. The reliability analysis
was performed for each of the variables based on inputs
from 521 respondents across the services industry. The
respondents were experienced professionals in functional
management and human resources. Detailed analyses of
results provide high scores for the variables, indicating
good consistency of items. Convergent and discriminant
validity analyses were performed for evaluating validation
of item dimensions within each of the variables. The
overall results indicate that the newly developed scale is a
reliable and validated one to measure variables around
people, process and organizational maturity, for research-
ers particularly in the services industry. This fills in a
missing gap in terms of a validated scale for measuring
people management variables. Further research can be
& K. Kothandaraman
ramankk@yahoo.com
T. J. Kamalanabhan
tjk@iitm.ac.in
1
Department of Management Studies, IIT-Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
done to extend this scale to other industries and to look at a
model fitment across the related variables.
Keywords Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

People
Process
Organizational maturity
People
Capability Maturity Model
Scale reliability
Validity
analysis
People governance
Perception variables
Introduction to People, Process
and Organizational Maturity
People, process and organizational maturity are determined
by the degree of capability and consistency of design and
implementation of people systems and the resulting busi-
ness outcomes. There are formal frameworks to measure
people process maturity (PPM) such as the People Capa-
bility Maturity Model (PCMM), which measure organiza-
tional maturity in a highly structured fashion. The level of
maturity of people related processes is a function of how
well the practices are institutionalized and made as a ‘‘way
of life’’ in the company. This can be measured through the
investigation of process establishment as ‘‘perceived’’ by
practitioners and other stakeholders of the organization
(Table 1).
PCMM (Curtis, Hefley, & Miller, 2002) is a 5-maturity-
level framework which is well utilized by many firms in the
technology and services sector to evaluate organizational
maturity. PCMM has 22 key process areas (KPAs) across 5
maturity levels. The model brings in 499 practices across
these 22 KPAs which are essentially good practices dis-
tilled from practical implementation across industries in
order to promote specific capabilities needed to demon-
strate particular maturity levels. 50% of these practices are
oriented toward particular process area implementation and
123
48 Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59

Table 1 PCMM maturity levels and key process areas. Source: Carnegie Mellon University—CMMI Institute—People Capability Maturity
Model (PCMM) (Curtis et al., 2002)
Maturity levels, Developing Building workgroups and Motivating and managing Shaping the workforce
threads competency culture performance
5 Optimizing Continuous capability improvement (CCI) Organizational performance Continuous workforce
alignment (OPA) innovation (CWI)
4 Predictable Competency-based Competency integration Quantitative performance Organizational capability
assets (CBA) (CI) management (QPM) management (OCM)
Mentoring (MTR) Empowered workgroups
(EWG)
3 Defined Competency Workgroup development Competency-based practices Workforce planning (WP)
development (CD) (WGD) (CBP)
Competency analysis Participatory culture (PC) Career development (CRD)
(CA)
2 Managed Training and Communication and Compensation (COMP) Staffing (STF)
development (TRG) coordination (CC) Performance management (PM)
Work environment (WE)

another 50% toward institutionalization factors. These
factors cover enablers for the practices as well as their
ongoing evaluation mechanisms, thereby stressing heavily
on the institutionalization aspects which will assure con-
tinuous sustenance.
PCMM draws heavily from the disciplines of human
resources management, total quality management, and
organizational change and development across its KPAs.
PCMM groups its focus across four ‘‘threads,’’ which
have KPAs cutting across all maturity levels. These four
threads cover aspects such as developing competency,
building workgroups, motivating and managing perfor-
mance and shaping the workforce aligned to business
objectives. Fundamentally, the KPAs are situated in
maturity levels ranging from two to five as illustrated in
Table 1.
Study Objectives and the Need for a Scale
to Measure Variables Around PCMM Framework
Our research objectives centered on examining specific
contribution in areas intersecting people governance,
quality systems and business results for the firm, employ-
ees and customers. The study was aimed at building a
framework linking people process variables to HR and
business outcomes for the firms in IT and services sector,
and to validate certain assumptions on linkages across
governance, people processes, and results.
In order to execute the study, we needed a reliable
and validated scale that will measure the identified
variables around people, process and organizational
maturity. While there are validated scales for some of
the related variables, as illustrated in Table 2, we could
not find any established scales for variables covering
antecedents and consequences of people process matu-
rity, as postulated in the PCMM framework. In addition,
we could not see scales customized to the technology
services industry in emerging markets context, which is
the subject matter of our study. Therefore, a specialized
scale was developed covering all the identified variables,
based on the PCMM theoretical framework, to enable
measurement and subsequent modeling of the related
variables. The scale was developed drawing good prac-
tices from related studies and subjecting the items to
expert validation, keeping in mind the variables around
our conceptual framework.
Literature Study Summary
The literature study enabled us to determine the extent of
coverage of related variables in past research, as well as
scales that are used in such studies. The related research
areas for this study can be represented in terms of three
dimensions of corporate governance, quality governance
and people governance. The gaps appear to be more in the
intersection areas across the three dimensions as indicated
in Fig. 1 below.
While research is fairly widespread in each of the topics,
the gaps appeared to be there at the knowledge intersection
areas predominantly as indicated below:
• Limited studies in the intersection area between
corporate governance and people process, particularly
linking this to firm outcomes.
• India-based studies in services sector governance,
people process and quality relating to business results
are seen to be very limited.

123
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59 49

Table 2 Operationalization of variables

Variable/sub- Elaboration Scale sources studied from PCMM—key Designed dimensions Sample items (five-point
scale related literature process areas and number of items Likert)
mapped

Corporate Practices around Governance score (Brown & CBP, WP, CI CG-SYSTEM = 5 Recognized standards,
governance corporate and Caylor, 2004), PCMM (Curtis CG-EXECUTION = 5 models and frameworks
practices organizational et al., 2002), CMMI (Paulk, are used to guide
(CG) management 1993), BSC (Kaplan & improvement plans___
Norton, 1992) Management periodically
benchmarks progress
against industry
norms___
People Staffing, PCMM, Role (Rizzo, House, & STF, MTR PG-S = 12 I have seen job openings in
governance recruitment, Lirtzman, 1970), HRM the organization getting
practices selection and (Scott), JCQ (Karasek, 1979) systematically
(PG)— onboarding communicated______
staffing (PG- practices My business unit
S) proactively analyses
future requirements and
plans ahead___
I have seen that there is a
well-defined selection
process___
PG— Performance PCMM, Career salience PM, CC PG-PM = 8 I have clearly laid out
performance management and (Sekaran, 2011), leadership PG-CD = 4 goals and indicators to
management, career (Fred), JDI (Smith, 1969) measure individual
career development performance______
development practices The goals are aligned to
(PG-PM-CD) the larger business needs
systematically___
My performance is not
reviewed at regular
intervals___
PG—rewards Compensation, PCMM, job involvement COMP, CRD PG-RR = 11 I feel recognized for my
and recognition and (White & Ruh, 1973) achievements___
recognition reward practices There is a well-defined
practices recognition process in
(PG-RR) my company___
I have seen outstanding/
high performers get
rewarded___
Quality Practices to ISO (Levine & Toffel, 2010), WGD, QG-SYSTEM = 6 My work process has not
governance manage delivery CMMI, PCMM, SERVQUAL CMPDEV, QG-EXECUTION = 5 improved due to the
practices and quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & CMPANL application of
(QG) aspects Berry, 1994) frameworks___
The process infrastructure
provided to me enables
me to perform well
Training Training and PCMM, training (Bae & TD, CBA TKM-TRAINING = 5 There is a well-defined
practices development Lawler, 2000) TKM-KNOWLEDGE training plan for my
(TKM) practices MANAGEMENT = 5 business___
Soft skills training is
regularly provided by the
organization___

123
50 Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59

Table 2 continued
Variable/sub- Elaboration Scale sources studied from PCMM—key Designed dimensions Sample items (five-point
scale related literature process areas and number of items Likert)
mapped

Depth of Degree and level PCMM, ISO, CMMI, HRM WE, PC DMI = 4 There is a visible
management of continuity of practices continuity of CEO and
involvement commitment top management
(DMI) demonstrated by involvement in
management improvement
team programs___
Line business management
team actively
participates in the
improvement initiatives
regularly___
People process Maturity of people PCMM, HRM effectiveness QPM, CWI, PPM-BASIC = 4 I see a well-defined People
maturity processes (Chang, 2005) EWG PPM- Process System covering
(PPM) demonstrated ADVANCED = 6 multiple areas of human
resource
management___
Frameworks such as
PCMM are actively used
for guiding people
process definition and
continuous
improvement___
Staff outcomes Outcomes for the PCMM, High Perf (Bae & CCI SO-ENGAGED = 4 I am actively engaged with
(SO) employees Lawler, 2000), MB SO- my organization___
(Wongrassamee, Simmons, & EMPOWERED = 6 I see that we are able to
Gardiner, 2003), HR attract other good staff
Effectiveness (Huselid & from the market to our
Becker, 1995) organization___
Firm outcomes Outcomes for the PCMM, MB, BSC, GovScore OPA FO-BASIC = 6 I believe we get the best
(FO) firm (Brown & Caylor, 2004) FO-GROWTH = 6 talent from market___
We have well established
leadership strengths___
Client Outcomes for the PCMM, MB, CMMI, HRM OCM CO-GROWTH = 4 Our customers are very
outcomes customer impact (Huselid & Becker, CO-DELIGHT = 6 happy with us___
(CO) 1995), CuSat (Krishnan, We get regular repeat
Mithas, & Fornel, 2005) business from same
customers___
Validated scale with complete items designed and used for the study is available in the ‘‘Appendix’’ section

• Limited studies seen linking people process maturity Studies with Specific Focus on People Governance
and business outcomes in the context of high-tech Practices
services sector across the world.
There are very few studies specifically on PCMM imple-
It can be seen that there are very few studies mapping
mentation but several other studies quoted in this paper
practices to outcomes, particularly around staff and cus-
touch upon the threads or the topics covered in the KPAs of
tomer dimensions. In addition, we could not evidence
PCMM. There is also very limited attention we could see
adequate studies in the technology services sector in
on technology or services sector which is our focus for this
emerging market context where our study is focused on.
study. However, we have mapped related studies from
Hence we feel that the current study will address an
other sectors to draw upon possible insights for our study.
important gap area in the literature, both in terms of the
It also enabled us to look at scales used and to determine
area of study as well as a suitable scale to enable this study.
what is the exact scale and items we need for this study.

123
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59
Corporate Governance
Aspects
Ownership, Stakeholder-
Management Conflict
Resoluon, Financial
Results
People
Quality Governance
Governance Aspects
Aspects HR Systems,
Processes,
Quality Management
Leadership,
Systems and Results
Movaon,
Employee Results
Fig. 1 Three dimensions of the research area
In a manufacturing setting study in 2011, Soltani et al.
points out that it is possible to measure excellence across
three dimensions of individual, process and organization
using PCMM. The study of Ahmad and Shroeder (2003)
explores impact of HRM practices on operational processes
and looks at an ideal system for manufacturing plants. In a
study looking at the degree of support provided by Oracle
HRM suite to PCMM practices, Türetken and Demirörs
(2004) point out that only PCMM earlier maturity levels of
2 and 3 are covered with some variability in the suite.
Oakland and Oakland (1998) in an interesting study of past
research work around key aspects of effective people man-
agement and maturity explore the downstream links with
satisfied employees, who can make a difference in delivering
services, which enables exceptional levels of customer satis-
faction and corresponding business results. Highly mature
people process systems will be a great enabler in this context.
Prahalad and Bettis (1986) explore the links between diversity
and performance building on past research. Well-aligned
people processes will help attract varied talent that builds such
diversity effectively in organizations which contributes to
increased people process maturity.
Snell and Youndt (1995) point out from a study of 102
firms that behavior and input controls are far better than
output controls, as an approach to HRM practices. Arthur
(1994) in his study in the steel manufacturing sector of
commitment versus control-type HR systems points out
that commitment system produced better results in terms of
productivity, scrap rates and staff turnover. This is very
similar to the philosophy of PCMM framework which
advocates enabling variables as an instrument to achieve
people process maturity and downstream outcomes.
51
In a Russian study of 101 foreign firms operating there
Fey, Björkman and Pavlovskaya (2000) attempt to map
HRM practices to firm outcomes through a mediating
variable of HRM outcomes. Becker and Huselid (2006) in
their study look at the black box between HRM practices
and firm performance and investigate whether integrating
strategy implementation could provide the missing link.
They also point out the need for differentiated HR practices
both across and within firms. People process maturity could
be an enabling factor in this context.
Methodology for Scale Development
The methodology for the research scale development for
this study covered stages of exploratory research, frame-
work development, operationalization of variables, scale
development and validation through pilot studies and scale
refinement for the purposes of the main study. Work done
in each of the stages is further discussed in detail.
Exploratory Research and Background Study
An extensive study of past research in variables around
process governance, people process maturity and business
outcomes was done initially. Further the researchers did an
exhaustive study on theoretical frameworks such as People
Capability Maturity Model—PCMM, Corporate gover-
nance score, International Standards Organization—ISO,
Capability Maturity Model Integrated—CMMI and Mal-
colm Baldrige—MB. This background study helped to
uncover possible gaps as well as areas of focus for more
effective application. This effort was supplemented by a
study of particular cases of alignment of governance,
organizational maturity, business and human resource
outcomes in five leading IT services organizations with a
view to understand the practical context of
implementations.
Finally, a literature study was done of questionnaires
and scales in use to measure variables similar to the ante-
cedents of people process maturity of PCMM framework
across both emerging and developed markets perspectives.
This helped in development of a suitable scale, highly
customized to the context of PCMM, while building on any
related aspects of work done in the past.
Scale Development and Operationalization
of Variables
A new scale was developed for each of the antecedent
variables as postulated in the conceptual framework. This
was designed to align with the PCMM framework practices
to measure the extent of implementation and institution-
alization of each of the aspects in the field. Each of the
123
52
variables in the PCMM conceptual framework has been
operationalized as explained in table below. The scale
development for each of the variables started with critical
research on available related scales in the literature and
whether those scales were adequate to operationalize the
specific variable being examined. For this study which is
aligned to PCMM, none of the industry scales were deemed
adequate to capture the required depth and intensity of the
variables. Hence a new scale was developed drawing from
all the available sources, in addition to the PCMM
framework.
Corporate governance variable covered items around
corporate and organizational management that prepare the
foundation for process activities. People governance—
staffing variable takes care of staffing, recruitment, selec-
tion and onboarding practices that are the initial part of
people governance practices. People governance—perfor-
mance management and career development variable
comprises of performance management and career devel-
opment-related items that are an integral part of people
governance practices. People governance—rewards and
recognition variable covers aspects such as compensation,
recognition and reward practices that are the reinforcing
part of people governance practices.
Quality governance variable comprises of items to
manage delivery and quality aspects in order to provide
assurance to customers and stakeholders. Training and
knowledge management variable comprises of training and
development practices to develop greater capability and
capacity to leverage through knowledge management.
Management involvement variable covers the degree and
level of continuity of commitment demonstrated by orga-
nizational management team. People process maturity
variable covers the state of maturity of people processes
clearly demonstrated in the organization. Various business
outcome variables have been examined in this study. Staff
outcome variable covers outcomes that are relevant for
staff members of the organization. Firm outcome variable
covers outcomes that are relevant for management team of
the organization. Customer outcome variable covers out-
comes that are relevant for customers of the organization
and brings in a very interesting outside view of the business
outcomes that have a bearing on long-term success and
growth of the organization.
Table 2 covers operationalization of each of the
variables and scale sources studied for each of the
variables, as part of the process for development of
specific items for that variable. Operationalization is
done keeping the PCMM KPAs relevant to that variable
in view in order to ensure incorporation of PCMM
aspects in the items designed. The variable dimensions
covered and sample items designed are listed in the
columns in Table 2.
123
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59
The analysis of reliability and validity of the newly
developed sub-scales and full scale was done in several
stages. There was an initial validation with experts com-
prising of senior practitioners from the industry and aca-
demicians in related fields. The scale was then deployed in
a pilot study, and quantitative analysis was done for both
reliability and validity. The findings were rigorously ana-
lyzed, and the initially designed scale was refined based on
this analysis before being used for the full study.
Expert Validation
Care was taken to choose experts from academia, from
management, human resources and other disciplines, and
industry players from technology services sectors, who
have been exposed to applying PCMM and related
frameworks in their work area. All the industry experts
chosen for validation had an executive experience of over
ten years in managing various functions including line
management, human resources, delivery, customer man-
agement and quality. The validity of each of the set of
items for variables was examined by reviewing the scale
with the chosen experts through focused feedback inter-
views. Senior executives from ten organizations in services
industry gave valuable feedback, which was reflected in the
final items, to make it more relevant and valid.
Population Definition
Industry focus for this study was determined to be tech-
nology and services sector. IT and other knowledge-based
service sectors that apply technology to deliver services
were taken as the focus sectors, and various organizations
were chosen for this study from such sectors accordingly.
Within each organization, it was planned to select
respondents having a functional experience of minimum
2 years in HR, line management, operations, quality or
technical areas. The organization and the respondents had
some degree of exposure to applying PCMM and/or other
models and frameworks for driving improvements. The
study companies had significant operations in India from
an economic context.
Sampling Frame
Sampling frame for the study was defined to be the list of
all employees in organizations meeting the above popula-
tion definition criteria. Such a list was generally available
with HR departments. The employees were classified into
strata being looked for, in terms of length of experience
and functional areas. HR department was used in a coor-
dinating role for data collection to ensure meeting of all the
above criteria in order to minimize coverage errors. Further
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59
the researcher had planned in detail an opening meeting
with all potential respondents through specific sessions in
the organizations and had further provided time and
meeting mechanisms for resolution of any queries, to
minimize any understanding errors.
Sampling Design
Judgmental sampling was used as a guiding mechanism to
ensure a representative sample. Judgment was used to
apply disproportionate technique to assure right level of
representation of different strata rather than just a mathe-
matical proportion, which may not provide an adequate
perspective. Within the population meeting above criteria,
care was taken to assure a representative sample with
regard to functional and level of experience, whereas
industry and geography were taken care of at the time of
selecting the organization for the study itself.
Data Collection
The data inputs were collected from respondents belonging
to 45 separate organizations. Out of which, 25 organiza-
tions were from the IT services sector, two from elec-
tronics, five from financial services, five from consulting
services and the other eight from other sectors including
manufacturing and government services. The spread of
companies indicates a sizeable portion coming from the IT
services sector, which happens to be the main focus area of
this study. The sample also has companies from other
services sectors, consulting and manufacturing, and this
helped provide a more holistic spectrum of company rep-
resentation for comparative analysis.
In terms of company size, both large and small organi-
zations have been covered. In terms of origin and back-
ground of the company, both Multi-National Companies
(MNCs) and Indian companies have been covered. There is
also a fair distribution across older, median and newer
organizations, offering an opportunity to study differences
in effects due to age of companies. In terms of experience
levels of respondents, minimum of two years of experience
was insisted. Further, a good spread of experience was
targeted in the sample, ranging from minimum two years to
over 20 years, to look at differences, if any, due to expe-
rience levels. The organization and the respondents had
some degree of exposure to applying PCMM and/or other
models and frameworks for driving improvements. The
sample contained both PCMM and non-PCMM companies,
to be able to assess any differences in effects. In terms of
respondents from each organization, care was taken to have
staff covered from all functional disciplines of delivery,
human resources, quality and management, for the study.
53
The full study was planned with a sampling frame similar to
that planned in the pilot study and was defined to be the list of
all employees in organizations meeting the above population
definition criteria. Such a list was available with HR depart-
ments. The employees were classified into strata being looked
for, in terms of length of experience and functional areas. HR
department was used in a coordinating role for data collection,
to ensure meeting of above criteria and to minimize coverage
errors. Further researcher had planned in detail an opening
meeting to all potential respondents, through specific sessions
in the organizations and had further provided time and
meeting mechanisms for resolution of any queries, to mini-
mize any understanding errors. This reduced unusable
responses and increased the productivity of data collection.
Around 700 respondents were targeted for this study
based on the above criteria, and 521 valid responses were
received during the period October 2015–May 2016. Non-
response errors that could potentially affect the sample
design composition were avoided by planning the study
with desired respondents well in advance in addition to
keeping additional targeted respondents as a buffer for each
of the types of respondents to be covered.
Coding and Data Entry
The responses received were carefully entered in Microsoft
Excel (XL) work sheets, with columns indicating variable
items and rows the respondents. Preventive mechanisms
such as guiding sheet and checklist for quality control and
adequate precautions of entries were done to avoid coding
errors. Missing entries were indicated as blanks and further
analyzed. The analysis also covered mechanisms to detect
illogical or invalid data coming in for any variable, which
were highlighted for further investigations. Inconsistent
responses were handled by correlating with related
responses and following up before closing the data col-
lection in the organization. This happened in less than 10%
of the cases, due to adequate preventive mechanism of
exclusive briefing sessions, used prior to data collection.
Out of 540 total responses received, nineteen of them had
more than 25% items unfilled and were therefore removed
from the analysis. Negatively worded item responses were
reverse coded before inputting into SPSS system for the
final analysis. Finally, 521 fully valid and usable responses
were made available as input for the final data analysis.
Respondents Profile Distributions
In terms of the respondent affiliation, 219 were from MNC
organizations and 302 were from Indian organizations. In
terms of industry, 481 respondents were from IT services,
while 40 came from other sectors. From a company size
perspective, 439 respondents were from large companies
123
54
with more than 2000 staff size, while 82 were from smaller
companies with less than 2000 staff members. A total of
145 respondents were from older companies set up before
the year 1990. A total of 219 respondents came from
companies set up between 1990 and 2000, while 157
respondents were from newer companies set up after 2000.
A total of 289 respondents came from organizations that
had applied PCMM for improvements. A total of 232
respondents came from organizations that did not have a
history of implementing PCMM. From a respondent role
perspective, 309 people came from delivery function, 88
from quality function and 124 from human resources
function in their organizations. A total of 154 respondents
had less than 4 years of total experience, while 103 had
between 4 and 9 years of experience and 64 respondents
had more than 9 years total of experience. From a current
organization experience perspective, 187 respondents had
more than 5 years, while 144 had between 2 and 5 years
and 190 had less than 2 years of experience in the
organization.
Analysis of Reliability and Validity
An exploratory factor analysis was done for the full data set
using SPSS. The objective was to look at whether the
sampling is adequate using Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy, with a cutoff value of 0.60.
Further Bartlett’s test of sphericity was deployed to analyze
the fitment level, using significance (p) value of less than
0.01 (Field, 2009). The percentage variance explained is
also computed with a desirable level of close to 50%. The
final analysis covered whether the correlation matrix
determinant is non-null, with a cutoff value of 0.001
(Sekaran, 2011).
It is seen that KMO sampling adequacy is higher than
0.80 in almost all of the sub-scales and above 0.76 in all the
cases and therefore there are no issues from this test. The
significance value of Bartlett’s test was also much lesser
than 0.01 in all the cases. The percentage variance
explained by the items was well above 50% in almost all
the cases. The correlation matrix determinant was found to
be well above 0.001 in all the sub-scale cases. Hence the
EFA results summary were considered to be well accept-
able (Tables 3, 4).
Pattern Matrix from EFA Analysis
After several iterations with EFA using full data set, a
clean pattern matrix emerged, mapping the eleven dimen-
sions postulated. Promax rotation technique was deployed
for the analysis as it does not require orthogonality as a
mandatory condition. As orthogonality of variables had not
been separately proven, this technique was considered to be
123
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59
more relevant for this study (Field, 2009). Any loadings
below 0.30 were not represented in the pattern matrix, to
have better clarity on the overall picture of loadings (Levin,
1988). There were several items that got dropped in iter-
ations through this analysis in each of the sub-scales. It was
seen in the modified scale that there has been a strong
clustering of items around eleven dimensions and no cross-
loadings are observed for any of the dimensions. Hence the
scale was converging to eleven dimensions as postulated.
The detailed pattern matrix result and modified scale are
available with the researchers on request.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
As a next step, the authors attempted an exhaustive CFA
with full data to analyze whether results support the initial
structure deployed in the scale after EFA analysis (Field,
2009). This analysis helped reaffirm that the scale structure
is appropriate for the purposes of this study. Using the
pattern matrix outcome of the EFA analysis, a CFA map-
ping and analysis was done using AMOS version 22. The
results are represented in the table below.
Evaluation of the CFA Results
Goodness-Of-Fit (GOF) measures were used to analyze
whether scales have a single dimension. A number of fit
indices are utilized to provide adequate information about
the GOF. In this study, GOF is estimated using values of
GFI (Goodness of Fit Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index),
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) and
BBNFI (Bentler Bonett Normed Fit Index). GFI and
RMSEA are some of the absolute fit indices measures,
where GFI exhibits how well a specified model fits the data
observations and RMSEA measures the extent to which
lack of fit occurs due to sampling error. Typically, RMSEA
values below 0.10 are mostly acceptable (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 2006). CFI and BBNFI are incremental
fit indices measures. In CFI, specified model is compared
with the baseline (null) model. Acceptable values for GFI,
CFI and BBNFI are greater than 0.90.
It is clearly seen from the results tabulated above that
the fit indices for all the scales were above the accept-
able values for all the parameters; therefore, the scales
were considered as appropriate for further analysis.
Validity Analysis
Convergent validity is determined by the extent to which
the designed items converge to the same dimension. This
was evaluated by examining loadings from the assigned set
of items for the scale. It was found that loadings were
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59 55

Table 3 Internal consistency analysis and fit indices results

Constructs Final number of Cronbach’s alpha GFI RMSEA CFI NFI
items ([0.7) ([0.9) (\0.1) ([0.9) ([0.9)

Corporate governance practices (CG) 6 0.861 0.990 0.04 0.995 0.987

People governance practices (PG)—staffing (PG-S) 8 0.916 0.981 0.05 0.991 0.984
PG—performance management, career development 8 0.922 0.981 0.05 0.991 0.985
(PG-PM-CD)
PG—rewards and recognition practices (PG-RR) 3 0.822 0.992 0.08 0.993 0.991
Quality governance practices (QG) 5 0.884 0.998 0.02 1.000 0.998
Training practices (TKM) 5 0.907 1.000 0.00 1.000 1.000
Depth of management involvement (DMI) 3 0.875 0.992 0.08 0.995 0.993
People process maturity (PPM) 8 0.941 0.986 0.08 0.995 0.992
Staff outcomes (SO) 4 0.843 1.000 0.00 1.000 1.000
Firm outcomes (FO) 3 0.786 1.000 0.00 1.000 1.000
Client outcomes (CO) 5 0.875 0.995 0.05 0.997 0.994

Table 4 Composite reliability, convergent and discriminant validity analysis

Constructs CR ([0.7) composite AVE ([0.5) avg variance MSV max shared ASV avg shared
reliability (CR) extracted (AVE) variance (MSV) variance (ASV)

Depth of management 0.876 0.702 0.672 0.569

involvement
People process maturity 0.941 0.667 0.672 0.547
Corporate governance practices 0.862 0.511 0.635 0.515
People governance—staffing 0.916 0.579 0.666 0.554
People governance— 0.923 0.600 0.697 0.537
performance management
People governance—rewards 0.823 0.607 0.697 0.511
Quality governance 0.885 0.607 0.493 0.359
Training and knowledge 0.907 0.662 0.646 0.548
management
Staff outcomes 0.843 0.574 0.602 0.513
Firm outcomes 0.790 0.558 0.560 0.457
Customer outcomes 0.877 0.588 0.543 0.365

generally high for each item, with minimum level of over
0.50 and averages near 0.70 levels. This aspect was seen to
be satisfied for each of the 11 sub-scales.
Discriminant validity evaluates how much the estab-
lished construct is different from others and hence becomes
truly unique and valid to measure the underlying concept.
This was assessed by analyzing cross-loadings from one
factor to the other factors. It was seen from the pattern
matrix of EFA results that there were no significant cross-
loadings into other factors. In addition, it was seen that
correlation between factors was less than 0.70 levels across
all factor pairs. This was seen to be satisfied for each of the
11 sub-scales.
Reliability of the final item set for each of the sub-scales
was rechecked with Cronbach’s alpha. This was confirmed
to be higher than 0.70 for all of the cases. Thus, reliability
as well was seen to be satisfied for each of the 11 sub-
scales.
Validation Summary Measures on the Final Scale
Deploying the EFA results of pattern matrix to execute a CFA
map in AMOS, the following results were obtained for construct
validity. The final scale as recommended by EFA analysis with
complete data was utilized for this CFA analysis of validity. The
overall validation results are summarized as below.

123
56 Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59

Evaluation of Overall Validation Results Appendix: Validated Scale

It is seen from above table that for all the constructs that Note: Please check with authors for any further details to
CR was well above 0.70, indicating good composite reli- interpret this scale.
ability for each of the sub-scales. Average variance
extracted was also well above the norms of 0.50 in all
constructs, indicating sufficient validity levels in all the Section 1: Corporate Governance Aspects (CG)
cases
AVE needs to be higher than MSV to establish good 1 2 3 4 5
levels of discriminant validity. It was confirmed that MSV
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
is lesser or close to AVE in most of the cases. In corporate disagree agree agree
and people governance variables, it was seen to be slightly
Nor disagree
more, but this is logical given the theoretical basis of these
scales (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Hatcher (1994) also
noted that the values less than prescribed norms can also be 1. Functional leaders of business personally drive the
considered to be acceptable depending on theoretical improvements in their areas___
context, since these estimates are conservative. ASV value 2. Recognized standards, models and frameworks are
was seen to be within norms in all cases as seen above. In used to guide improvement plans___
view of all the above analysis findings, the scales devel- 3. Management periodically benchmarks progress against
oped were considered as fully validated. industry norms___
The scale comprising all sub-scales was finally patterned 4. The policy on corporate governance is transparent and
around analysis outcomes and used for further research known to all___
inputs. The updated scale comprising sub-scales as 5. There are strict internal controls and risk mitigation
designed to capture different antecedent and consequent plans___
variables of people process maturity and its dimensions 6. I have seen strong actions around Corporate Social
was thus seen to be a reliable and validated one for use by Responsibility___
researchers in the field.

Conclusions and Suggested Areas for Further Work

Section 2: People Governance Aspects
Based on the detailed reliability and factor analysis of the
Staffing and Recruitment Practices (PG-S)
items for each of the antecedent variables as well as for the
state of people, process and organizational maturity, it is seen 1 2 3 4 5
that the designed scale is appropriate for measurement of the
variables. However, it may be noted that the data for this Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
disagree agree agree
study are based on professionals from technology and ser-
Nor disagree
vices sector in an emerging market context, who are exposed
to people process, quality and other governance systems. The
reliability and validity for application of this scale in other 1. My business unit proactively analyses future require-
sectors and business environments may need to be verified by ments and plans ahead___
the researchers for their particular contexts. 2. I have seen that there is a well-defined selection
It is proposed to use this validated scale further in the process___
technology and services sector to collect additional data 3. We get people recruited in a timely manner___
with a view to map the dependencies and construct a 4. I understand there is a clear induction and transition
possible model among the variables. This will help stake- process___
holders get deeper insight into the dynamics of people 5. Attrition cases are handled professionally and learn-
process maturity and its corresponding business outcomes. ings documented for use___
The development of such a model will enable to create 6. I believe people involved in recruitment are trained for
greater leveraging ability for all stakeholders to plan the the job___
antecedent variables to get the desired maturity in the 7. Measurements are taken and used to improve recruit-
system as well as to achieve desired outcomes from staff, ment process___
firm and customer perspectives.

123
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59 57

8. Our recruitment process is very robust to get the right 1. My organization has used ISO framework for basic
fit for the job___ processes___
2. My organization is applying CMMI based frameworks
for delivery___
Performance Management and Career Development 3. My organization has been using international process
Practices (PG-PM) frameworks for more than 5 years___
4. My organization has been using high maturity process
1 2 3 4 5
frameworks and quantitative management practices for
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly more than 3 years___
disagree agree agree 5. My organization has been using benchmarking of
Nor disagree maturity levels against international process
frameworks___

1. I get timely feedback for improvement___

2. My performance evaluation is objectively done against Section 4A: Training and Knowledge Management
agreed goals___ Practices (TKM)
3. Problems in performance are discussed___ 1 2 3 4 5
4. Necessary support is provided for course corrections as
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
and when required___
disagree agree agree
5. I am empowered to plan self-development to advance
Nor disagree
further in the organization___
6. My personal development plans are also reviewed
regularly___ 1. There is a well-defined training plan for my
7. Organization culture is conducive for giving and business___
receiving feedback___ 2. Soft skills training is regularly provided by the
8. Performance discussions are held in a structured organization___
way___ 3. There is well-defined knowledge management system
in the organization___
4. I have used knowledge management system in my
Rewards and Recognition Practices (PGR) work___
1 2 3 4 5 5. There is continuity of application of training initiatives
over many years___
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
disagree agree agree
Nor disagree
Section 4B: Depth of Management Involvement
(DMI)
1. There is a well-defined recognition process in my
company___
1 2 3 4 5
2. I am informed about the firm compensation
strategy___ Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
3. Logic behind decisions on my compensation are well disagree agree agree
communicated to me___ Nor disagree

Section 3: Quality Governance System Practices

(QG) 1. There is a visible continuity of CEO and top
management involvement in improvement
programs___
1 2 3 4 5 2. Line business management team actively participates
in the improvement initiatives regularly___
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 3. Multiple improvement initiatives in governance,
disagree agree agree
finance, people, delivery and quality areas are actively
Nor disagree
driven by management___

123
58 Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59

Section 5: State of People Process Maturity (PPM) 1. Our stock or firm value is constantly increasing___
2. We are able to differentiate as leaders in our
1 2 3 4 5 market___
3. The best people in the market want to join my
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
disagree agree agree company___
Nor disagree

Section 8: Customer Outcomes (CO)

1. I see a well-defined People Process System covering 1 2 3 4 5
multiple areas of human resource management___
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
2. Frameworks such as PCMM are actively used for disagree agree agree
guiding people process definition and continuous Nor disagree
improvement___
3. Data are actively used for measuring progress for
people related decisions___ 1. Our customers are very happy with us___
4. High maturity PCMM practices are used to predict 2. We get regular repeat business from same
human resource and business outcomes___ customers___
5. I have seen PCMM based benchmarking being regu-
3. Our business account has grown every year___
larly used to baseline achievements___ 4. Our customers will readily refer us to others___
6. We empower our teams to add business and customer 5. We anticipate customer needs and partner with
value independently___
them___
7. We use well-developed competency frameworks
aligned to business needs___
8. Our organization has several people process assets
based on competencies that we leverage well___
References

Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2003). The impact of human resource

Section 6: Staff Outcomes (SO) management practices on operational performance: Recognizing
country and industry differences. Journal of Operations Man-
1 2 3 4 5 agement, 21(1), 19–43.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Manage-
disagree agree agree ment Journal, 37(3), 670–687.
Nor disagree Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in
Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 502–517.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources
1. I am actively engaged with my organization___ management: Where do we go from here? Journal of Manage-
2. I am able to make plans to grow to my full ment, 32(6), 898–925.
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2004). Corporate governance and
potential___
firm performance. Available at SSRN 586423.
3. My job is challenging that helps me grow Chang, E. (2005). Employees’ overall perception of HRM effective-
professionally___ ness. Human Relations, 58(4), 523–544.
4. I am able to add value to my customers___ Curtis, D. B., Hefley, W. E., & Miller, S. A. (2002). The people
capability maturity model: Guidelines for improving the work-
force. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Fey, C. F., Björkman, I., & Pavlovskaya, A. (2000). The effect of
Section 7: Firm Outcomes (FO) human resource management practices on firm performance in
Russia. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
11(1), 1–18.
1 2 3 4 5 Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. New Delhi: Sage.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
disagree agree agree
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Nor disagree Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

123
Psychol Stud (January–March 2017) 62(1):47–59
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(R) sys-
tem for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary,
NC:SAS Institute.
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (1995). The strategic impact of high
performance work systems. In B. Becker, B. Gerhart (Eds.),
Academy of management annual meeting. Vancouver: Academy
of Management.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced score card—
Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review,
70(1), 71–79.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
Krishnan, M. S., Mithas, S., & Fornel, C. (2005). Effect of information
technology investments on customer satisfaction: Theory and
evidence. Ross School of Business Working Paper Series
Working Paper No. 971.
Levin, R. (1988). Statistics for management. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Quality management and job
quality: How the ISO 9001 standard for quality management
systems affects employees and employers, Harvard Business
School working paper.
Oakland, J. S., & Oakland, S. (1998). The links between people
management, customer satisfaction and business results. Total
Quality Management, 9(4), 185–190.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassess-
ment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring
service quality: Implications for further research. The Journal of
Marketing, 1, 111–124.
Paulk, M. (1993). Capability maturity model. IEEE Software, 10(4),
18–27.
59
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new
linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 7(6), 485–501.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and
ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
Sekaran, U. (2011). Research methods for business (5th ed.). India:
Wiley.
Smith, P. C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally and Company.
Snell, S. A., & Youndt, M. A. (1995). Human resource management
and firm performance: Testing a contingency model of executive
controls. Journal of Management, 21(4), 711–737.
Soltani, I., Joneghani, R. B. N., & Bozorgzad, A. (2011). A study on
determining the level of individual, procedural and organiza-
tional maturity based on integrated pattern of People-Capability
Maturity Model (P-CMM) and 3-dimensional pattern of organi-
zational maturity in production and industrial organization.
International Business Research, 4(3), 234.
Türetken, O., & Demirörs, O. (2004). People capability maturity
model and HRM systems: Do they benefit each other? Human
Systems Management, 23, 179–190.
White, J. K., & Ruh, R. A. (1973). Effects of personal values on the
relationship between participation and job attitudes. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 18(4), 506–514.
Wongrassamee, S., Simmons, J. E. L., & Gardiner, P. D. (2003).
Performance measurement tools: The balanced scorecard and the
EFQM excellence model. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1),
14–29.
123