HRD climate, HRD systems & OCB: linkages conceptualization, measure & model fit.

Jain, Sheelam ; Jain, Ravindra

Introduction

Employees who are given adequate opportunities and favorable environment for their professional development, who are well trained and are well entrusted by their organizations, and whose performance is well analyzed and appreciated are likely to perform their jobs with a sense of belongingness and ownership. From a social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), the positive benefits of a supportive work environment enjoyed by employees obligate them to reciprocate with behaviors that benefit the organization. Social exchange is based on an implicit agreement between the employee and the employer, referred to as a psychological contract (Rousseau, 1998). Psychological contracts are governed by the norm of reciprocity and have been shown to play an important role in determining organizational behavior (Garrow, 20u4).On fulfillment of their developmental needs, employees can choose to reciprocate in the workplace by developing an emotional attachment to the organization in the form of exerting extra effort in performing job-related tasks (Meyer. Paunonen & Gellatly, 1989). These reciprocal behaviors by individuals that go beyond their formal duties play a key role in increasing the effectiveness, efficiency, and positive climate in the workplace. Thus, organizational developmental practices such as supportive HRD climate, development oriented performance appraisal, training opportunities and employee empowerment foster employees' shared perceptions of a supportive developmental climate that motivates discretionary behaviors which contribute to the organizational performance. Such discretionary behavior is known as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Organ (1997) defined OCB as, "performance that supports the social or psychological environment in which the task performance takes place." Gong, Cheng and Cheung (2010) have empirically found out that a firm's investment in high- performance work systems such as selective hiring, participation in decision making, high pay based on firm performance, extensive training, career planning and advancement and regular performance appraisals enhances collective organizational citizenship behaviors at middle management level. Earlier studies have also claimed that high performance HR practices are linked to increasing organizational citizenship behaviors (Sun, Aryee & Law, 2007; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). As the effects of HR systems are often described as occurring through individual-level variables, researchers have suggested the need to better understand the influence of HR systems on employees and the relationships formed among them (Becker & Huselid, 2006). Responding to this call, we have developed a framework, grounded on social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, relating employees' perceptions of HRD climate, performance appraisal systems, employee training and employee empowerment to behavioral outcome of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Review of Literature

A number of research studies indicate toward positive link between organizational climate / psychological climate / HRD climate and organizational citizenship behavior. (It is generally recognized that psychological climate and HRD climate are the parts of organizational climate.) The Indian study carried out by Randhawa & Kaur (2015) indicated a strong positive correlation between organizational climate and OCB and climate dimensions such as supervisory support, performance feedback, autonomy, and employee participation in decision making etc. were found to have a significant impact on OCB. In a Chinese study of Wang, Zhang & Jackson (2013), several dimensions of organizational climate were found as positive predictors of psychological empowerment. The results of the study carried out by Teh, Boerhannoeddin & Ismail (2012) reveal that the various dimensions of organizational climate have a significant impact on the OCB of the employees. A recent study carried out by Jain & Jain (2014) show that organizational climate has positive and significant effect on OCB. In the study by Biswas (2010), psychological climate was found to be an antecedent of OCB. Prior research indicates that employee empowerment and performance appraisal process have positive relationship with OCB. In earlier researches (e.g., Moorman, 1993; Deckop, Mangel & Cirka, 1999; Bhatnagar & Sandhu, 2005) it was found that managers who perceive psychological empowerment in their occupational environment exhibit organizational citizenship behavior. In the studies by Raub & Robert (2007), Jain & Jain (2014), Chan, Nadler & Hargis (2015), and Kasekende (2016), employee empowerment was found to be positively related to OCB. Extant research (e.g., Zheng, Zhang, & Lee, 2012; Gong et al., 2010; Findley, Mossholder & Guiles, 2000; Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004) indicates that organizational citizenship behavior has been theoretically and empirically tied to performance appraisal context. In prior research (e.g., Jain & Jain, 2014; Findley, Mossholder & Giles 2000; Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004), performance appraisal (PA) process has been found to have significant impact on OCB. Ahmed et al. (2011) found that fairness in PA process is positively and significantly related to OCB. Norris-Watts & Levy (2004) found that performance feedback is associated with OCB through affective commitment. In the study by Zheng, Zhang, & Hai Li (2012), the relationship between performance appraisal process and organizational citizenship behavior was partially mediated by affective commitment, and perceived rating-reward linkage strengthened the direct association between appraisal process and organizational citizenship behavior whereas it weakened the relationship between appraisal process and affective commitment. The findings of the study carried out by Ahmed, Khushi & Islam (2013) indicate that there is significant and positive relationship between perceived fairness in performance appraisal and OCB while organizational commitment mediates this relationship. There is dearth of studies examining the relationship between perceptions of training and work attitudes (Santos & Stuart, 2003) and behaviors such as OCB. However, Lam, Chen & Takeuchi (2009) found that formalized training is positively related to the engagement of OCB.

Conceptual Framework

The extant research investigating inter-linkages between HRD climate, HRD systems and OCB is very limited and particularly Indian studies are rare as it is clear from the review of literature presented in the foregoing paragraph. However, the review of previously published studies give some indications toward possible links between HRD climate, HRD systems such as performance appraisal, employee-training and employee-empowerment as well as between such HRD systems and OCB. Taking clue from such indications "A Conceptual Framework of HRD Climate, HRD Systems and OCB" (Fig. 1) has been developed to test the same in Indian setting.

Key Terms Used

HRD Climate (HRDC): HRDC is the supportive climate that is essential for proper implementation of HRD practices. It can be characterized by tendencies such as treating employees as the most important resources, perceiving that developing employees is the job of every manager, believing in the capability of employees, communicating openly, encouraging risk taking, making efforts to help employees recognize their strengths and weaknesses, creating a general climate of trust, collaboration and autonomy, supportive personnel policies, and supportive HRD practices. Employee Empowerment (EE): EE is a process of orienting and enabling individuals to think, behave and take action in an autonomous way. It helps the workers to own the work and take responsibility for their results. Empowerment has been examined according to two separate approaches structural or relational empowerment, which focuses on redesigned management practices, and psychological or motivational empowerment, which emphasizes an individual's psychological enabling. There are two dimensions of employee empowerment, viz., participative decision-making and self-efficacy. Participative decision-making aims to increase the participation of employees by providing them with greater discretion, attention, influence, support, information, and other resources; and to share the issue of problem solving with followers by consulting them before making a decision. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave. Performance Appraisal (PA): PA is the process of identifying, evaluating and developing the work performance of employees in the organization, so that the organizational goals and objectives are more effectively achieved, while at the same time benefiting employees in terms of recognition, receiving feedback, catering for work and offering career guidance. Employee Training (ET): ET is defined as a learning process that involves the acquisition of knowledge, sharpening of skills, concepts, rules, or changing of attitudes and behaviors to enhance the performance of employees.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB): OCB represents individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. There are three dimensions of OCB: (a) Helping Behavior: It is defined as voluntary actions that help another coworker with a work problem. Helping behavior involves voluntarily helping others with, or preventing the occurrence of, work related problems, help training new employees, helping customers even when this is not part of their job or even if they visit after working hours and producing highest quality customer services regardless of circumstances. (b) Courtesy: It represents those gestures that help someone else prevent a problem, taking steps to try to prevent conflicts with co-workers, boosting up others when they are stressed by work related problems, always willing to listen to co-worker problems, willingly share expertise with other co-workers, treating customers with respect, speaking courteously with every customer (that is, regardless of their social or economic status). (c) Sportsmanship: It is defined as a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining.

Research Methodology

This study was carried out in six phases. In phase I, previous research studies have been reviewed as reported in the foregoing paragraphs. In phase II, based on the results of review of earlier research "A Theoretical Framework of HRD Climate--HRD Systems--OCB Relationship" (Figure 1) was conceptualized. In phase III, in view of the previously published literature, survey instrument (Likert type scale) for the study was developed. In phase IV, field survey was carried out. In phase V, reliability and validity of the measures were tested and in phase VI, the proposed conceptual framework was validated. Reliability of various scales / sub-scales have been tested by obtaining reliability coefficient i.e., Cronbach's alpha scores. Validity of the scales has been determined by exercising confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Subsequently, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed using the AMOS ver.18.0 to validate the proposed model.

The survey instrument consisting of 14 items related to the respondent's demographic details and 59 items related to the study variables that used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). HRD Climate was measured with the administration of a 9 item scale partially adapted from the questionnaire developed by Rao & Abraham (1986). Performance appraisal (PA) was measured with a 9 item scale that measures employee reactions to PA system and has been developed by the researchers. Employee training was measured using a ten item scale developed by the researchers. Employee empowerment (EE) was measured using a 13 item scale that measures the two dimensions of EE, i.e., participative decision making and self-efficacy. The four items measuring participative decision making were adapted from the scale developed by Nyhan (1994). The nine items measuring self-efficacy were partially adapted from Personal Efficacy Beliefs Scale developed by Riggs et al. (1994) and New General Self Efficacy scale developed by Chen, Gully & Eden (2001). Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was measured using an 18-item scale that measures the three dimensions of OCB, viz., helping behavior, courtesy, and sportsmanship. The OCB scale consists of six-item helping behavior subscale which was adapted from the scales developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990); Williams & Anderson (1991); and Rego (1999), six item courtesy sub-scale which was adapted from the scales given by Podsakoff, Ahearne & MacKenzie (1997); Williams & Anderson (1991), and six item sportsmanship sub-scale which was adapted from the scales developed by Rego (1999); and Pattanayak, Misra & Niranjana (2003).

Sample

Data was collected from the managers of various banks in India regarding their perception of HRD climate, performance appraisal system, employee training, employee empowerment and citizenship behaviors. Of the selected banks, two represented Indian public sector banks, four banks belonged to Indian private sector and two banks belonged to foreign banks operating in India. The three levels of bank managers, viz.; senior managers, middle-level managers, and junior managers working in various administrative offices as well as branch offices of the chosen banks were selected for the purpose of the survey. A total of 306 usable responses were received indicating a response rate of 74%. The sample included 13% senior level managers, 36% middle level managers and 51% junior level managers. The average age of the members of the final sample was 35 years and these respondents had an averege experience of 10.9 years. Further, seventy-five percent of the sample managers were males and twenty five percent were females. Thirty two percent of the respondents in the final sample indicated a graduate degree and sixty eight percent were holding a post-graduate degree. Out of the total respondents, around sixty five percent were holding some or other professional degree which includes, thirty eight percent MBAs, three percent CA/CS/ ICWA, five percent engineers, nineteen percent were holding other qualifications.

Reliability of the Measures

In order to test the reliability of various scales/ subscales used for the purpose of study, reliability coefficient i.e., Cronbach's alpha scores have been obtained as presented in Table 1. The coefficient scores clearly indicate that the reliability of each measure exceeds the recommended criterion of 0.7 (Nunnally et al., 1967) and meets the requirement of reliability.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The construct validity of the scales, viz., HRD Climate, Performance Appraisal, Employee Training, Employee Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior was determined through confirmatory factor analysis. The standardized covariance estimates and critical ratios for the same are given in Table 2 which indicates that the relationship among the sub-scales was found to be significant. Analysis of the range of inter-item correlation between the scales as presented in Table 1 clearly shows that all the variables are correlated with each other. Further, the results of confirmatory factor analysis given in Table 3 indicate that the model fit values for all the constructs were found to match such acceptable standards. It may be therefore concluded that the construct of the various measures adopted for the purpose of the study could be validated well.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Subsequently, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the proposed model. To assess the model fit in SEM, the overall model chi-square measure, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Hooper et al, 2008, Hu & Bentler, 1999) are reported. Fit indices and other relevant details of the SEM are given in Table 3. The standardized regression weights for the relationships are given in Table 4. Significant positive relationships between the key variables are depicted in the Fig. 2. In our analyses, relative chi-square (chi-square/ df) of the five-factor model was 2.21 (df = 1324). While there has been no consensus regarding an acceptable ratio for this statistic, recommendations range from as high as 5.0 (Wheaton et al, 1977) to as low as 2.0 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The other fit indices were RMR = .063; RMSEA = .071; CFI = .81; NFI =.89; GFI =.83. An RMR value of up to 0.08 is deemed acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and RMSEA in the range of 0.05 to 0.10 is considered an indication of fair fit (MacCallum et al, 1996). All the other fit indices were within the threshold values, indicating an acceptable model. The proposed model, thus, fared well. Therefore, it may be inferred that the proposed model is valid and fit. According to the model, organizational citizenship behavior is influenced by organizational climate and HRD system variables. All the study variables contribute significantly in influencing organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Discussion & Implications

The results supported the hypotheses that HRD climate, performance appraisal, employee training and employee empowerment are significantly linked to employees' OCB. Furthermore, citizenship behavior can be viewed as a reciprocity norm which employees exhibit as a result of organizational investment in employees' development. They reflect such reciprocal tendencies by being more involved and attached to the organization which leads to improved organizational performance. In the present study, it is validated that HRD climate, performance appraisal, employee empowerment and employee training have broad-based influence on citizenship behavior of the employees. More specifically, our results are in consonance with the findings of prior studies e.g., Akinyemi (2012); Zheng et al. (2012); Wei et al. (2010); Biswas (2010); Sun et al. (2007), Pare & Trembley (2007); Bhatnagar & Sandhu (2005) and Podsakoff et al. (2000). On a broader front, the findings are in line with previous research (Mittal et al., 2016; Jain, Premkumar & Kamble, 2013; Chaudhary, Rangnekar & Barua, 2011; Solkhe & Choudhary, 2011; Purang, 2008; Kumar & Patnaik, 2002) which showed that organizations' efforts, policies and/ or procedures implemented in the direction of employee development deduce positive attitudes and behaviors from its human resources and therefore leads to improved organizational performance and effectiveness.

The study, thus, provides useful insights into "HRD Climate-HRD Systems-OCB Linkages" and makes contribution to theory and practice. Organizations, therefore, to enhance citizenship behaviors, should implement policies and practices that improve HRD climate and strengthen HRD systems. If an organization provides an appropriate environment where the top management lays policies that are employee centric, the HR interventions as a whole provides a growth trajectory for them, and employees are free to vent out their feelings; trust prevails and the work provides authority with responsibility (Mittal et al., 2016). Thus, organizations should convey a clear message to their employees that they value them and feel responsible towards their development. While it is quite evident that employees' output in terms of their performance and behaviors is often guided by their perceived treatment, organizations should clearly be cognizant of the importance of employee perceptions of development oriented practices and climate implemented by an organization and the resultant impact on its employees' behaviors. It would be thus valuable for managers to examine the effect of various developmental mechanisms by assessing employees' citizenship behaviors across time. This will result not only in enhancing the level of such developmental mechanisms but also in facilitating OCBs.

Limitations & Directions

Despite interesting findings, the present study has some limitations. Firstly, while testing the model, the study has found evidence of an association between HRD climate, performance appraisal, employee training, employee development and OCB, it is likely that many other organizational factors also contribute to such an association. Future research may add to the existing literature by exploring the role of a wider range of HRD variables (HRD process mechanisms) in the application of social exchange process. Secondly, this study does not take into account how a change in HRD interventions will affect citizenship behaviors over time. A longitudinal study could provide an interesting research avenue for future. Finally, the participants of this study were managers of Indian banking sector only; their background and professional experience may limit the generalizability of our findings in other cultural and occupational settings. Future studies in this area should collect data from multiple industries and compare the results across industries for establishing more generalized results.

References

Ahmed, I., Khushi, S. & Islam, T. (2013), "The Relationship between Perceived Fairness in Performance Appraisal and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Banking Sector of Pakistan: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment", International Journal of Management and Innovation, 5 (2), 75-88.

Ahmed, I., Ramzan, M., Mohammad, S. K., & Islam, T. (2011), "Relationship between Perceived Fairness in Performance Appraisal and OCB; Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment", International Journal of Academic Research, 3(5): 15-20.

Akinyemi, B.O. (2012), "Human Resource Development Climate as a Predictor of Citizenship Behavior and Voluntary Turnover Intentions in the Banking Sector", International Business Research, 5(1): 110-19.

Becker, B. E. & Huselid, M. A. (2006), "Strategic Human Resources Management: Where Do We Go From Here"? Journal of Management, 32 (6): 898-925.

Bhatnagar, J. & Sandhu, S. (2005), "Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in IT Managers: A Talent Retention Tool", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(4): 449-69.

Biswas, S. (2010), "Commitment as a Mediator between Psychological Climate and Citizenship Behavior", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(3): 411-23.

Blau, P.(1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.

Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S. & Barua, M. (2011) "Relation between Human Resource Development Climate and Employee Engagement: Results from India", Europe's Journal of Psychology, 7(4): 664-85.

Chan, Y.H., Nadler, S.S. & Hargis, M.B. (2015), "Attitudinal and Behavioral Outcomes of Employees' Psychological Empowerment: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach", Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 19 (1), 24-41.

Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R. & Circa, C. (1999), "Getting More than You Pay for: Organizational Citizenship and Pay-Performance Plans", Academy of Management Journal, 42(4): 420-28.

Findley, H. M., Mossholder, K. W. & Giles, W. F. (2000), "Performance Appraisal Process and System Facets: Relationships with Contextual Performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4): 634-40.

Garrow, V. (2004), "Training and Development and the Psychological Contract", Training Journal, 3(1): 8-10.

Gong, Yaping, Song Chang, & Siu Yin Cheung (2010), "High Performance Work System and collective OCB: A Collective Social Exchange Perspective." Human Resource Management Journal 20 (2): 119-37.

Hooper, Daire, Coughlan Joseph, & Mullen Michael (2008), "Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit", Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60

Hu, Litze & Peter M. Bentler (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives", Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1-55.

Jain, Ravindra, Premkumar & Kamble, Sachin (2014), "HRD System in India: Conceptual Framework, Measure Development & Model Fit", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 49 (2): 230-46.

Jain, Sheelam & Jain Ravindra (2014), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior & HRM Practices in Indian Banks", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(2): 257-69.

Kasekende, F., Munene, J.C., Otengei, S.O. & Ntayi, J.M. (2016) "Linking Teacher Competences to Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Empowerment", International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2):252--70

Kumar, S. & Patnaik, S. P. (2002), "Human Resource Development Climate and Attributes of Teachers in JNVs ", Indian Journal of Training and Development, 32(2): 31-37.

Lam, W., Chen, Ziguang & Takeuchi, Norihiko (2009), "Perceived Human Resource Management Practices and Intention to Leave of Employees: The Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior in a Sino-Japanese Joint Venture", International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (11): 2250-70.

MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. & Sugawara, H., M. (1996), "Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling," Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 130-49.

Mittal, S., Gupta, V. & Mattiani, M. (2016), "HRD Climate and Customer Satisfaction in Indian Banks", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 51 (3): 447-59.

Meyer, J. P., Sampo, V., Paunonen, V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D. & Jackson, D. N. (1989), "Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: It's the Nature of Commitment that Count", Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1): 152-56.

Moorman, R. H. (1993), "The Influence of Cognitive and Affective Based Job Satisfaction Measures on the Relationship between Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior", Human Relations, 46(6): 75676.

Norris-Watts, C. & Levy, P.E. (2004), "The Mediating Role of Affective Commitment in the Relation of the Feedback Environment to Work Outcomes", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(3): 351-65.

Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H. & Berge, J. M. T. (1967), Psychometric Theory (Vol. 226), McGraw-Hill, New York.

Nyhan R.C. (1994), The Interrelationships of Organizational Commitment, Trust and Participatory Decision Making Practices in Public Organizations, Ph.D dissertation, Florida Atlantic University

Organ, D. W. (1997), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean-Up Time", Human Performance, 10 (2): 8597.

Pare, G., & Trembley, M. (2007), "The Influence of High-Involvement Human Resource Practices, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors on Information Technology Professionals' Turnover Intentions", Group Organization Management, 32 (3): 326-57.

Pattanayak, B., Misra, R.K. & Niranjana, P. (2003), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Conceptual Framework and Scale Development", Indian Journal of Industrial Development, 39(2): 194-204.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. & Bachrach, D. G. (2000), "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research", Journal of Management, 26 (3): 513-63.

Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Quantity and Quality of Work Group Performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 262-70.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. & Fetter, R. (1990), "Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Trust, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors", The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-42.

Purang, P. (2008), "Dimensions of HRD Climate Enhancing Organizational Commitment in Indian Organizations", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43 (4): 528-46.

Randhawa, G. & Kaur, K. (2015), "An Empirical Assessment of Impact of Organizational Climate on Organizational Citizenship Behavior", Paradigm, 19 (1), 65-78.

Rao, T. V. & Abraham, E. (1986), "Human Resource Development Climate in Indian Organization", in T.V. Rao and D.F. Pereira (Ed.) Recent Experiences in Human Resources Development, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 70--98.

Raub, S. & Robert, C. (2007), "Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship: Moderation by Culture in a Multi-National Sample", Proceedings of 2007 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, August 2007, 1-6.

Rego, A. (1999), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Operationalizing the Construct", Psicologia, XIII(1-2): 127-48.

Rousseau, Denise M. (1998),"The Problem of the Psychological Contract Considered", Journal of Organizational Behavior: 665-71.

Santos, A. & Stuart, M. (2003), "Employee Perceptions and Their Influence on Training Effectiveness", Human Resource Management Journal, 13(1): 27-45.

Solkhe, Ajay, & Nirmala Chaudhary (2011), "HRD Climate and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation", International Journal of Computing and Business Research, 2 (2): 1-20.

Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S. & Law, K. S. (2007), "High-Performance Human Resource Practices, Citizenship Behavior, and Organizational Performance: A Relational Perspective", Academy of Management Journal, 50(3): 558-77.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon: New York

Teh, Choon Jin, Boerhannoeddin, Ali & Ismail, Azman (2012), "Organizational Culture and Performance Appraisal Process: Effect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior", Asian Business & Management, 11 (4): 471-84.

Wang, J. L., Zhang, D. J. & Jackson, L. A. (2013), "Influence of Self Esteem, Locus of Control, and Organizational Climate on Psychological Empowerment in a Sample of Chinese Teachers", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(7): 1428-35.

Wei, Y.C., Han, T.S. & Hsu, I.C. (2010), "High-Performance HR Practices and OCB: A Cross-Level Investigation of a Causal Path", International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(10): 1631-48.

Williams L.J. & Anderson, S.E. (1991), "Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors", Journal of Management, 17: 601-17

Zheng, W., Zhang, M. & Hi Li, (2012), "Performance Appraisal Process and Organizational Citizenship Behavior", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27 (7): 732-52.

Sheelam Jain is Career Mentor and Associate Professor in Business Management, MIT Group of Institutes, Ujjain 456010. E-mail: sheelam@rediffmail.com. Ravindra Jain is Professor, Faculty of Management Studies, Vikram University, Ujjain 456010. E-mail: jainravindr ak@rediffmail.com.

Caption: Fig. 1 Proposed Conceptual Model of Inter-linkage between Organizational Climate, HRD Systems and OCB

Caption: Fig. 2 Testing of Fitness of HRD- OCB Model: Results of Structural Equation Modeling Table 1 Results of Reliability Test of Various Scales Scale Code Scales/ Sub-scales No. of Mean Value Items HRDC HRD Climate 9 3.85 PAS Performance Appraisal 9 3.80 ET Employee Training 9 3.90 EE Employee Empowerment 13 3.75 DM Participative Decision Making 04 3.82 SE Self Efficacy 9 3.67 OCB Organizational Citizenship Behavior 18 3.88 OH Organizational Helping 06 3.92 OC Organizational Courtesy 06 4.05 OS Organizational Sportsmanship 06 3.67 Scale Code S.D. Range of Item to Cronbach's Alpha Item Correlation (a) Score HRDC .629 .074-.609 ** 0.90 PAS .696 .015-.659 ** 0.91 ET .554 .141 *-.563 ** 0.89 EE .426 .312 **-.832 ** 0.72 DM .649 .052-.812 ** 0.82 SE .477 .112 *-.654 ** 0.70 OCB .397 .285 **-.863 ** 0.85 OH .496 .148 **-.817 ** 0.75 OC .507 .268 **-.851 ** 0.85 OS .499 .015-.699 ** 0.71 Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Construct Validity Test of Various Scales (All the constructs are with initial model fit values) Goodness-of-fit Indices Scale Scale No. of Range of Code Items Standard Loadings CFI GFI NFI RMR HRDC HRD Climate 9 0.66-0.73 0.93 0.93 0.91 .034 PAS Performance 9 0.50-0.80 0.87 0.84 0.85 .048 Appraisal ET Employee 9 0.43-0.79 0.83 0.81 0.84 .064 Training EE Employee 13 0.23-0.71 0.80 0.84 0.85 .091 Empowerment OCB Organizational 18 0.13-0.75 0.79 0.81 0.80 .084 Citizenship Behavior Goodness-of-fit Indices Scale Code CMIN/DF HRDC 2.31 PAS 4.13 ET 5.67 EE 6.65 OCB 6.80 Table 3 Standardized Covariance Estimates &Critical Ratios among the Study Variables Relationship between the Sub-scales Estimate S.E. C.R. P HRD Climate <-> Performance .267 .033 7.996 *** Appraisal HRD Climate <-> Employee .136 .024 5.667 *** Empowerment HRD Climate <-> Employee Training .185 .026 7.162 *** Performance <-> Employee .163 .029 5.687 *** Appraisal Empowerment Performance <-> Employee .184 .028 6.573 *** Appraisal Training Employee <-> Employee .106 .020 5.238 *** Training Empowerment *** Stands for statistically significant relationship at 0.01 level Table 4 Results of Structural Equation Modeling: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Model Chi-Square 2936.286 Degree of Freedom 1324 P .000 CMIN/ DF 2.21 NCP 3215.360 RMR .063 RMSEA .071 CFI .810 NFI .891 GFI .839 Acronyms: CMIN/ DF: Relative chi-square. NCP: Non-Centrality Parameter. RMR: Root Mean Square Residual. RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. CFI: Comparative Fit Index. NFI: Norms Fit Index. GFI: Goodness of Fit Index. Table 5 Model Summary (Regression Weights: Group No. 1 Default Model) Scales/ Scale Items Variables Estimate Orgn Citizenship Behav. <-- - Employee Training .285 Orgn Citizenship Behav <-- - HRD Climate .084 Orgn Citizenship Behav <-- - Performance Appraisal .103 Orgn Citizenship Behav <-- - Employee Empowerment .257 HR9 <-- - HRD Climate 1.000 HR8 <-- - HRD Climate 1.043 HR7 <-- - HRD Climate .870 HR6 <-- - HRD Climate .962 HR5 <-- - HRD Climate .892 HR4 <-- - HRD Climate .986 HR3 <-- - HRD Climate 1.000 HR2 <-- - HRD Climate 1.022 HR1 <-- - HRD Climate 1.000 PA9 <-- - Performance Appraisal 1.200 PA8 <-- - Performance Appraisal 1.009 PA7 <-- - Performance Appraisal 1.015 PA6 <-- - Performance Appraisal 1.162 PA5 <-- - Performance Appraisal 1.120 PA4 <-- - Performance Appraisal .973 PA3 <-- - Performance Appraisal .947 PA2 <-- - Performance Appraisal .590 PA1 <-- - Performance Appraisal 1.000 ET10 <-- - Employee Training 1.000 ET9 <-- - Employee Training 1.038 ET8 <-- - Employee Training 1.087 ET7 <-- - Employee Training 1.124 ET6 <-- - Employee Training 1.188 ET5 <-- - Employee Training 1.257 ET4 <-- - Employee Training 1.190 ET3 <-- - Employee Training 1.300 ET2 <-- - Employee Training .749 ET1 <-- - Employee Training .810 SE9 <-- - Employee Empowerment .787 SE8 <-- - Employee Empowerment .911 SE7 <-- - Employee Empowerment .717 SE6 <-- - Employee Empowerment .042 SE5 <-- - Employee Empowerment -.577 SE4 <-- - Employee Empowerment 1.000 SE3 <-- - Employee Empowerment -.214 SE2 <-- - Employee Empowerment -.291 SE1 <-- - Employee Empowerment 1.105 DM4 <-- - Employee Empowerment 1.415 DM3 <-- - Employee Empowerment 1.591 DM2 <-- - Employee Empowerment 1.541 DM1 <-- - Employee Empowerment 1.380 OH1 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.000 OH2 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.109 OH3 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.044 OH4 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.330 OH5 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.314 OH6 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.524 OC1 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.304 OC2 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.458 OC3 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.367 OC4 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.430 OC5 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.593 OC6 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.379 OS1 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav -.128 OS2 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav .396 OS3 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.229 OS4 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav 1.061 OS5 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav .423 OS6 <-- - Orgn Citizenship Behav .766 Scales/ Scale Items S.E. C.R. P Orgn Citizenship Behav. .065 4.417 *** Orgn Citizenship Behav .055 2.088 *** Orgn Citizenship Behav .045 2.280 *** Orgn Citizenship Behav .086 2.987 *** HR9 HR8 .071 14.661 *** HR7 .063 13.712 *** HR6 .065 14.702 *** HR5 .061 14.611 *** HR4 .070 14.009 *** HR3 HR2 .068 15.079 *** HR1 PA9 .090 13.331 *** PA8 .088 11.431 *** PA7 .080 12.720 *** PA6 .087 13.429 *** PA5 .087 12.888 *** PA4 .076 12.785 *** PA3 .074 12.740 *** PA2 .066 8.886 *** PA1 ET10 ET9 .103 10.115 *** ET8 .104 10.446 *** ET7 .109 10.334 *** ET6 .107 11.073 *** ET5 .124 10.128 *** ET4 .116 10.229 *** ET3 .124 10.507 *** ET2 .105 7.109 *** ET1 .108 7.520 *** SE9 .149 5.289 *** SE8 .150 6.054 *** SE7 .150 4.792 *** SE6 .177 .238 .812 SE5 .173 -3.326 *** SE4 SE3 .169 -1.265 .206 SE2 .182 -1.595 .111 SE1 .170 6.501 *** DM4 .203 6.959 *** DM3 .224 7.092 *** DM2 .216 7.126 *** DM1 .208 6.644 *** OH1 OH2 .172 6.445 *** OH3 .193 5.398 *** OH4 .195 6.819 *** OH5 .189 6.940 *** OH6 .213 7.138 *** OC1 .181 7.218 *** OC2 .200 7.276 *** OC3 .185 7.394 *** OC4 .201 7.102 *** OC5 .213 7.490 *** OC6 .195 7.052 *** OS1 .195 -.655 .512 OS2 .196 2.021 *** OS3 .185 6.632 *** OS4 .169 6.292 *** OS5 .199 2.125 *** OS6 .167 4.593 ***