741691

research-article2017
ADHXXX10.1177/1523422317741691Advances in Developing Human ResourcesUraon

Article
Advances in Developing Human
Resources
Examining the Impact of HRD 2018, Vol. 20(1) 11­–43
© The Author(s) 2017
Practices on Organizational Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Commitment and Intention DOI: 10.1177/1523422317741691
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422317741691
journals.sagepub.com/home/adhr
to Stay Within Selected
Software Companies in India

Ram Shankar Uraon1

Abstract
The Problem.
Software companies are knowledge-based organizations, they invest considerably
on human resource development (HRD) practices to overcome the shortage of
competent workforce, to stay competitive in the dynamic and competitive business
environment of today. Furthermore, software companies are continuously involved
in HRD interventions for the development of employees; problems such as low levels
of employee commitment, employee engagement, and employee intention to stay are
the biggest challenges.
The Solution.
This study examined the impact of comprehensive HRD practices on organizational
commitment (affective, continuance, and normative commitment), and employee
intention to stay. In addition, it examined the impacts of organizational commitment
on employee intention to stay. Survey responses were collected from 516 employees
working in different software companies in India. Data were analyzed using partial
least squares (PLS) method. Results showed that HRD practices have positive impacts
on employee intention to stay as well as on the three components of organizational
commitment. Furthermore, only affective and normative commitments were found to
positively affect employees’ intention to stay, whereas relationship between continuance
commitment and intention to stay was found to be negative and not significant.
The Stakeholders.
Implications for software companies, HRD professionals, and scholars: First, software
companies may like to formulate their strategies keeping organizational commitment

1Pondicherry University, India

Corresponding Author:
Ram Shankar Uraon, Department of Management Studies, School of Management, Pondicherry
University, Kalapet, Pondicherry 605014, India.
Email: ramshankaruraon@gmail.com
12 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

and employee intention to stay in focus. Second, human resource (HR) managers are
encouraged to develop a metric to assess the value added by each HRD practice in
managing attrition. This study contributes to the existing concepts on links between
HRD practices and attitudinal variables by suggesting a theoretical framework. Finally,
it provides empirical evidence that HRD practices in software companies must be
sound to enhance employee intention to stay and organizational commitment in India.

Keywords
comprehensive HRD practices, intention to stay, organizational commitment, partial
least squares, software companies

Introduction
Globalization, market penetration, and technology diffusion have made the contempo-
rary business environment very competitive and challenging for software companies
in India. Despite challenges, the Indian information technology (IT) sector has shown
rapid growth and high profits in a short period of time due to HRD interventions; how-
ever, problems such as management of employee turnover and development of skills
are still a challenge for the sustainable growth and development of software compa-
nies (Cho & McLean, 2009). Software companies face challenges of talent shortage,
attrition, retention, and skill development, and therefore, efforts are being expended to
make workplace more attractive and develop high-performance work culture to mini-
mize these problems (Rao & Varghese, 2009). Software companies need to transform
into learning organizations, continuously adapting to changes, with support from capa-
ble human resources. Moreover, employees of software companies seek challenging
work environments and continuous learning opportunities to retain their cutting-edge
skills and knowledge. Thus, organizations aim to provide better and flexible work
environment, training and development and career opportunities to their employees,
and create opportunities that allow them to learn and apply the latest technology
(Garavan, Morley, Gunnigle, & McGuire, 2002).
The capabilities of employees are nurtured and developed continuously to over-
come the shortage of skilled human resources for better functioning of organizations.
Despite proactive approaches of organizations toward HRD, low levels of employee
commitment, employee engagement, and intention to stay are common among soft-
ware professionals in India, which result in high employee turnover for organizations
(Bhatnagar, 2007, 2012; Guchait & Cho, 2010; Lacity, Iyer, & Rudramuniyaiah,
2008). Furthermore, low levels of employee commitment (Angle & Perry, 1981;
Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &
Topolnytsky, 2002), employee engagement (Markos & Sridevi, 2010), and intention to
stay (Krishnan & Singh, 2010) have serious consequences on employee and organiza-
tional performance.
Studies have also addressed various antecedents of employee commitment (Bartlett,
2001; Bhatnagar, 2007; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), employee engagement (Anitha,
Uraon 13

2014; Bailey, Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, 2017; Saks, 2006; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco,
2011), and employee turnover intention (Glambek, Matthiesen, Hetland, & Einarsen,
2014; Supeli & Creed, 2016); however, the human resource development (HRD) is an
antecedent that strongly influences the employees’ behavior in the organization
(Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Meyer & Smith, 2000; Paul & Anantharaman,
2004; Saks, 2006).
Software companies afford utmost importance to HRD interventions and allot con-
siderable amount in their budget on employee development, and proactively design and
implement HRD interventions for three purposes: (a) to have a pool of highly produc-
tive human resources and to meet their human resource requirements, (b) to maintain
highly committed and engaged employees for sustainable employees’ and organiza-
tional performance, and (c) to reduce employee turnover (Cho & McLean, 2009).
It is therefore necessary to understand the effectiveness of the HRD practices in
influencing organizational commitment and employee intention to stay. It is also
important to understand the effectiveness of organizational commitment in influenc-
ing employee intention to stay. That apart, this article has developed a conceptual
model to analyze the impact of comprehensive HRD practices on the three compo-
nents of organizational commitment and employee intention to stay, and to examine
the impacts of the three components of organizational commitment on employee
intention to stay. In addition, this article theoretically examines if employee engage-
ment is different from organizational commitment.
To provide foundation for the study, theoretical background of HRD, organiza-
tional commitment, employee engagement, and employee intention to stay are out-
lined. Then, hypotheses are framed based on the conceptual framework linking HRD
practices with organizational commitment and employee intention to stay, and organi-
zational commitment with employee intention to stay. The proposed conceptual model
is analyzed using partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
method, and results are compared with similar findings of the past studies. Finally, the
implications and conclusions of the study are presented.

Theoretical Background and Literature Review

HRD Practices
HRD is interdisciplinary in nature and encompasses vast areas of knowledge and prac-
tices; it has borrowed theories from various disciplines to evolve as a separate field of
study and research (Weinberger, 1998). During the course of evolution of HRD, it inte-
grated with psychological, economic, and system theories to give new dimensions to the
theoretical foundations of HRD (Swanson, 2001), and researchers have defined HRD
based on the different theories. For instance, Nadler (1970) adopted psychological the-
ory to define HRD as “a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time
and designed to produce behavioral change” (p. 3), which includes training and learning
activities to change employees’ behavior. Swanson (2001) adopted psychological, eco-
nomic, and system theories to define HRD as “a process of developing and/or unleashing
14 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

human expertise through organization development and personnel training and develop-
ment for the purpose of improving performance” (p. 304), performance improvement at
the organizational, work process, and group/individual level. McLagan (1989) also
adopted psychological, system, and economic theory to define HRD as “the integrated
use of training and development, career development and organizational development to
improve individual, group and organizational effectiveness” (p. 7). These definitions
show that the purpose of HRD was to provide employees with a series of learning oppor-
tunities through different activities, and the output of these learning activities is behavior
changes, enhancement of skills, high motivation, and ultimately the better individual,
group, and organizational effectiveness. The psychological contract theory argues that
individual belief has a reciprocal obligation toward the organization, and is an increas-
ingly relevant aspect of workplace relationships and broader human behavior (Guest &
Conway, 2002; Rousseau, 1989). Earlier findings have indicated that the psychological
contract related to employees’ behavior at work, for instance, career management assis-
tance and its fulfillment, is linked to organizational commitment (Sturges, Conway,
Guest, & Liefooghe, 2005). Similarly, social exchange theory is also the most prominent
theoretical framework to understand employee behavior at the workplace, it hypothe-
sized that human relationships are a result of perceived cost and benefit and the evalua-
tion of alternatives (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
HRD is a multidimensional construct, its characteristics cannot therefore be con-
ceptualized in a single construct (Sung & Choi, 2014), and its conceptualization
depends on the scope of the study. Smith (1988) defined HRD as follows: “HRD con-
sists of programs and activities, direct and indirect, instructional and/or individual,
which positively affect the development of the individual and the productivity and
profit of the organization” (p. 1). HRD components are training and development,
organizational development, employee assistance programs, career development, per-
formance appraisal, compensation, employee relation, recruitment and employee out-
placement (Smith, 1988; Smith & Walz, 1984). Rao (1987) identified training and
development, performance appraisal, rewards, organizational development, career
development, feedback and counseling, potential development and job rotation as
HRD practices. Furthermore, Rao (2014) developed an HRD audit questionnaire, and
classified the subsystem of HRD such as manpower planning and recruitment, reward
and recognition, potential appraisal and promotion, career planning and development,
training and learning, and performance guidance and development.
HRD-related studies in India have largely focused on the HRD climate; some studies
include HRD climate in Indian organizations (Chaudhary, Rangnekar, & Barua, 2013;
Jain & Premkumar, 2011; Saraswathi, 2010; Srimannarayana, 2008), mediating impact
of self-efficacy between HRD climate and employee engagement (Chaudhary,
Rangnekar, & Barua, 2012), correlations of HRD climate dimensions (Rodrigues, 2004),
influence of HRD climate on the learning orientation (Pillai, 2008), HRD climate in
public sector organizations (Pattanayak, 2003), and impact of HRD climate on organiza-
tional commitment (Purang, 2008). Some of these studies were conducted in the IT sec-
tor such as HRD climate in manufacturing, service, and IT sectors (Srimannarayana,
2008), HRD climate in software and manufacturing organizations (Saraswathi, 2010),
Uraon 15

and the results are mixed. In all these studies, researchers used Rao and Abraham’s
(1986) 38-item HRD climate survey instrument. This HRD climate instrument consists
of three dimensions—general climate; Openness, Confrontation, Trust, Autonomy,
Proactivity, Authenticity, and Collaboration (OCTAPAC); and HRD mechanisms. The
general climate deals with importance given to HRD by management, OCTAPAC deals
with the extent to which it is valued and promoted in the organization, and HRD mecha-
nisms measure the extent to which HRD practices such as performance appraisal, poten-
tial appraisal, career planning, performance rewards, feedback and counseling, training,
employee welfare, and job rotation are implemented seriously. However, this HRD
mechanism instrument is unidimensional and cannot capture all the aspects of HRD
practices. Thus, multidimensional HRD instruments are more appropriate to study HRD
practices and their impacts.
In this study, comprehensive HRD practices are considered; these HRD practices
are development-oriented HR practices which facilitate and determine the overall and
effective HRD in the software companies in India. HRD practices include HR plan-
ning and recruitment, training and learning, reward and recognition, potential appraisal
and promotion, performance appraisal and development, and career planning and
development. Most software companies have these HRD practices and consider these
practices to be strategic tools to develop a competent workforce, and have competitive
edge over their competitors in terms of maintaining human resource capital; these
practices are believed to have a considerable impact on employees’ behavior.

Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment has received considerable attention from scholars of busi-
ness management and organizational behavior in recent times. The main focus of the
many of these studies has been to find means to improve employee perception of their
jobs, so that the employees’ commitment toward their organizations can be enhanced.
Organizational commitment influences job variables such as employee performance
outcome, employee intention to stay or leave, and organizational effectiveness (Angle
& Perry, 1981). The footprint of organizational commitment–related studies can be
traced back to 1960s (Becker, 1960; Gouldner, 1960; Herbst, 1964). It has become an
important area of research in the last five decades in the area of management and orga-
nizational behavior (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Porter,
Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). In the last three decades, a considerable number of
studies have been conducted to examine the role of human resource management
(HRM) practices in organizational commitment, and impact of organizational commit-
ment on employee turnover intention (Chew & Chan, 2008; Smeenk, Eisinga, Teelken,
& Doorewaard, 2006), although other antecedents and factors that affect employee
commitments were also examined (Meyer & Smith, 2000; Paul & Anantharaman,
2004). However, only few studies have linked HRD and organizational commitment.
Initially, organizational commitment was conceptualized as a unidimensional con-
struct (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982), and later a multidimensional three-compo-
nent Organizational Commitment scale was developed, which included affective,
16 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

continuance, and normative commitments (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen,
1991). Affective commitment denotes the psychological attachment to the organiza-
tion, continuance commitment denotes the costs associated with leaving the organiza-
tion, and normative commitment denotes a perceived obligation to remain with the
organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Affective commitment is considered an impor-
tant component of organizational commitment as compared with continuance and nor-
mative commitments due to its impact on employee turnover intention and performance
(Allen & Meyer, 1990). This scale became popular and widely used by scholars of
human resource management (HRM) and organizational behavior. The three compo-
nents of Organizational Commitment scale capture three distinct dimensions of com-
mitments, and all three dimensions have unique influences on the effectiveness of
employees and organization. Affective commitment enhances when anything that
improves quality of work experiences, personal competence, and perceived autonomy,
continuance commitment occurs based on the evaluation of costs and benefits attached
with remaining or leaving the organization, and these perceived losses can be mone-
tary, professional, or social, and normative commitment occurs when employee feels
the sense of obligation toward the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
In the Western world, organizational commitment has been studied for a long time.
However, in India, studies on organizational commitment have been conducted only in
the recent years. Some recent studies examined the impact of leadership behavior
(Agarwal, DeCarlo, & Vyas, 1999), culture (Kwantes, 2009; Singh, 2007), job satis-
faction (Kwantes, 2009; Namasivayam & Zhao, 2007), HR practices (Agarwala, 2003;
Paul & Anantharaman, 2004), strategic HR roles, psychological empowerment, and
organizational learning capability (Bhatnagar, 2007) on organizational commitment.
Some of these studies were comparative studies between India and America (e.g.,
Agarwal et al., 1999; Kwantes, 2009), and a few studies were also conducted in software
companies in India (e.g., Paul & Anantharaman, 2004). In some cases, the level of orga-
nizational commitment varied between Indian employees and employees from other
countries, and studies have shown that there is less known about how leadership behav-
iors influence organizational commitment in India than in the United States (Agarwal
et al., 1999), whereas satisfaction is known to be related to affective commitment in both
India and the United States (Kwantes, 2009). Similarly, there are stronger affective and
normative commitments among Indian teachers as compared with stronger normative
continuance commitment among Iranian teachers (Joolideh & Yeshodhara, 2009).
However, the significance and strength of impacts of the antecedents are also not
clearly known. Introduction of innovative HR practices is more significantly related to
organizational commitment than to the importance of organizational goal achieve-
ments and satisfaction with implementation (Agarwala, 2003). Affective commitment
has a stronger effect on job satisfaction than normative commitment, whereas continu-
ance commitment has no effect, and moderates the effects of affective commitment
between friendly work environment on job satisfaction among hospitality employees
in India (Namasivayam & Zhao, 2007). A review of literature shows that organiza-
tional commitment has been explored in the Indian context, but its link with HRD and
organizational commitment in software industry remains to be understood.
Uraon 17

Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is an emerging concept in the field of management, organiza-
tional psychology, and HRD (Kataria, Garg, & Rastogi, 2013; Wollard & Shuck,
2011). Since the publication of Kahn’s (1990) work on personal engagement, a num-
ber of research papers have been published in academic journals across academic dis-
ciplines (e.g., see Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, 2010; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002;
Luthans & Peterson, 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006), and a number of
definitions have been formulated. Kahn (1990) defined personal engagement as “the
harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people
employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role
performances” (p. 694), and defined personal disengagement as “the uncoupling of
selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves
physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Shuck and
Wollard (2010) defined employee engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (p.
103). This definition comprises the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional characteris-
tics of the employee experience of engagement. Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá,
and Bakker (2002) defined engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of
mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). Vigor is char-
acterized by high energy levels during work, the willingness to invest effort in job, and
persistence while facing difficult situations. Dedication is characterized by a strong
involvement in work and feeling of a sense of significance, inspiration, enthusiasm,
pride, and challenge. Absorption refers to concentration in a job and being absorbed in
work (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Although in academic research, employee engagement and organizational commit-
ment have been defined as unique and distinct constructs, they reflect different aspects
of work attachment, and they also have reciprocal and theoretical references to each
other (Boon & Kalshoven, 2014; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Saks, 2006). Furthermore,
Boon and Kalshoven (2014) argued that organizational commitment represents an atti-
tude and attachment toward the organization, while engagement encompasses dedica-
tion and attachment toward the performance in job. However, employee engagement
has also been defined in a way that is often similar to the other established constructs
such as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson,
Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). For instance, Corporate Leadership Council (2004)
defined employee engagement as “the extent to which employees commit to some-
thing or someone in their organization, how hard they work and how long they stay as
a result of that commitment” (p. 5). Welch (2011) argued that the basic premise of
engagement overlaps with other constructs such as organizational commitment.
However, practitioners often define engagement in terms of organizational commit-
ment, more specifically, emotional attachment to the organization and desire to stay
with organizations (Vecina, Chacón, Marzana, & Marta, 2013).
Work engagement has found to be positively linked with organizational commit-
ment, and organizational commitment has also been seen to be a result of work
18 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

engagement (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008; Kanste, 2011). It is claimed that
committed employees are more likely to engage in behavior that enhances their value
and support the organization (Zeinabadi, 2010). The committed employee behaves in
a way that involves other interests to direct in that action initially inessential to the act
in which employee is engaged (Becker, 1960). Engaged employees feel a sense of
energy and positive connection with their job tasks, and proactively deal with the
requirements of their jobs (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). The engaged
employees are more committed and work harder, and they are more likely to perform
beyond the requirement and expectation in their work (Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009;
Lockwood, 2007). Practices meant for enhancing employee engagement are likely to
improve commitment and reduce turnover (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Vance, 2006).
Employees who are engaged in their work and committed to their organizations give
companies crucial competitive advantages, including higher productivity and lower
employee turnover (Bal, Kooij, & De Jong, 2013; Vance, 2006; Vecina et al., 2013;
Wollard, 2011). The relationships between employee engagement and its antecedents
such as job characteristics (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Saks, 2006), leader-
ship (Christian et al., 2011) and dispositional characteristics (Christian et al., 2011),
reward and recognition, perceived organizational and supervisor support distributive
and procedural justice (Saks, 2006) have been studied. Wollard and Shuck (2011) cat-
egorized these antecedents into two domains—individual antecedents to employee
engagement (e.g., coping style, dedication, emotional fit, employee motivation, higher
levels of corporate citizenship, optimism, perceived organizational support, self-
esteem, self-efficacy, willingness to direct personal energies, work/life balance and
value), and organizational antecedents to employee engagement (e.g., corporate cul-
ture, clear expectations, corporate social responsibility, feedback, hygiene factors, job
characteristics, leadership, manager expectations, mission and vision, opportunities
for learning, positive workplace climate, rewards, talent management). Based on the
employees’ perception on and experience with the individual and organizational ante-
cedents, employee engagement manifests, and the level of employee engagement
positively affects the various job variables such as job performance (Christian et al.,
2011), job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship
behavior (Saks, 2006). Most importantly, these antecedents cannot be generalized as a
cause of employee engagement across organizations, as each organization needs to
understand what exactly causes employee engagement in the organization. Apparently,
the identification of antecedents through need analysis is likely to provide a platform
to formulate and develop supportive strategies, policies, systems, and practices to
overcome the issues of low levels of employee engagement (Wollard, 2011). Similarly,
organizational commitment is also influenced by personal characteristics, job charac-
teristics, and work experiences, and as a result it positively affects intention to remain,
employee retention, and job performance (Steers, 1977).
There is empirical evidence regarding the effects of employee engagement; for
instance, studies suggest that higher levels of employee engagement reduce turnover
intention (Gupta & Shaheen, 2017; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Jones & Harter,
2005; Maslach et al., 2001; Saks, 2006; Shuck et al., 2011). Furthermore, empirical
evidence shows that high level of employee engagement is likely to enhance
Uraon 19

organizational citizenship behavior (Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, 2012;

Gupta, Shaheen, & Reddy, 2017; Kataria et al., 2013), organizational commitment
(Gupta, 2017; Gupta & Sayeed, 2016; Kataria et al., 2013), and job performance
(Dalal et al., 2012). Finally, employee engagement is linked to financial returns, and
growth and development of the organization (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, &
Schaufeli, 2009). Thus, employee engagement is important to any organization.
Considerable efforts are being made by scholars to study employee engagement
under the umbrella of HRD; these studies are intended to provide a theoretical frame-
work for the relationship between HRD and employee engagement, based on which
future empirical studies can be undertaken (Brad Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011;
Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Shuck & Reio, 2011; Wollard & Shuck, 2011). Shuck and
Reio (2011) argued that the aim of HRD practices is to reduce workplace conflicts, and
enhance employee engagement through design and implementation of training and
development such as conflict management, diversity and gender sensitivity training.
Furthermore, Wollard and Shuck (2011) suggested that employee engagement has
implications in all areas of HRD practices such as organization development, training
and organizational learning, career development, performance management, and stra-
tegic change processes. Despite strong conceptual framework, empirical evidence of
the impact of HRD on employee engagement is lacking (Shuck & Reio, 2011; Wollard
and Shuck, 2011).
Most of the research papers on HRD and engagement have hitherto discussed the
definition, nature, antecedents, and outcomes of employee engagement and most impor-
tantly, its application in nurturing workplace practices that encourage the development
of fully engaged employees (Brad Shuck et al., 2011; Shuck & Reio, 2011). In India,
Bhatnagar (2007) examined the relationship between talent management, attrition, and
employee engagement issues among IT-enabled services (ITES) employees, and argued
that high attrition in IT and ITES creates problems of employee engagement.
There is, thus, a need to identify the areas of disengagement to enhance employee
engagement and thereby reduce attrition rate. Engaged employees provide competi-
tive advantage, especially in the IT sector where organizations operate in a competi-
tive business environment and face challenges such as employee turnover. The
employee engagement interventions may play a strategic role in reducing employee
turnover. Furthermore, empirical evidence of the significant impact of employee
engagement on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Indian organiza-
tions is a key to the strategy formulation (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013). Furthermore,
the performance appraisal has significant impacts on employee engagement, and
employee perceived distributive and informational justice during performance
appraisal process is more likely to make employees better engaged in their work and
display greater well-being (Gupta & Kumar, 2012). Earlier studies have also supported
the interrelationship between employee engagement and organizational commitment;
higher organizational commitment has been linked to higher employee engagement.
Furthermore, HRD is positively linked to both employee engagement and organiza-
tional commitment, and both employee engagement and organizational commitment
are positively linked to employee intention to stay. Thus, employee engagement can be
replaced with organizational commitment in the proposed model to make inferences.
20 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

Intention to Stay
Intention to stay refers to the strength of the employees’ willingness to stay in their
organization in the near future. This behavior occurs due to the employees’ experi-
ence in their organizations. Employees develop this perception based on their
understanding of the situation and organization process. However, this experience
could be positive or negative, which influences employees to stay or leave the orga-
nization. The software industry in India is known for high employee turnover rate
(Lacity et al., 2008). This has resulted in a greater need to study intention to stay/
intention to leave/turnover intention in greater detail (Krishnan & Singh, 2010).
The antecedents of employee turnover intention such as job-related factors, psy-
chological, individual, organizational, and environmental factors have been thor-
oughly researched in the context of Indian industries (Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard,
& Bhargava, 2012; Bhatnagar, 2012; Gaan, 2011; Ghapanchi & Aurum, 2011;
Kumar Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2010; Lacity et al., 2008). However, few studies have
been conducted to understand the impact of organizational commitment on
employee intention to stay among software professionals in India (SamGnanakkan,
2010). Empirical evidence has shown that HRM practices lower employee inten-
tions to leave, and organizational commitment partially mediates between HRM
practices and employee intention to leave from service organizations in India
(Guchait & Cho, 2010). Similarly, SamGnanakkan (2010) examined the impact of
HR practices on turnover intention, and the mediating role of organizational com-
mitment in HR practices and turnover intention among software professionals.
Results have supported the hypotheses. Although there is empirical evidence of the
link between HRD climate and turnover intention (Benjamin, 2012), such under-
standing in the context of Indian industries, particularly software industry, is lack-
ing. There is also inconsistency with respect to the impact of three components of
organizational commitment on employee intention to stay, mainly the inconsistency
of continuance commitment. Therefore, the impact of the three components of
organizational commitment on intention to stay among software professionals must
be verified. In this study, a conceptual model is proposed, and hypotheses are
framed based on the theoretical framework linking HRD practices, organizational
commitment, and employee intention to stay (see Figure 1).

Hypotheses
HRD Practices and Organizational Commitment
Researchers have linked HRD and organizational commitment, and have argued that
HRD is a process of developing competence and commitment of employees at all
levels, and higher organizational commitment is associated with HRD (Jain &
Premkumar, 2011; Young Sung & Choi, 2011). The satisfaction with HRD practices
enhances employee loyalty and commitment to the organization (Yap, Holmes,
Hannan, & Cukier, 2010; Zaleska & de Menezes, 2007). Empirical evidence suggests
that HRD practices such as professional education (Bartlett, 2007), training and
Uraon 21

Figure 1.  Conceptual model.

Note. HR = human resource; HRD = human resource development.

development (Bartlett, 2007), career growth and development (Bartlett, 2007; Landau
& Hammer, 1986), and diversity training (Yap et al., 2010) play significant roles in
developing employee commitment.
Affective commitment refers to psychological and emotional attachment to the
organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). It develops in employees when they feel positive
about their organizations’ policies and practices, and it gets stronger when employees
continuously perceive the benefit of organizations’ policies and practices. Sung and
Choi (2014) stated that higher level of affective commitment of employees is a result
of HRD, and the investment, support, and perceived benefits of HRD positively affect
employee commitment. HRD practices such as remuneration, recognition, challenging
assignments, provision of training and career development opportunities have been
found to be positively related to affective commitment (Chew & Chan, 2008), and also
perceived opportunities of training, support for training, and perceived benefit of train-
ing have been found to be positively related to affective commitment (Bartlett & Kang,
2004; Bartlett, 2001). Similarly, Paul and Anantharaman (2004) also suggested that
selection process, training, development-oriented performance appraisal, compensa-
tion, and career development are positively related to affective commitment. The
financial investments on HRD and positive HRD climate have been found to posi-
tively influence affective commitments (Benjamin & David, 2012). In the software
industry, employees are focused on growth and development, and have high expecta-
tions from their organizations for growth and development opportunities. Software
companies proactively provide a series of development opportunities to their employ-
ees, and therefore the perceived benefit of HRD is likely to influence affective com-
mitment of software professionals.
22 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a positive relationship between HRD practices and

affective commitment.

Continuance commitment refers to the “awareness of the costs associated with leaving
the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67). Employees are often willing to stay in
their organization due to the comfort they have and are seriously concerned about exit-
ing their comfort zone. They often worry about what may happen if they quit the job
without having another, are concerned about the disruption of life on quitting, and are
anxious about finding another organization that can match the overall benefits of the
earlier job. They thus worry of the cost penalties associated with quitting and deliber-
ate on various options before leaving the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Such
feelings are stronger in employees who find that their current organization provides
much more than other organizations. Thus, the perceived benefit of HRD is positively
related to continuance (Bartlett & Kang, 2004; Bartlett, 2001; Benjamin & David,
2012). Paul and Anantharaman (2004) found that the selection process, training,
development-oriented performance appraisal, compensation, incentives, and career
development practices are positively related to continuance commitment. HRD prac-
tices are likely to have positive relationships to continuance commitment.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): There would be a positive relationship between HRD practices

and continuance commitment.

Normative commitment is the perceived obligation to remain with the organization

(Meyer & Allen, 1991). The feelings of obligation to remain with the organization evolve
when employees perceive that they are more benefited from their organization than
expected. The fulfillment of developmental needs enhances the normative commitment
of employees. It has been shown that compensation, training and development, and career
mobility have positive effects on normative commitment (Smeenk, Eisinga, Teelken, &
Doorewaard, 2006). Furthermore, researchers have found that perceived benefit of train-
ing, motivation to learn and support for training are positively related to normative com-
mitment (Bartlett & Kang, 2004; Bartlett, 2001). Paul and Anantharaman (2004) found
that selection process, training, development-oriented performance appraisal, compensa-
tion, incentives, and career development practices are positively linked to normative com-
mitment. The financial investments on HRD and perceived benefit of HRD would
positively influence normative commitments (Benjamin & David, 2012).

Hypothesis 3 (H3): There is positive relationship between HRD practices and nor-
mative commitment.

Organizational Commitment and Intention to Stay

Over a period of time, organizational commitment is positively linked to employee inten-
tion to stay and negatively linked to turnover intention/intention to leave (Meyer et al.,
2002). Employees with strong organizational commitment are less likely to leave their
organization compared with employees with low level of organizational commitment
Uraon 23

(Allen & Meyer, 1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993). This proposition is empirically supported.
Evidence has shown that high levels of organizational commitment are consistently asso-
ciated with low turnover, limited tardiness, and lower levels of absenteeism (Jaros, 1997;
Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Although organizational commitment significantly
affects employee turnover intention, job satisfaction has a stronger impact on turnover
intention compared with organizational commitment (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Employees
who are committed to their organization are likely to strongly believe and accept the orga-
nization’s goals and values, and expend maximum effort and maintain membership with
the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Three forms of commitment, namely affective,
continuance, and normative commitment, are associated with employees (Meyer et al.,
2002). Between the three components of commitment, affective commitment has emerged
as the most consistent predictor of turnover and absenteeism as compared with normative
and continuance commitment (Somers, 1995).
Affective commitment has a strong positive relationship with intention to stay, and
employees with strong emotional attachment with their organizations are more likely
to remain with their organizations (Wetzels, De Ruyter, & Van Birgelen, 1998).
However, converse to this, affective commitment is negatively related to both turnover
intention and actual turnover (Bartlett & Kang, 2004), and positively related to inten-
tion to stay (Jaros, 1997; Meyer et al., 2002). Employees who are provided with more
opportunities for training and career development are likely to increase their affective
commitment and more likely to stay in organization (Chew & Chan, 2008).

Hypothesis 4 (H4): There is a positive relationship between affective commitment

and employee intention to stay.

The perception of the costs associated with leaving the organization could encourage
employees to remain with the organization. Employees are more likely to remain in
the organization if they find that leaving the organization would have serious con-
sciences, and there would be scarcity of available alternatives. Findings show that
continuance commitment is positively related to employee intention to stay (Jaros,
1997; Meyer et al., 2002), and negatively related to both turnover intention and actual
turnover (Bartlett & Kang, 2004).

Hypothesis 5 (H5): There is a positive relationship between continuance commit-

ment and employee intention to stay.

The obligation to remain with the organization influences employees to continue their
association with the organization (Meyer et al., 2002). Employees are more likely to
remain as a member of the organization if they have stronger normative commitment.
Studies have shown that normative commitment is negatively related to both turnover
intention and actual turnover (Bartlett & Kang, 2004), and positively related to
employee intention to stay (Jaros, 1997; Meyer et al., 2002).

Hypothesis 6 (H6): There is a positive relationship between normative commit-

ment and intention to stay.
24 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

HRD Practices and Intention to Stay

HRD practices such as comprehensive recruitment and selection, training and devel-
opment, performance management systems, compensation, and employee involve-
ment improve employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities, and ultimately enhance
motivation and retention of quality employees (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995). Past
findings have suggested that career needs and career development programs (Chen,
Chang, & Yeh, 2004), training and development, and performance appraisal effective-
ness (Hemdi & Nasurdin, 2006) influence employee intention to stay, and satisfaction
with the different HRD practices reduces employee turnover intention (Zaleska & de
Menezes, 2007). Furthermore, access to HRD has a significant effect on the employ-
ees’ decision to leave or remain with an organization, whereas lack of access to HRD
can induce employees to leave an organization (Bartlett, 2002). Remuneration, recog-
nition, challenging assignments, provision of training, and career development oppor-
tunities are positively related to intention to stay (Chew & Chan, 2008). As discussed
above, the importance of HRD opportunities for the software professional and the
seriousness of software companies in providing these HRD opportunities have impli-
cations on employee intention to stay or leave the organization. The lack of develop-
ment opportunities or negative perception of HRD practices can force employees to
switch over to another organization for better development opportunities. Therefore,
HRD practices in software companies may influence the employees’ intention to stay
or leave the organization.

Hypothesis 7 (H7): There is a positive relationship between HRD practices and

employee intention to stay.

Method
Respondents
The respondents in this study were professionals from software companies in India.
The total sample comprised of 516 professionals working as software programmers,
software developers, team leaders, project managers, and administrative personnel,
with academic qualifications in computer science, engineering, and management.
Structured questionnaires were distributed to 800 employees working in 37 software
companies, with the assistance of the human resource department, and 516 completely
filled questionnaires were received with a response rate of 65%, which was considered
appropriate.
The sample of 516 comprised of 67.4% male and 32.6% female respondents, in
which majority of the respondents (42.8%) belonged to the age group of 25 to 29
years, 26.2% respondents belonged to the age group of 20 to 24 years, 18.2% of
respondents belonged to the age group of 30 to 34 years, and 12.8% of respondents
belonged to the age group of 35 years and above. About 28.3% of the respondents had
2 to 3 years of work experience, 21.3% of respondents had 4 to 5 years of work experi-
ence, 19.6% of respondents had below 2 years of work experience, 19.2% of
Uraon 25

respondents had more than 8 years of work experience, and 11.6% of respondents had
6 to 7 years of work experience. Finally, in the 516 samples, 48.1% respondents were
married and 51.9% of respondents were unmarried. About 55.4% respondents were
postgraduates and 44.6% were undergraduate degree holders.

Measures
HRD Practices Scale
The shorter version of the HRD audit questionnaire of Rao (2014) was adopted to
measure the comprehensive HRD practices, which included HR planning and recruit-
ment, training and learning, reward and recognition, performance appraisal and devel-
opment, potential appraisal and promotion, and career planning and development. HR
Planning and Recruitment scale measures how effectively organization identifies the
HR need, and plans the recruitment process to identify the best talent through effective
selection process and tests. The Training and Learning scale focuses on whether the
organization effectively identifies the training needs, and assesses if training is pro-
vided to the employees. It also analyzes the effectiveness of learning opportunities
provided during the training, and investigates if training evaluation is done to enhance
utility value and encourage employees to learn and try out new concept. The Reward
and Recognition scale investigates if organizations provide rewards based on the per-
formances, reward mechanisms ensured objectivity, adequate numbers of rewards are
given, whether achievements are recognized promptly with monetary and nonmone-
tary rewards, and how effectively the rewards and recognitions motivate employees
for performance improvement. Performance Appraisal and Development scale mea-
sures how effectively organizations evaluate the performance and serious review dis-
cussions are conducted, whether performance appraisal helps in job rotation and
encourages performance improvement, and helps identifying training needs. It also
assesses if performance improvements are identified based on the performance
appraisal. Potential Appraisal and Promotion scale measures whether organizations
identify key competencies for the particular job; how effectively organizations iden-
tify the hidden potential of employees, and whether promotions are given based on the
potential and performance. Finally, career Planning and Development scale investi-
gates if organizations have laid a career path for employees, whether employees are
clearly aware of career development opportunities, whether organizations are doing
succession planning in advance, and whether effective schemes are there for identify-
ing potential leaders. Responses were reported based on the 5-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Organizational Commitment Scale

Allen and Meyer’s (1990) three-component organizational commitment questionnaire
was adapted to measure affective commitment (eight items), continuance commitment
(eight items), and normative commitment (six items). However, one item (i.e., I am
26 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up) was
removed from Continuance Commitment scale for poor factor loading (0.57) while
estimating structural equation model. In the case of normative commitment, the
revised six-item version of Normative Commitment scale was adopted, which is con-
sidered to be more appropriate to measure employees’ sense of obligation in the orga-
nization compared with eight-item version on socialized obligation (Meyer, Allen, &
Smith, 1993; Meyer et al., 2002). Allen and Meyer (1996) suggested that affective
commitment (emotional attachment), continuance commitment (perceived costs), and
normative commitments (feelings of obligation) are suitable measures of organiza-
tional commitment, and argued that these three measures have substantial evidence of
construct validity. Conway and Monks (2009) used the eight-item version of each
affective, continuance, and normative commitment scale, and found reliability to be
above .7 for each three components, whereas Meyer, Irving, and Allen (1998) and
Powell and Meyer (2004) used revised six-item version of three-component organiza-
tional commitment instrument, and found Cronbach’s alphas to be .7 and .8, respec-
tively. These three dimensions of organizational commitment were measured using the
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree—1 to strongly agree—5.

Intention-to-Stay Scale
The four-item Employee Intention-to-stay scale was adopted from the studies of
Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979), and it has been used by a number of
researchers to measure the employee intention to stay (e.g., Chew & Chan, 2008; Daly
& Geyer, 1994; Khatri, Budhwar, & Fern, 1999; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2001;
Ohana & Meyer, 2010). One of the items (i.e., Most certainly I will not look for a new
job in the near future) had lower corrected item-scale correlations (.65), as well as
lower item loading (0.20). After the removal of the item, the resulting Cronbach’s
alpha for intention to stay was .78. Hence, this item has been removed from the inten-
tion-to-stay measure while estimating structural model. Responses were measured
based on the 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree—1 to strongly
agree—5.

Higher Order Structural Model

The hierarchical component model (HCM) approach was used to test the proposed
conceptual model. The HCM is also called higher order model and has multiple layers
of constructs. It usually involves testing second-order structure, which consists of two
layers of constructs. However, the first-order models/lower order component (LOC)
models have single layer of construct. The HCM has been used to minimize the num-
ber of relationships in the structural model and to reduce the complexity. In this study,
focus was on second-order hierarchical latent variable model that includes reflective–
reflective type, where exogenous variable (HRD practices) was only modeled as sec-
ond-order latent variable in the structural model (Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub, 2012;
Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder, & Van Oppen, 2009). The latent variables can be
Uraon 27

modeled as formative and reflective constructs (Chin, 1998; Wu & Chuang, 2010).
Furthermore, the repeated indicator approach was adopted to estimate the parameters
in model as suggested by Becker, Klein, and Wetzels (2012). Therefore, all the indica-
tors of first-order/lower order constructs were included in the second-order/higher
order construct. The number of indicators in all the lower order constructs is similar if
one lower order construct has more indicators than other lower order constructs, then
the lower order construct would have stronger relationship with higher number of
indicators (Ringle et al., 2012). While using hierarchical component model, if the
higher order latent variable is formative in the structural model then a two-stage
approach is mandatory to find out the path coefficient for the relationship between
latent variables (Ringle et al., 2012). However in this study, the higher order latent
variable was reflective, and therefore there was no need to use the two-stage approach.
Finally, a two-step procedure has followed as criteria to evaluate the PLS path model-
ing (Chin, 1998). The first step involved assessment of the outer model in which reli-
ability and validity of the measurement model were tested, and the second step
involved assessment of the inner model which provided path coefficients between the
latent variables.

Reflective Measurement Model

There are different procedures for the assessment of reflective and formative measure-
ment models. For the assessment of reflective measurement model, the reliability and
validity of the constructs must be established. Individual item reliability was measured
by assessing the loading of the items with the respective constructs. The thumb rule
followed by the researchers was to accept items with loading 0.70 or more, which
indicates that there is more shared variance between the constructs and their measures
than error variance. Items with low loading add very little explanatory power to the
model while reducing the estimates of the parameters linking constructs (Hulland,
1999). Items with factor loading less than 0.70 were removed from the final model
(Chen & Tsai, 2007). Reliability for the constructs was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha
(Nunnally, 1978). Convergent validities for the constructs were measured by the three
standards: (a) all item loadings larger than 0.70, (b) composite reliability larger than
.70, and (c) average variance extracted (AVE) larger than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker,
1981; Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Wu & Chuang, 2010). Discriminant validity
between the constructs was measured using the condition that the square root of AVE
for a construct should exceed its correlations with all the remaining constructs (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981; Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009). Table 1 shows the indices for
reliability and convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients larger than .70 indi-
cated high degrees of construct reliability. Item loadings ranged from 0.70 to 0.88,
composite reliabilities ranged from .88 to .96, and AVE ranged from 0.54 to 0.70,
indicating high degrees of convergent validity for the constructs. Table 2 shows that
the indices for discriminant validity, the square root of AVE of six HRD practices
(first-order constructs), three components of organizational commitment and employee
intention to stay exceeded correlations with all the other constructs. Similarly, the
28 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

Table 1.  Assessment of the Convergent Validity of Constructs.

Composite
Construct Items Item loading Cronbach’s α reliability AVE
HR planning and recruitment 6 0.70-0.77 .83 .88 0.54
Training and learning 6 0.73-0.81 .85 .89 0.58
Reward and recognition 6 0.76-0.84 .90 .92 0.66
Potential appraisal and 6 0.76-0.83 .89 .91 0.64
promotion
Performance appraisal and 6 0.78-0.83 .89 .92 0.65
development
Career planning and 6 0.75-0.84 .88 .91 0.63
development
HRD practices (higher order) 36 0.70-0.83 .96 .96 0.51
Affective commitment 8 0.71-0.84 .92 .93 0.63
Continuance commitment 7 0.73-0.82 .89 .91 0.59
Normative commitment 6 0.76-0.84 .89 .92 0.65
Intention to stay 3 0.81-0.88 .78 .87 0.70

Note. AVE = average variance extracted; HR = human resource; HRD = human resource development.

Table 2.  Assessment of the Discriminant Validity of Constructs.

Diagonal value: Square root of AVE, nondiagonal value: Correlation

  AC CC CPD HRDP HRPR IS NC PAD PAP RR TL

AC .79  
CC .47 .77  
CPD .66 .33 .80  
HRDP .67 .36 .86 .71  
HRPR .44 .27 .51 .69 .74  
IS .59 .38 .46 .52 .42 .83  
NC .54 .53 .48 .53 .41 .60 .80  
PAD .55 .29 .68 .85 .48 .38 .38 .81  
PAP .56 .26 .70 .85 .47 .44 .45 .70 .80  
RR .56 .30 .68 .85 .48 .42 .44 .68 .72 .81  
TL .48 .30 .57 .74 .60 .42 .45 .56 .49 .51 .76

Source. Author.
Note. AVE = average variance extracted; AC = affective commitment; CC = continuance commitment;
CPD = career planning and development; HRDP = human resource development practices;
HRPR = human resources planning and recruitment; IS = intention to stay; NC = normative
commitment; PAD = performance appraisal and development; PAP = potential appraisal and promotion;
RR = reward and recognition; TL = training and learning.

square roots of AVE of second-order construct (HRD practices), and three components
of organizational commitment and employee intention to stay exceeded its correla-
tions with all the other constructs. This shows that all the indicators met the criteria of
Uraon 29

Figure 2.  Results of the path analysis.

Note. HR = human resource; HRD = human resource development.

discriminant validity (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gefen & Straub, 2005;
Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000; Wu & Chuang, 2010). Furthermore, the first-order
and second-order constructs were significantly related. Thus, the model was deemed
to be satisfactory (Wong, 2013). The goodness of fit was assessed using standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR), the calculated SRMR for saturated model (0.08)
and the estimated model (0.09) lay between 0.08 and 0.10, which confirmed that the
model has goodness of fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Structural Model Analysis

In Figure 2, the path coefficients show that HRD practices have positive significant
impacts on affective commitment (β = .67, t = 22.26, p = .00), continuance commitment
(β = .36, t = 9.48, p = .00), and normative commitment (β = .53, t = 14.09, p = .00) at the
significance level of .01. Hence, H1, H2, and H3 are supported. Furthermore, affective
commitment (β = .31, t = 5.55, p = .00) and normative commitment (β = .37, t = 6.35,
p = .00) were found to have positive significant impacts on employee intention to stay at
the significance level of .01, whereas the impact of continuance commitment on
employee intention to stay was almost 0 and insignificant (β = –.00, t = 0.09, p = .95).
Hence, H4 and H6 are supported, and H5 is not. Finally, HRD was found to have posi-
tive significant impact on employee intention to stay (β = .12, t = 2.07, p = .04) at the
significance level of .05. Hence, H7 is supported. Furthermore, HRD practices were
found to have stronger impact on affective commitment (β = .67), followed by normative
30 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

commitment (β = .53) and continuance commitment (β = .36), and normative commit-

ment (β = .37) was strongly related to employee intention to stay compared with affec-
tive commitment (β = .31) and HRD practices (β = .12). The R2 values in the endogenous
latent variable in the structural model showed that HRD practices explained 45%, 13%,
and 28% of variance in affective, continuance, and normative commitments, respec-
tively, and HRD practices, affective, continuance, and normative commitments jointly
explained 46% of variance in employee intention to stay. The percentage of variance
explained in organizational commitment components and employee intention to stay
shows that there are also other factors that affect these latent variables.
The relationships between HRD practices, continuance commitment, and intention
to stay have been hypothesized as positively related to each other. Findings show that
the HRD practices were significantly related to continuance commitment; however,
continuance commitment was unrelated to intention to stay. HRD practices may
enhance continuance commitment, but continuance commitment cannot influence
intention to stay. Hence, conceptual model would be redesigned by removing the link
between continuance commitment and intention to stay.

Discussion
In this study, HRD practices are considered development-oriented HRM practices,
which directly or indirectly provide opportunities, or are responsible for the effective
growth and development of human resources in the organization. These development-
oriented HRM practices (e.g., training, performance appraisal, and career develop-
ment) are stronger predictors of organizational commitment compared with HRM
practices (Paul & Anantharaman, 2004). Development-oriented practices aim to
enhance employees’ capabilities and attach them emotionally to their organizations
(Gellatly, Hunter, Currie, & Irving, 2009). However, the success of HRD largely
depends on the favorable HRD climate in an organization (Mishra & Bhardwaj, 2002).
Aligned with the theory, the findings of this study showed that HRD practices such as
HR planning and recruitment, training and learning, reward and recognition, potential
appraisal and promotion, performance appraisal and development, and career planning
and development positively and significantly affect the three components of organiza-
tional commitment—affective, continuance, and normative commitments. These
results are supported by Chew, Girardi, and Entrekin (2005) and Paul and Anantharaman
(2004). The results indicate that software professionals believe that these HRD prac-
tices effectively fulfill their development needs. Furthermore, the stronger impact of
HRD practices on affective commitment compared with normative and continuance
commitments is similar to that found in the earlier findings of Benjamin and David
(2012). Indeed, these three components of organizational commitment are distinct
from each other and significant predictors of employee behavior; however, affective
commitment is the most significant predictor among all. It is strongly related to its
antecedents because it indicates the emotional attachment with the organization. As
software professionals are highly concerned about their growth and development, to
fulfill their development needs, they seek better development opportunities.
Uraon 31

Satisfaction with HRD practices and opportunities would enhance organizational

commitment. Furthermore, the positive and significant impact of HRD practices on
employee intention to stay is supported by the findings of Chew and Chan (2008) and
Guchait and Cho (2010). Satisfaction with HRD practices would enhance employee
intention to stay. However, the negative perception and the negative aspect of the man-
agement practices such as stressful work environment, monotonous work, poor work-
ing conditions, absence of career development opportunities, and better job
opportunities are important reasons for employee turnover intention (Budhwar, Varma,
Malhotra, & Mukherjee, 2009).
Furthermore, results show that affective and normative commitments positively and
significantly affect employee intention to stay. However, the relationship between the
continuance commitment and intention to stay was found to be unrelated and insignifi-
cant in this work. The normative commitment was found to be strongly related to
employee intention to stay compared with affective commitment. Contrary to the find-
ings of this study, Jaros (1997) and Meyer et al. (2002) found significant impact of the
three dimensions of organizational commitment turnover intentions, and affective com-
mitment strongly related to turnover intentions compared with continuance or norma-
tive commitment. Furthermore, Meyer et al. (2002) found that continuance commitment
was unrelated or related negatively to factors such as attendance, organizational citizen-
ship behavior and performance, and employee-related factors such as stress and work–
family conflict. Importantly, more than the feeling of emotional attachment, the feeling
of obligation is strongly related to employee intention to stay, and the feeling of obliga-
tion develops when organizations help employees in their growth and development
more than they deserve or beyond their expectations. Most of the respondents are from
large multinational companies, these multinational companies implement HRD in a
systematic way compared with small companies, and HRD is often a part of the strate-
gic planning and implementation process (Gubbins & Garavan, 2009). These compa-
nies proactively plan and manage employees’ growth and development, and as a result,
employees feel the need to stay in the organizations. Thus, normative commitment is
strongly related to employee intention to stay compared with affective commitment.
Contrary to the earlier study, this study suggests that employee’s normative commit-
ment to the organization is the most significant component of organizational commit-
ment in predicting intention to stay. If organizations want to reduce employee turnover
intention, they must enhance normative commitment.
The findings of the relationship between continuance commitment and intention to
stay/turnover intention are mixed. Although in some studies continuance commitment
was shown to be significantly related to turnover intention, it does not always signifi-
cantly predict turnover intention (Jaros, 1997). While it is obvious to expect that
employees who perceive fewer alternatives were likely to have high intention to stay
in the organization, it does not mean that employees are not thinking of leaving the
organization. Some employees may perceive fewer alternatives but have high inten-
tion to stay in the organization. Therefore, continuance commitment may be either
positively or negatively related to employee intention to stay (Jaros, 1997). The lack
of relationship between continuance commitment and intention to stay indicates that
32 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

perceived alternatives do not influence the intention to stay of software professionals

due to large job creation in the IT sector. Therefore, the study based on perceived alter-
natives should not be conducted in the industry where plenty of job opportunities are
available, as perceived alternatives may not mean anything to employees working in
such industries and cannot predict their intention to stay.

Implications
This study has a number of theoretical and practical implications for software compa-
nies, practitioners, and scholars, particularly in the areas of HRD practices and
employee behavior: First, HRD is an evolving subject, and researchers have conceptu-
alized and theorized HRD in the recent years. Hence, this study would bring more
clarity and add to the body of knowledge relating to the conceptualization of HRD in
the context of software companies in India, where few studies have been conducted so
far. Second, there have been few empirical studies on the impact of HRD practices on
organizational commitment and intention to stay in software companies in India. Thus,
this study helps understanding HRD practices such as HR planning and recruitment,
training and learning, reward and recognition, performance appraisal and develop-
ment, potential appraisal and promotion, and career planning and development, and
their impact on organizational commitment and intention to stay. Third, there have
been few studies on the three components of organizational commitment—affective,
continuance, and normative commitments—and their impacts on intention to stay in
the software industry in India. Hence, this study has provided a better understanding
of the impact of the three components of organizational commitment on intention
within the software industry in India. This study particularly elucidates the impact of
continuance commitment on intention to stay, which is a unique finding. Finally, this
study provides useful guidelines to scholars interested in studying HRD practices
using higher order structural models.
Human resources in software companies play a crucial role in enabling strategic
competitiveness and improving organizational performance. However, retaining
human resources is a challenge for software companies in India. Particularly, the lack
of development opportunities within the organization tempts software professionals to
leave their organization. Hence, it is essential for the managers in the software industry
to improve their understanding of HRD practices to enhance employee commitment
and retain talent to achieve higher organizational performance.

Limitations and Direction for Future Research

Although the appropriate methodology has been applied to conduct the study, there are
some limitations of the study as with studies in the fields of social sciences: First,
software companies are knowledge-based and huge revenue-generating organizations.
They design and implement HRD practices effectively to achieve sustainable competi-
tive advantage and hence, the result cannot be generalized to other sectors that have
different approaches to HRD. Second, software professionals are knowledgeable and
Uraon 33

highly educated employees working in a dynamic industry, where employee turnover

is higher than in other industries. Their perception on the HRD practices, organiza-
tional commitment, and intention to stay may vary from those employees of other
industries where educational qualification and skills set requirements are different and
therefore, the results cannot be generalized to the employees of other industries.
Finally, this study is based on cross-sectional data, where the responses were collected
from the respondents at a single point in time. As a result, the cause and effect cannot
be established accurately, and the data cannot be used to analyze employee behavior
over a period of time.
A conceptual framework linking HRD–employee engagement and employee
engagement–intention to stay is proposed based on theory and literature, which shows
that fair implementation of HRD mechanisms (Chaudhary, Rangnekar, & Barua, 2011)
and continuous development of employees throughout their career (Schaufeli &
Salanova, 2007) enhance employee engagement. A high level of employee engage-
ment is positively related to the employee intention to remain (Jones & Harter, 2005).
Although employee engagement and organizational commitment constructs appar-
ently overlap with each other, future research can seek to understand how employee
engagement, which is considered to be a unique construct, is related to HRD practices
and intention to stay.

Conclusion
This study has been conducted to examine the impact of HRD practices on organiza-
tional commitment and intention to stay, and also the impact of organizational com-
mitment on employee intention to stay in software companies in India. The findings of
this study have supported the hypothesis that HRD practices positively affect the three
components of organizational commitment and employee intention to stay.
Furthermore, it has supported the hypothesis that affective and normative commit-
ments positively affect employee intention to stay. However, this study did not support
the hypothesis that continuance positively affects employee intention to stay. The
results showed that HRD practices are significantly related to affective, normative,
and continuance commitments. However, HRD practices emerged as a stronger pre-
dictor of affective commitment as compared with normative commitment. It explained
45%, 13%, and 28% of variance in affective, continuance, and normative commit-
ments, respectively. Furthermore, the results showed that HRD practices and two of
the components of organizational commitment (affective and normative commit-
ments) are significantly correlated with employee intention to stay, and the relation-
ship between continuance commitment and employee intention to stay is insignificant.
However, normative commitment emerged as a stronger predictor of employee inten-
tion to stay compared with affective commitment and HRD practices. HRD practices,
affective, continuance, and normative commitments accounted for 46% of variance in
employee intention to stay.
The study shows that software companies should link HRD with the organizations’
long-term and operational strategies. This strategy–HRD link ensures organization a
34 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

competitive advantage and ability to handle problems. The other important suggestion
is that the HRD should not be just a practice, without evaluation of the actual impact.
Many organizations implement HRD practices merely because they have to do it and
do not analyze its impacts. Furthermore, HRD should be a value chain orientation and
for effective HRD value chain, each HRD practice and each phase of its implementa-
tion should be thoroughly evaluated and analyzed, so that they contribute to the devel-
opment of employees. Redesigning of HRD practices and reinforcement should be
done, if necessary, to maintain the HRD value chain in the organization. Furthermore,
the HR manager must identify development-oriented practices in the organization and
improve these practices for effective employee development. Overall, this study has
made significant contributions to the gaps in the literature by linking HRD practices,
organizational commitment, employee engagement, and employee intention to stay in
the context of software companies in India.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Agarwal, S., DeCarlo, T. E., & Vyas, S. B. (1999). Leadership behavior and organizational
commitment: A comparative study of American and Indian salespersons. Journal of
International Business Studies, 30, 727-743. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490836
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative
work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career
Development International, 17, 208-230. doi:10.1108/13620431211241063
Agarwala, T. (2003). Innovative human resource practices and organizational commitment: An
empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 175-
197. doi:10.1080/0958519021000029072
Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership, empow-
erment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community
health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in Health Services, 24, 228-237.
doi:10.1108/17511871111151126
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, contin-
uance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
252-276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commit-
ment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
doi:10.2307/2392596
Uraon 35

Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee perfor-
mance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63, 308-323.
doi:10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670-687. doi:10.2307/256705
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes
of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 19, 31-53. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12077
Bal, P. M., Kooij, D. T., & De Jong, S. B. (2013). How do developmental and accommodative
HRM enhance employee engagement and commitment? The role of psychological contract
and SOC strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 545-572. doi:10.1111/joms.12028
Bartlett, K., & Kang, D. S. (2004). Training and organizational commitment among nurses fol-
lowing industry and organizational change in New Zealand and the United States. Human
Resource Development International, 7, 423-440. doi:10.1080/1367886042000299799
Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A
study in the health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 335-352.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1001
Bartlett, K. R. (2002). An examination of the role of HRD in voluntary turnover in
public service organizations. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15, 45-56.
doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2002.tb00264.x
Bartlett, K. R. (2007). HRD and organizational commitment in health and social care organisa-
tions. In S. Sambrook & J. Stewart (Eds.), Human resource development in the public sec-
tor (pp. 112-133). London, England: Routledge.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66,
32-40. doi:10.1086/222820
Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-
SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45,
359-394. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001
Benjamin, A. (2012). Human resource development climate as a predictor of citizenship
behaviour and voluntary turnover intentions in the banking sector. International Business
Research, 5, 110-119. doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n1p110
Benjamin, A., & David, I. (2012). Human resource development climate and employee commit-
ment in recapitalized Nigerian banks. International Journal of Business and Management,
7, 91-99. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n5p91
Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Predictors of organizational commitment in India: Strategic HR roles, orga-
nizational learning capability and psychological empowerment. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 18, 1782-1811. doi:10.1080/09585190701570965
Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employ-
ees: Key to retention. Employee Relations, 29, 640-663. doi:10.1108/01425450710826122
Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of innovation: Role of psychological empowerment, work
engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23, 928-951. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.651313
Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: Role of per-
ceived organizational support, P-O fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
Vikalpa, 38, 27-40. doi:10.1177/0256090920130103
Boon, C., & Kalshoven, K. (2014). How high-commitment HRM relates to engagement and
commitment: The moderating role of task proficiency. Human Resource Management, 53,
403-420. doi:10.1002/hrm.21569
36 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

Brad Shuck, M., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from
the employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training,
35, 300-325. doi:10.1108/03090591111128306
Budhwar, P. S., Varma, A., Malhotra, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2009). Insights into the Indian call
centre industry: Can internal marketing help tackle high employee turnover? Journal of
Services Marketing, 23, 351-362. doi:10.1108/08876040910973459
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire (Unpublished manuscript). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The
intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 11, 189-203. doi:10.1177/1523422309333147
Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. (2011). Relation between human resource devel-
opment climate and employee engagement: Results from India. Europe’s Journal of
Psychology, 7, 664-685. doi:10.5964/ejop.v7i4.158
Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. (2013). Human resource development climate in
India: Examining the psychometric properties of HRD climate survey instrument. Vision,
17, 41-52. doi:10.1177/0972262912469564
Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2012). Relationships between occupational self-
efficacy, human resource development climate, and work engagement. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, 18, 370-383. doi:10.1108/13527591211281110
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115-1122. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007
Chen, T. Y., Chang, P. L., & Yeh, C. W. (2004). A study of career needs, career develop-
ment programs, job satisfaction and the turnover intentions of R&D personnel. Career
Development International, 9, 424-437. doi:10.1108/13620430410544364
Chew, J., & Chan, C. C. (2008). Human resource practices, organizational commit-
ment and intention to stay. International Journal of Manpower, 29, 503-522.
doi:10.1108/01437720810904194
Chew, J., Girardi, A., & Entrekin, L. (2005). Retaining core staff: The impact of human
resource practices on organizational commitment. Journal of Comparative International
Management, 8, 23-42.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern
Methods for Business Research, 295, 295-336.
Cho, Y., & McLean, G. N. (2009). Leading Asian countries’ HRD practices in the IT industry: A
comparative study of South Korea and India. Human Resource Development International,
12, 313-331. doi:10.1080/13678860902982108
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64, 89-136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Conway, E., & Monks, K. (2009). Unravelling the complexities of high commitment: An
employee-level analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 140-158. doi:10.1111/
j.1748-8583.2009.00090.x
Corporate Leadership Council. (2004). Driving performance and retention through employee
engagement. Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board.
Crawford, E. R., Lepine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834-848. doi:10.1037/a0019364
Uraon 37

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31, 874-900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). The relative impor-
tance of employee engagement, other job attitudes, and trait affect as predictors of job
performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E295-E325. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2012.01017.x
Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change:
Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 623-638. doi:10.1002/job.4030150706
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382-
388. doi:10.2307/3150980
Gaan, N. (2011). A revisit on impact of job attitudes on employee turnover: An empirical study
in Indian IT Industry. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, 8(2), 33-42.
Garavan, T. N., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P., & McGuire, D. (2002). Human resource development
and workplace learning: Emerging theoretical perspectives and organizational practices.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 26, 60-71. doi:10.1108/03090590210428133
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial
and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1),
Article 5.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regres-
sion: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 4(1), Article 7.
Gellatly, I. R., Hunter, K. H., Currie, L. G., & Irving, P. G. (2009). HRM practices and organi-
zational commitment profiles. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
20, 869-884. doi:10.1080/09585190902770794
Ghapanchi, A. H., & Aurum, A. (2011). Antecedents to IT personnel’s intentions to leave: A
systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 84, 238-249. doi:10.1016/j.
jss.2010.09.022
Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S. B., Hetland, J., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Workplace bullying as an
antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study. Human
Resource Management Journal, 24, 255-268. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12035
Gouldner, H. P. (1960). Dimensions of organizational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 4, 468-490. doi:10.2307/2390769
Gubbins, C., & Garavan, T. N. (2009). Understanding the HRD role in MNCs: The impera-
tives of social capital and networking. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 245-275.
doi:10.1177/1534484309334583
Guchait, P., & Cho, S. (2010). The impact of human resource management practices on inten-
tion to leave of employees in the service industry in India: The mediating role of orga-
nizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21,
1228-1247. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.483845
Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: An
employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(2), 22-38.
doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00062.x
Gupta, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility, employee–company identification, and orga-
nizational commitment: Mediation by employee engagement. Current Psychology, 36,
101-109. doi:10.1007/s12144-015-9389-8
38 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

Gupta, M., & Sayeed, O. (2016). Social responsibility and commitment in management insti-
tutes: Mediation by engagement. Business: Theory and Practice, 17, 280-287.
Gupta, M., & Shaheen, M. (2017). Impact of work engagement on turnover intention:
Moderation by psychological capital in India. Business: Theory and Practice, 18, 136-143.
doi:10.3846/btp.2017.014
Gupta, M., Shaheen, M., & Reddy, P. K. (2017). Impact of psychological capital on organi-
zational citizenship behavior: Mediation by work engagement. Journal of Management
Development, 36, 973-983. doi:10.1108/JMD-06-2016-0084
Gupta, V., & Kumar, S. (2012). Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee
engagement: A study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35, 61-78.
doi:10.1108/01425451311279410
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139-152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model: A
three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement.
Work & Stress, 22, 224-241. doi:10.1080/02678370802379432
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embedded-
ness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22, 242-256.
doi:10.1080/02678370802383962
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engage-
ment be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European
Psychologist, 11, 119-127. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hemdi, M. A., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2006). Predicting turnover intentions of hotel employees:
The influence of employee development human resource management practices and trust in
organization. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 8, 21-42.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New chal-
lenges to international marketing (pp. 277-319). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Herbst, P. G. (1964). Organizational commitment: A decision process model. Acta Sociologica,
7, 34-46. doi:10.1177/000169936400700103
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A
review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195-204.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, pro-
ductivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-
672. doi:10.2307/256741
Jain, R., & Premkumar, R. (2011). HRD practices in Indian organizations and their impact on
“productivity” of human resources: An empirical study. Management and Labor Studies,
36, 5-30. doi:10.1177/0258042X1103600101
Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of
organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51,
319-337. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1995.1553
Uraon 39

Jones, J. R., & Harter, J. K. (2005). Race effects on the employee engagement-turnover
intention relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 78-88.
doi:10.1177/107179190501100208
Joolideh, F., & Yeshodhara, K. (2009). Organizational commitment among high school
teachers of India and Iran. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 127-136.
doi:10.1108/09578230910928115
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. doi:10.2307/256287
Kanste, O. (2011). Work engagement, work commitment and their association with well-being
in health care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25, 754-761. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6712.2011.00888.x
Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2013). Psychological climate and organizational effective-
ness: Role of work engagement. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(3), 33-46.
Khatri, N., Budhwar, P., & Fern, C. T. (1999). Employee turnover: Bad attitude or poor man-
agement. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.
Krishnan, S. K., & Singh, M. (2010). Outcomes of intention to quit of Indian IT professionals.
Human Resource Management, 49, 421-437. doi:10.1002/hrm.20357
Kumar Mishra, S., & Bhatnagar, D. (2010). Linking emotional dissonance and organizational
identification to turnover intention and emotional well-being: A study of medical repre-
sentatives in India. Human Resource Management, 49, 401-419. doi:10.1002/hrm.20362
Kwantes, C. T. (2009). Culture, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in India and the United
States. Journal of Indian Business Research, 1, 196-212. doi:10.1108/17554190911013265
Lacity, M. C., Iyer, V. V., & Rudramuniyaiah, P. S. (2008). Turnover intentions of Indian IS
professionals. Information Systems Frontiers, 10, 225-241. doi:10.1007/s10796-007-9062-3
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turn-
over intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers.
The Social Science Journal, 38, 233-250. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00110-0
Landau, J., & Hammer, T. H. (1986). Clerical employees’ perceptions of intraorganizational
career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 385-404. doi:10.2307/256194
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for a competitive advantage. SHRM
Research Quarterly. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal
of Management Development, 21, 376-387. doi:10.1108/02621710210426864
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving perfor-
mance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96. doi:10.5539/
ijbm.v5n12p89
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, cor-
relates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2),
171-194. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
McLagan, P. A. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Training & Development Journal, 43(9),
49-60.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commit-
ment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
40 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occu-
pations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 538-551. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
Meyer, J. P., Irving, P. G., & Allen, N. J. (1998). Examination of the combined effects of
work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 29-52.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989).
Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that
counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a
mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 319-331.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,
and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Mishra, P., & Bhardwaj, G. (2002). Human resource development climate: An empirical study
among private sector managers. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 66-80.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkage: The
psychology of commitment absenteeism, and turn over. London, England: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational com-
mitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Nadler, L. (1970). Developing human resources. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Namasivayam, K., & Zhao, X. (2007). An investigation of the moderating effects of organiza-
tional commitment on the relationships between work–family conflict and job satisfaction
among hospitality employees in India. Tourism Management, 28, 1212-1223. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2006.09.021
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: McGraw-Hill.
Ohana, M., & Meyer, M. (2010). Should I stay or should I go now? Investigating the intention
to quit of the permanent staff in social enterprises. European Management Journal, 28,
441-454. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2010.06.007
Pattanayak, B. (2003). Towards building a better HRD climate: A study on organizational role
stress and quality of work life. International Journal of Human Resources Development
and Management, 3, 371-378. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2003.003401
Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2004). Influence of HRM practices on organizational com-
mitment: A study among software professionals in India. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 15, 77-88. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1088
Pillai, P. R. (2008). Influence of HRD climate on the learning orientation of bank employees.
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43, 406-418.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational com-
mitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 603-609. doi:10.1037/h0037335
Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of orga-
nizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157-177. doi:10.1016/S0001-
8791(03)00050-2
Purang, P. (2008). Dimensions of HRD climate enhancing organizational commitment in Indian
organisations. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43, 528-546.
Rao, T. V. (1987). Planning for human resources development. Vikalpa, 12(3), 46-51.
Rao, T. V. (2014). HRD audit: Evaluating the human resource function for business improve-
ment. New Delhi, India: SAGE.
Uraon 41

Rao, T. V., & Abraham, E. (1986). HRD climate in organizations. Readings in Human Resource
Development, 36-45.
Rao, T. V., & Varghese, S. (2009). Trends and challenges of developing human capital in India.
Human Resource Development International, 12, 15-34. doi:10.1080/13678860802638800
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS
Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36, 3-14.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement.
Report-Institute for Employment Studies. Brighton, UK.
Rodrigues, L. L. (2004). Correlates of human resource development climate dimensions: An empir-
ical study in engineering institutes in India. South Asian Journal of Management, 11, 81-92.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139. doi:10.1007/BF01384942
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169
SamGnanakkan, S. (2010). Mediating role of organizational commitment on HR practices and
turnover intention among ICT professionals. Journal of Management Research, 10, 39-61.
Saraswathi, S. (2010). Human resources development climate: An empirical study. International
Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1, 174-179. doi:10.7763/IJIMT.2010.
V1.32
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engage-
ment with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 701-716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W.B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological con-
cept and its implications for organizations. In S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner & D.P. Skarlicki
(Eds.), Research in social issues in management: Vol. 5. Managing social and ethical
issues in organizations (pp. 135-177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2011). The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How
do we link theory and scholarship to current practice? Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 13, 419-428. doi:10.1177/1523422311431153
Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination of
antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14, 427-
445. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.601587
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foun-
dations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110. doi:10.1177/1534484309353560
Singh, K. (2007). Predicting organizational commitment through organization culture: A study
of automobile industry in India. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 8, 29-37.
doi:10.1080/16111699.2007.9636149
Smeenk, S. G., Eisinga, R. N., Teelken, J. C., & Doorewaard, J. A. C. M. (2006). The effects
of HRM practices and antecedents on organizational commitment among university
employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 2035-2054.
doi:10.1080/09585190600965449
Smith, R. L. (1988). Human resource development: An overview. Washington, DC: Education
Resources Information Center.
Smith, R. L., & Walz, G. R. (1984). Counseling and human resource development. Washington,
DC: Education Resources Information Center.
42 Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(1)

Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examina-

tion of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49-58.
doi:10.1002/job.4030160107
Srimannarayana, M. (2008). Human resources development climate in India. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 44, 248-255.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., & Liefooghe, A. (2005). Managing the career deal: The
psychological contract as a framework for understanding career management, organiza-
tional commitment and work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 821-838.
doi:10.1002/job.341
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Multiple dimensions of human resource development and
organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 851-870. doi:10.1002/
job.1933
Supeli, A., & Creed, P. A. (2016). The longitudinal relationship between protean career orien-
tation and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention-to-quit. Journal of
Career Development, 43, 66-80. doi:10.1177/0894845315581686
Swanson, R. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human
Resource Development International, 4, 299-312. doi:10.1080/13678860110059311
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover inten-
tion, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,
46, 259-293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, measur-
ing and increasing engagement in your organization. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Vecina, M. L., Chacón, F., Marzana, D., & Marta, E. (2013). Volunteer engagement and
organizational commitment in nonprofit organizations: What makes volunteers remain
within organizations and feel happy? Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 291-302.
doi:10.1002/jcop.21530
Weinberger, L. A. (1998). Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human
Resource Development International, 1, 75-93. doi:10.1080/13678869800000009
Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication
implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16, 328-346.
doi:10.1108/13563281111186968
Wetzels, M., De Ruyter, K., & Van Birgelen, M. (1998). Marketing service relationships:
The role of commitment. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 13, 406-423.
doi:10.1108/08858629810226708
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling
for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS
Quarterly, 33, 177-195.
Wollard, K. K. (2011). Quiet desperation another perspective on employee engagement.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 526-537. doi:10.1177/1523422311430942
Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to employee engagement: A struc-
tured review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 429-446.
doi:10.1177/1523422311431220
Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) tech-
niques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24, 1-32.
Wu, L., & Chuang, C. H. (2010). Examining the diffusion of electronic supply chain manage-
ment with external antecedents and firm performance: A multi-stage analysis. Decision
Support Systems, 50, 103-115. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.07.006
Uraon 43

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal rela-
tionships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 74, 235-244. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003
Yap, M., Holmes, M. R., Hannan, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2010). The relationship between diver-
sity training, organizational commitment, and career satisfaction. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 34, 519-538. doi:10.1108/03090591011061202
Young Sung, S., & Choi, J. N. (2011). The effects of human resource development on opera-
tional and financial performance of manufacturing companies: A large-scale, longitudinal
analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
Zaleska, K. J., & de Menezes, L. M. (2007). Human resources development practices and
their association with employee attitudes: Between traditional and new careers. Human
Relations, 60, 987-1018. doi:10.1177/0018726707081155
Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of organi-
zational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences,
5, 998-1003. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.225

Author Biography
Ram Shankar Uraon has received MBA from University of Mysore and PhD in management
from Pondicherry University. He had been awarded UGC Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Post-Doctoral
Fellowship for the year 2014-2015, and is currently pursuing his postdoctoral research at the
Department of Management Studies, School of Management, Pondicherry University. He was
also a recipient of National Eligibility Test Certificate awarded by UGC in 2012. He has pub-
lished several research papers in reputed journals, and presented papers in the national and
international conferences.