Being thesis submitted in the department of business administration and marketing, school of management

4.2.7. Restatement of Research Objective Seven and Research Question Seven.

Research Objective: Evaluate the moderating effect of internal environment of HRMP on the relationship between HRMP and CE

Research Question: How would the internal environment of HRMP affect the relationship between HRMP and CE?

In answering this question to achieve our objective here, we first determine the extent to which the organisations adheres to best practice in terms of appropriate environment for the practice of HRM. The result is presented in Table 4.20.

Table. 4.20: Internal Environment of Human Resource Management Practice (EHRM)

	Internal Environment of Human Resource Management Practice
S/N	To what extent does your organization adheres to the following:		NE	VLE	LE	ME	GE	VGE	Mean	SD
1	Use of structured evaluation in determining the effectiveness of functions, policies and the system	Freq.	19	39	93	130	199	410	4.889	2.856
		Perc.	2.1	4.4	10.4	14.6	22.4	46.1
2	Useof formal overall corporate policy framework in the conduct of the affairs of the organization.	Freq.	17	62	90	111	199	399	4.834	2.801
		Perc.	1.9	7.1	10.3	12.6	22.7	45.4
3	HRM is expected to play prominent role in corporate planning	Freq.	39	73	70	91	204	412	4.781	2.749
		Perc.	4.3	8.3	7.9	10.3	22.9	46.3
4	HRM functions are being handled by a department/unit which does not combine it with other specialized unit/function.	Freq.	19	52	58	101	240	402	4.974	2.939
		Perc.	2.1	6.0	6.7	11.6	27.5	46.5
5	HR unit is expected to have inter-functional processes with other specialized units	Freq.	21	42	90	126	201	414	4.808	2.775
		Perc.	2.3	4.7	10.1	14.1	22.5	46.3
6	HR processes are separately practiced and evaluated as a contributing unit in the organization.	Freq.	32	71	88	124	141	32	3.752	2.739
		Perc.	6.55	14.54	18.03	25.40	28.89	6.55
7	HR functions, processes and routines are aligned with the overall organizational processes	Freq.	20	88	71	101	205	406	4.886	2.853
		Perc.	2.2	9.9	8.0	11.3	23.0	45.6
8	Only licensed HRM practitioners do head the HRM functions in your organization.	Freq.	83	86	109	127	181	301	4.285	2.256
		Perc.	9.4	9.7	12.3	14.3	20.4	33.9
	Grand Mean								4.779

Source: Field Survey Result, 2016

Interpretation

Table 4.20 presents the opinion of the respondents on the extent of adherence to best practice on different aspects of the internal environment of the practice of human resource management in their respective organisations. Combining responses for agreement to a “very high”, “high” and “medium” extent, 83.10% of the respondents agreed that their respective institutions use structured evaluation in determining the effectiveness of functions, policies and the system (Mean = 4.889, Standard deviation = 2.856), while 80% agreed that their organizations uses formal overall corporate policy framework in the conduct of the affairs of the organization (Mean = 4.834, Standard deviation = 2.801) as related to corporate governance. 79.5% considered that in their organizations, HRM is expected to play prominent role in corporate planning (Mean = 4.781, Standard deviation = 2.749), while 85.6% of the respondents considered that in their organizations, HRM functions are being handled by a department/unit which does not combine it with other specialized unit/function (Mean = 4.974, Standard deviation = 2.939).

In relation to the place of HR in the organisation structure, 82.9 % of the respondents agreed that HR unit is expected to have inter-functional processes with other specialized units (Mean= 4.808, Standard deviation = 2.775). 60.84% of the respondents believe that HR processes are practiced and evaluated as a contributing unit in their organizations (Mean = 3.75, Standard deviation = 2.739), while 79% of the respondent agreed that HR functions, processes and routines are aligned with the overall organizational processes (Mean = 4.886, standard deviation = 2.853). As related to the integration of HR with other organisation processes, 68.6 % believe that only licensed HRM practitioners do head the HRM functions in their organizations. The grand mean of all these items is 4.779, indicating that a high degree of adherence to best practice in terms of internal environment of human resource management in the selected institutions. The moderating effect of this level of adherence on the relationship between human resource management and corporate entrepreneurship is now tested below:

Research Hypothesis: The internal environment of HRMP will not have any significant moderating effect on the relationship between HRMP and CE

4.2.7. 1. Test of Hypothesis Seven (7)

Hypothesis Seven (H₀₇): The internal environment of the human resource management practices will not have any significant moderating effect on the relationship between human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship. Hierarchical regression models were used to test this hypothesis. To test this, the scores obtained from the respondents on the above environmental factors, the dimensions of HRM practices as well as that of Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions were used. The questions related to each dimension of HRM practices were combined to form a single total average index of HRM practices. For corporate entrepreneurship, data were formed from the combination of questionnaire items relating to proactivity dimension of corporate entrepreneurship (B50 – B54), innovation dimension of corporate entrepreneurship (B55 – B62), and risk taking dimension of corporate entrepreneurship (B63 – B67). The results are presented in Table 4.21

Model_of_the_study_variables'>Table 4.21: Hierarchical Regression Model of the study variables, environment of the human resource management practices (EHRM), human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship

Model	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Beta (1)	SE(1)	Beta (2)	SE(2)	Beta (3)	SE(3)
Recruitment and Selection Practices	.107*	.026	.103*	.026*	.101	2.620
Training and Development Practices	.101*	.025	.092*	.025*	.196	.025
Compensation Management Practices	.194*	.014	.192*	.014*	.016	.025
Performance Appraisal	.014	.029	.011	.028	.125	.014
Industrial Relation Practices	.125*	.014	.120*	.014*	.373	.028
Job Design	.379P	.020	.373*	.020*	-.448	.014
EHRM			.061*	.049*	.512	.020
EHRMxHRMP					.101	.275
F		195.315		169.488		152.554
F Change		195.315		6.885		15.262
R		.752^a		.754		.758^c
R sq		.565		.568		.575
R sq adjusted		.562		.565		.572
R sq change		.565		.003		.007
Std. Error (SE) of the Estimate		3.15409		3.14386		3.11930
*Significant at p<0.05; **Significant at p<0.001 Dependent Variable = Corporate entrepreneurship