The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Ind

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/326596437
The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Industry: With Reference

to Selected Dairy Units in Andhra Pradesh: A Comparative Study
Article in International Journal of Management Studies · July 2018

DOI: 10.18843/ijms/v5i3(4)/12
CITATION READS
1 5,973
2 authors, including:
Shaik Mastan Vali

Malla Reddy Engineering College and Management Sciences, Kistapur,Medchal,Hyderabad
6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Mphil - Thesis View project
Phd Thesis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Shaik Mastan Vali on 04 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Management Studies ISSN(Print) 2249-0302 ISSN (Online)2231-2528
http://www.researchersworld.com/ijms/
DOI : 10.18843/ijms/v5i3(4)/12
DOIURL :http://dx.doi.org/10.18843/ijms/v5i3(4)/12
The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Industry:

with Reference to Selected Dairy Units in Andhra Pradesh:
A Comparative Study
Dr. Battu Nagaraju, Dr. Shaik Mastan Vali,

Professor & Head Departmnet of HRM, Associate Professor & Head Department of
Acharya Nagarjuna University, MBA, Malla Reddy Engineering College and
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. Management Sciences, Kistapur,
Medchal, Hyderabad, India.
ABSTRACT
Human Resource Management (HRM) is a new way of thinking about how people should be
managed as employees in a workplace. Human Resource Management is a strategic and coherent
approach to the management of an organization most valued assets the people working there who
individually & collectively contribute to the achievement of its goals. Human Resource
Management is a Philosophy of people management based on the belief that human resources are
uniquely important to sustained organization success. An organization gains competitive
advantage by using its people effectively drawing on their expertise & ingenuity to meet clearly
defined objectives. The main aim of the report is to study the regarding the HRM practices of
Manpower planning, Recruitment, Selection, HRD (Training and Performance appraisal and
Career Planning and Development). Within the report, a lot of empirical information was
collected, systematized and analyzed, the main part of which is Presented in this report. The
received findings could be implemented in forming of role of HRM in the dairy industry improving
the methodology for collecting statistical information of the respondents, as well as for designing
an perception of the respondents by using the percentage methods in SPSS 17.0 and statistical
tools are used for the study (like Correlation and ANOVA, Cronbach Alpha Test).
Keywords: HRM, Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection, HRD (Training and
Performance appraisal and Career Planning and Development).
INTRODUCTION:
Human resources have been recognized as an indispensable input for the organizational effectiveness and
efficient management. This resource has assumed a critical role to play in the performance and success of the
organizations. The effectiveness of management depends upon optimum utilization of different resources such as
men, money, material, machines, methods, marketing etc. From the many factors listed above, Human Resource
is an important factor because they can think, plan & arrange the work successfully towards the predetermined
goals & objectives. Human resources are not only an important factor of management but they also play an
important role in executing different functions such as planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating &
controlling. Motivated human resources play key role in the success of an organization. Optimum utilization of
this valuable resource becomes specialized branch of Management i.e. Human Resource Management.
Human Resource Management (HRM) Roles include:

(i) Apply quality & productivity principle to improve HRM function. (ii) Make policies clear, consistent and
complementary or 'synergistic'. (iii) Facilitate implementation of quality & productivity interventions. (iv)
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [108]
Attention to such functions as staffing, training, appraisal & compensation to ensure fit with organizations
goals: if goals change, function need to change. The following heads are:
Manpower Planning:
Manpower Planning which is also called as Human Resource Planning consists of putting right number of
people, right kind of people at the right place, right time, doing the right things for which they are suited for the
achievement of goals of the organization. (a) Analyzing the current manpower inventory, (b) Making future
manpower forecasts, (c) Developing employment programmes, (d) Design training programmes. (II)
Recruitment: Recruitment is of two types they are Internal and External Recruitment: (a) Internal Recruitment -
a recruitment which takes place within the concern organization. Internal sources of recruitment are readily
available to an organization. (1) Internal sources are primarily three types: (i) Transfers, (ii) Promotions
(through Internal Job Postings) and (iii) Re-employment of ex-employees. (b) External Recruitment - External
sources of recruitment have to be solicited from outside the organization. The external sources of recruitment
include-: Employment at factory gate, Advertisements, Employment exchanges, Employment agencies,
Educational institutes, Labour contractors, Recommendations etc.(III) Selection: Employee Selection is the
process of putting right men on right job. It is a procedure of matching organizational requirements with the
skills and qualifications of people. Effective selection can be done only when there is effective matching. By
selecting best candidate for the required job, the organization will get quality performance of employees.
Moreover, organization will face less of absenteeism and employee turnover problems. Selection involves
choosing the best candidate with best abilities, skills and knowledge for the required job.
Human resource development:

HRD as those learning experience which are organized, for a specific time, and designed to bring about the
possibility of behavioural change”. Human Resource Development (HRD) is the framework for helping
employees develops their personal and organizational skills, knowledge, and abilities.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Review of the related literature, allows the researcher to acquaint him with the findings of some of the earlier
research studies and the method adopted therein. Such review of literature connected with the HRM
PRACTICES of the study in the dairy units consistent with the review of literature is presented under the
following heads:-Studies conducted to determine the Human Resource Management (HRM) Practices of (1)
Manpower planning, (2) Recruitment and selection, (3) Human Resource Development (Training, Performance
Appraisal, Career Planning and Development).
Studies on Human Resource Planning, Recruitment and Selection and HRD:

Armstrong views Human Resource Management (HRM) is a strategic and coherent approach to the
management of an organization’s most valued assets-the people working there who individually and
collectively contributes to the achievement of the objectives. HRM involves all management decision and
practices that directly affects the people or human resources, who work for the organization. (2) Omoankhanlen
Joseph Akhigbe (2013) Human Resource Planning: A Key Factor in Ensuring the Effectiveness and Efficiency
of Organization. This paper investigates the relative influence of human resource planning (HRP) on the
effectiveness and efficiency of Organization. Effectiveness – being the degree to which the organization is
successful in achieving strategy, mission, and vision. Efficiency – being how well the organization uses its
resources (financial, human, physical, information). The paper is stating that the achieve the goals..
Ms.G.Karthiga (2015), Recruitment and Selection Process Recruitment is the process of searching for
prospective employees and stimulating them to apply for jobs in the organization. Selection may be defined as
the process by which the organization chooses from among the applicants, those people whom they feel would
best meet the job requirement, considering current environmental condition. In today's rapidly changing
business environment, organizations have to respond quickly to requirements for people. Hence, it is important
to have a well-defined recruitment policy in place, which can be executed effectively to get the best fits for the
vacant positions. Selecting the wrong candidate or rejecting the right candidate could turn out to be costly
mistakes for the organization. (4) Mohsin Nadeem (2010) 1 Role of Training in Determining the Employee
Corporate Behavior with Respect to Organizational Productivity: Developing and Proposing a Conceptual
Model In this research, the researchers have proposed a model which focuses on the impact of effectual
corporate behavior on organizational productivity. The researcher examined the relationship between key
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [109]
variables of corporate behavior i.e. employee commitment, employee motivation and job satisfaction on
organizational productivity with assistance of training. Previous literature and my research reveal a positive
correlation between the effective corporate behavior and productivity but with the aid of training and by
controlling unobserved heterogeneity and potential endogeneity.
Maimona Jabeen (2011) 1 Impact of Performance Appraisal on Employees Motivation Appraisal is very
significant tool inside the man supremacy management, stipulation it is conduct properly along with
reasonably, it can carry out the organization to their ambition and the employees determination accomplish
their wellbeing. Within this manuscript I study the sound possessions of concert assessment consequences
taking place the staff enthusiasm."The aptitude to craft superior verdict Vis-à-vis populace corresponds to
solitary of the preceding steadfast foundation of workforce assessment, while exceptionally hardly any
association is good by the side of it. (6) Eliza Antoniu 1 (2010) Career Planning Process and Its Role in
Human Resource Development In his paper addresses specific questions on career planning, activity which
plays an increasingly representative role in the human resources management. People were always concerned
about choosing and building careers to meet their needs and aspirations. Career planning process involves
both individual and organization responsibility. In the contemporary business environment, highly
competitive, we find that career management responsibility rests increasingly on the individ uals.
Organizations also play an important role; its need to have and maintain a competent staff, considered as the
main source for obtaining competitive advantage, most advanced companies develop and apply an integrated
management career system, beneficial both for themselves and for their employees.
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

In this Research Methodology includes the Statement of Problem, Research Gap, Objectives of the study,
Hypothesis of the study, and Data Collection. The researcher also described the processing of data by adopting
the Statistical Tools of the study are Mean, Standard Deviation, Cronbach Alpha test, Correlation and ANOVA,
and Limitations of the study.
Statement of the problem:

The Statement of the Study is stating that the Role of the Human Resource Management (HRM) Practices of the
selected Variables of “Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection, Human Resource Development – HRD
(Training and Development, Performance Appraisal and Career Planning and Development) in the selected
dairy units in Andhra Pradesh, a comparative statement has been under taken for this study.
Objectives of the study:

(1) to study the perception of the employees on role of HRM Practices in the Selected Four Dairy units in
Andhra Pradesh, (2) To analyze the Impact of the Human Resource Management (HRM) in the Selected Four
Dairy units in Andhra Pradesh, (3) To offer suggestions to Improve the Human Resource Management (HRM)
in the Selected Four Dairy units in Andhra Pradesh.
Hypothesis of the study:

(1) Null Hypothesis: Ho: There is no significant relationship between HRM practices and the four dairy units,
(2) Alternate Hypothesis: H1: There is significant relationship between HRM practices and the four dairy units.
Data collections:
The information and data for the present study has been obtained from both the primary and secondary
resources from the select the Four Dairy units of Andhra Pradesh. (A) Primary Data: The researcher has
collected the data by distributing the questionnaire to respondents in four dairy units such as Heritage Dairy,
Jersey Dairy, Dodla Dairy, and Thirumala Dairy. The data was collected through observation and
interviewing the respondents. (B) Secondary Data: Available Books, Thesis and Dissertation, Published
research studies, journals, reports, articles, research papers, etc. Data through internet source and Annual
Reports of the selected Dairy.
Universe and Sample Size:

Simple Random sampling technique was adopted to choose the respondents from the universe in the selected
dairy units under study.
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [110]

Table 1: Universe and sample size:

Total
S.No Dairy Units
Universe Sample% Sample Size
1 Heritage Dairy 1500 75 75
2 Thirumala Dairy 1500 75 75
3 Jersey Dairy 1500 75 75
4 Dodla Dairy 1500 75 75
Total 6000 300 300
From the Table 1 stating that the four Dairy units of Heritage Dairy, Jersey Dairy, Thirumala Dairy and Dodla
Dairy of total employees are 6000, the sample size are taken at 5% in Heritage Dairy, Jersey Dairy, Thirumala
Dairy, Dodla Dairy . The filled questionnaires are collected in Heritage Dairy-75, Jersey Dairy-75, Thirumala
Dairy-75, and Dodla Dairy 75.
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SELECTD FOUR DAIRY

UNITS UNDER STUDY:
The respondents in the four Dairy units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla are satisfied with the variables of
the study are Manpower Planning, Recruitment and selection, Human Resource Development (Training Performance
Appraisal and Career Development). The researcher used the statistical tools of Mean and standard deviation of the
four Dairy units. It states the mean values of employees are satisfied with the parameters of the study.
Table 2: what is the overall opinion on the HRM practices in the Dairy Unit:
Dairy Units
S.No Opinion Heritage Thirumala Jersey Dodla Total
F % F % F % F % F %
1 Excellent 01 1.3 01 1.3 02 2.7 02 2.7 06 2
2 Very Good 02 2.7 20 26.7 10 13.3 10 13.3 42 14
3 Good 59 78.7 48 64 45 60.0 45 60.0 197 65.66
4 Average 13 17.3 05 6.7 18 24.0 18 24.0 54 18
5 Poor 0 0 01 1.3 0 0 0 0 01 0.33
Total 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 300 100
From the above table 2 designs that the overall opinion on the HRM practices in the Dairy Unit. In the Heritage
Dairy the respondents opine that Good are 78.7%,Thirumala Dairy Good are 64%, Jersey Dairy Good are 60%,
Dodla Dairy the respondents opine that Good are 60%.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

This Study has analyzed the data from four Dairy Units of Heritage Dairy, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla. The
researcher has taken the aspects of Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection, HRD (Training and
Development, Performance Appraisal and Career Planning and Development) by comparing the Four Dairy
Units the researcher has taken the statistical tools of Mean, Standard Deviation, Cronbach Alpha ANOVA,
and Correlation.
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for the four Dairy units of Heritage, Thirumala,
Jersey and Dodla Dairy for Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection - HRD
Heritage Dairy Thirumala Dairy Jersey Dairy Dodla Dairy
N Std. Std. Std. Std.
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation
Q1 - Are you aware of the
manpower planning procedure in 75 1.2933 .45836 1.2933 .45836 1.1733 .38108 1.1200 .32715
the Dairy Unit
Q2 – Is Recruitment and selection
is done systematically in the 75 1.2533 .46770 1.4533 .55247 1.5867 .54756 1.3733 .53960
Dairy Unit on regular basis
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [111]

Heritage Dairy Thirumala Dairy Jersey Dairy Dodla Dairy

N Std. Std. Std. Std.
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation
Q3 – Have the employee satisfied
with recruitment and selection 75 2.4800 .84406 2.4800 .70443 2.4800 .96366 1.9200 .92649
process in the Dairy Unit
Q4- The Mode of selection is
75 2.0667 .37966 1.9733 .16219 2.1867 .39227 2.0933 .33585
based on
Q5-What is the opinion of the
selection procedure of the Dairy 75 1.9200 .51360 1.9467 .27964 2.4000 .90045 1.9067 .57359
Unit
Q6- Is Induction Programme
properly implemented after the 75 1.0800 .27312 1.0667 .25112 1.2000 .40269 1.1333 .34222
selection process
Q7- Are you satisfied with the
induction and orientation 75 1.0667 .25112 1.0800 .27312 1.1467 .35616 1.1467 .35616
programme in the Dairy Unit
Q8- Did the employee receive any
75 1.4800 .50296 1.5067 .50332 1.3733 .48695 1.3378 .47620
promotion
Q9- Is Internal Promotions are
75 1.0267 .16219 1.0000 .00000 1.0667 .25112 1.2000 .40269
given importance in the dairy unit
Q10- Does the Dairy Unit strictly
75 1.9467 .46188 2.0533 .36367 1.8267 .47572 1.6667 .68445
following promotional policies
Q11- What is the mode of
promotion in the Dairy Unit
Human Resource Development 75 2.9600 .53119 3.0133 .50653 2.7333 .75933 2.6133 .88369
(Training , Performance Appraisal
and Career Development
Q12- Are the employee satisfied
with the procedure of identifying 75 3.6267 .58756 3.6000 .67783 3.0800 .80135 3.5333 1.00449
the training needs in the dairy unit
Q13- Have the employee been
satisfied by attending training 75 1.1467 .39227 1.1600 .49429 1.2000 .43496 1.1467 .45599
programme in the Dairy Unit
Q14- Which type of training
75 1.0533 .36367 .9867 .11547 1.2400 .63331 1.2000 .51988
programme would employee prefer
Q15- Does the Dairy unit provide
the following facilities while 75 1.7467 1.01467 2.0133 1.15657 2.4267 .87261 2.3600 .98145
sending for training programme
Q16- Have the employee ever
faced any problem while 75 1.4533 1.26591 1.1200 .94383 2.5467 1.57937 2.6133 1.39394
attending training programme
Q17- Are the employee aware of
the performance appraisal reports 75 2.1333 .92024 1.8933 .84747 2.2400 .98420 2.0533 1.06407
in the Dairy Unit
Q18- Performance Appraisal
75 3.6667 .75933 3.6000 .80539 3.8000 .56949 3.5733 .93250
duration period in the Dairy Unit
Q19- What method of appraisal is
75 2.2667 .72286 2.1467 .56217 2.1333 .52847 2.2667 .75933
followed in the Dairy Unit
Q20- Are the employee satisfied
with the performance appraisal 75 3.8267 .44641 3.6533 .72584 3.1733 .82811 3.6133 .89885
system of the Dairy Unit
The problems and challenges that dairy units face today are numerous. This aspect is dominant in management
of dairy units in Andhra Pradesh. No scientific methods of selection, training and placement are followed in the
co-operatives. The result is widespread dis-satisfaction among the employees causing a low level of
performance in the organization. This may also affect the motivation of the employees to work. The respondents
in the four Dairy units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla are satisfied with the selected variables of the
study. It states the mean values of employees are satisfied with the parameters of the study.
Table 4: Cronbach Alpha Table for the Four Dairy units:

Cronbach Alpha Heritage Dairy Thirumala Dairy Jersey Dairy Dodla Dairy
No.of.Items – 61 0.860 0.760 0.867 0.764
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [112]

The Number of items is taken for the study 61 with the parameters of selected variables for the study. For the
four dairy units of Heritage value is 0.860, Thirumala is 0.760, Jersey is 0.867 and Dodla is 0.764. The value of
four dairy units is above 0.87 so it proves the reliability is very strong for the four dairy units.
Hypothesis:
(a) Ho: Null Hypothesis- There is no significance difference in the means of opinion of the Age and Manpower
planning infour Dairy Units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units. (b) H 1: Alternate Hypothesis-
There is significance difference in the means of opinion of the Age and Manpower planning in four Dairy Units
of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units.
Table 5: ANOVA Table for Heritage and Thirumala for Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection:
HERITAGE DAIRY THIRUMALA DAIRY
Sum of Mean Sum of Mean
df F Sig. df F Sig.
SQuares SQuare SQuares SQuare
Between Groups 3.797 2 1.898 11.632 .000 .965 2 .483 2.384 .099
Q1 Within Groups 11.750 72 .163 14.581 72 .203
Total 15.547 74 15.547 74
Between Groups 5.887 2 2.943 12.690 .000 .078 2 .039 .175 .840
Q2 Within Groups 16.700 72 .232 16.108 72 .224
Total 22.587 74 16.187 74
Between Groups 7.309 2 3.654 8.946 .000 .361 2 .181 .248 .781
Q3 Within Groups 29.411 72 .408 52.359 72 .727
Total 36.720 74 52.720 74
Between Groups .347 2 .173 7.800 .001 .251 2 .125 .867 .425
Q4 Within Groups 1.600 72 .022 10.416 72 .145
Total 1.947 74 10.667 74
Between Groups .259 2 .129 1.686 .192 .443 2 .222 .836 .438
Q5 Within Groups 5.528 72 .077 19.077 72 .265
Total 5.787 74 19.520 74
Between Groups .206 2 .103 1.659 .198 .232 2 .116 1.581 .213
Q6 Within Groups 4.461 72 .062 5.288 72 .073
Total 4.667 74 5.520 74
Between Groups .170 2 .085 1.144 .324 .342 2 .171 2.846 .065
Q7 Within Groups 5.350 72 .074 4.325 72 .060
Total 5.520 74 4.667 74
Between Groups 5.619 2 2.809 15.409 .000 3.831 2 1.916 9.263 .000
Q8 Within Groups 13.128 72 .182 14.889 72 .207
Total 18.747 74 18.720 74
Between Groups .000 2 .000 . . .049 2 .025 .934 .398
Q9 Within Groups .000 72 .000 1.897 72 .026
Total .000 74 1.947 74
Between Groups .076 2 .038 .280 .757 .465 2 .232 1.092 .341
Q10 Within Groups 9.711 72 .135 15.322 72 .213
Total 9.787 74 15.787 74
Between Groups .009 2 .004 .017 .983 1.062 2 .531 1.930 .153
Q11 Within Groups 18.978 72 .264 19.818 72 .275
Total 18.987 74 20.880 74
The employees are aware of the manpower planning procedure in the Heritage Dairy unit are satisfactory at
significant value is (0.000) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference
means of opinion of the employees between the Age and Manpower planning Recruitment and Selection. In
Thirumala Dairy the significant value is (0.099) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no
significant difference in means of opinion of employees in Dairy. 2) The recruitment and selection is done
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [113]

systematically in the dairy unit on regular basis are satisfactory at significant value is (0.000) so it proves that
Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees
between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Thirumala Dairy the significant
value is (0.840) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of
opinion of employees in Dairy.
The employees are satisfied with the recruitment and selection process in the dairy unit the significant value is
(0.000) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in the means of opinion
of the employees between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Thirumala Dairy
the significant value is (0.781) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in
means of opinion of employees in Dairy. 4) The Mode of selection is based on in the dairy unit the significant
value is (0.001) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in the means of
opinion of the employees between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the
significant difference in means of opinion of employees in Dairy.
Is induction programme properly implemented after the selection procedure the significant value is (0.198) so it
proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the
employees between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Thirumala Dairy the
significant value is (0.213) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in
means of opinion of employees in Dairy.
The Dairy Unit strictly following the promotional policies the significant value is (0.757) so it proves that Null
Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the
Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Thirumala Dairy the significant value is (0.341)
it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is significant difference in means of opinion of employees. 10)
The mode of promotion in the dairy unit the significant value is (0.983) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is
accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the Age and
Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Thirumala Dairy the significant value is (0.153) it proves
that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in means of opinion of employees.
Table 6: ANOVA Table for Jersey and Dodla for Manpower Planning ,Recruitment and Selection:
JERSEY DODLA
Df F Sig. df F Sig.
Between Groups .437 3 .146 1.004 .396 .153 1 .153 1.438 .234
Q1 Within Groups 10.309 71 .145 7.767 73 .106
Total 10.747 74 7.920 74
Between Groups .997 3 .332 1.113 .350 .276 1 .276 .948 .333
Q2 Within Groups 21.190 71 .298 21.270 73 .291
Total 22.187 74 21.547 74
Between Groups 3.290 3 1.097 1.190 .320 .395 1 .395 .456 .501
Q3 Within Groups 65.430 71 .922 63.125 73 .865
Total 68.720 74 63.520 74
Between Groups .120 3 .040 .252 .860 .042 1 .042 .371 .544
Q4 Within Groups 11.267 71 .159 8.304 73 .114
Total 11.387 74 8.347 74
Between Groups .644 3 .215 .257 .856 .008 1 .008 .025 .875
Q5 Within Groups 59.356 71 .836 24.338 73 .333
Total 60.000 74 24.347 74
Between Groups .419 3 .140 .856 .468 .066 1 .066 .560 .457
Q6 Within Groups 11.581 71 .163 8.601 73 .118
Total 12.000 74 8.667 74
Between Groups .091 3 .030 .231 .875 .000 1 .000 .002 .965
Q7 Within Groups 9.296 71 .131 9.386 73 .129
Total 9.387 74 9.387 74
Between Groups 2.113 3 .704 3.240 .027 .942 1 .942 4.345 .041
Q8 Within Groups 15.434 71 .217 15.612 72 .217
Total 17.547 74 16.554 73
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [114]

JERSEY DODLA
Df F Sig. df F Sig.
Between Groups .178 3 .059 .941 .426 .004 1 .004 .021 .884
Q9 Within Groups 4.488 71 .063 11.996 73 .164
Total 4.667 74 12.000 74
Between Groups 1.628 3 .543 2.548 .063 .156 1 .156 .330 .567
Q10 Within Groups 15.119 71 .213 34.511 73 .473
Total 16.747 74 34.667 74
Between Groups 1.851 3 .617 1.073 .366 .015 1 .015 .019 .891
Q11 Within Groups 40.816 71 .575 57.772 73 .791
Total 42.667 74 57.787 74
The employees are aware of the manpower planning procedure in the Jersey Dairy unit are satisfactory at
significant value is (0.396) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference means
of opinion of the employees between the Age and Manpower planning Recruitment and Selection. In Dodla Dairy
the significant value is (0.234) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in
means of opinion of employees in Dairy. 2) The recruitment and selection is done systematically in the Jersey
dairy unit on regular basis are satisfactory at significant value is (0.350) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is
accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the Age and
Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Dodla Dairy the significant value is (0.333) it proves that
Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of employees in Dairy.
The employees are satisfied with the recruitment and selection process in the Jersey dairy unit the significant
value is (0.320) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in the means
of opinion of the employees between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Dodla
Dairy the significant value is (0.501) it proves that Null Hypothesisis accepted so there is no significant
difference in means of opinion of employees in Dairy. 4) The Mode of selection is based on in the dairy unit the
significant value is (0.860) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in
the means of opinion of the employees between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In
the Dodla Dairy the significant value is (0.544) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no
The opinion of selection process procedure on the Jersey dairy unit the significant value is (0.856) so it proves
that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees
between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Dodla Dairy the significant value
is (0.875) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of
employees in Dairy. 5) Is induction programme properly implemented after the selection procedure the
the means of opinion of the employees between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In
the Dodla Dairy the significant value is (0.457) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no
The internal promotion is given importance in the dairy unit the significant value is (0.426) so it proves that
Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees
between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the DodlaDairy the significant value is
(0.884) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of
employees. 9) The jersey Dairy Unit strictly following the promotional policies the significant value is (0.063)
so it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the
employees between the Age and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. In the Dodla Dairy the
significant value is (0.567) it proves that Null Hypothesis is not accepted so there is a significant difference in
means of opinion of employees.
Analysis :
The researcher has found that there is no significant difference in means of opinion of the employee in the four
dairy units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Dairy units of Andhra Pradesh with the variable of Age
and Manpower planning, Recruitment and Selection. The employees in the four dairy units are satisfied with the
recruitment, selection and induction programmes conducted in the four dairy units.
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [115]

Hypothesis:
(a) Ho: Null Hypothesis- There is no significance difference in the means of opinion of the Designation and
HRD infour Dairy Units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units. (b) H 1: Alternate Hypothesis- There is
significance difference in the means of opinion of the Designation and HRD in four Dairy Units of Heritage,
Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units.
Table 7: ANOVA Table for Heritage and Thirumala Dairy of Human Resource Development:
JERSEY DODLA
Df F Sig. df F Sig.
Between Groups 1.023 3 .341 .734 .535 1.818 3 .606 1.813 .152
Q12 Within Groups 32.977 71 .464 23.728 71 .334
Total 34.000 74 25.547 74
Between Groups .060 3 .020 .079 .971 .084 3 .028 .176 .913
Q13 Within Groups 18.020 71 .254 11.303 71 .159
Total 18.080 74 11.387 74
Between Groups .009 3 .003 .227 .877 .127 3 .042 .311 .817
Q14 Within Groups .977 71 .014 9.660 71 .136
Total .987 74 9.787 74
Between Groups 5.294 3 1.765 1.337 .269 .849 3 .283 .267 .849
Q15 Within Groups 93.692 71 1.320 75.337 71 1.061
Total 98.987 74 76.187 74
Between Groups 10.041 3 3.347 4.253 .008 6.709 3 2.236 1.419 .244
Q16 Within Groups 55.879 71 .787 111.877 71 1.576
Total 65.920 74 118.587 74
Between Groups 8.982 3 2.994 4.813 .004 1.041 3 .347 .400 .754
Q17 Within Groups 44.165 71 .622 61.626 71 .868
Total 53.147 74 62.667 74
Between Groups 3.739 3 1.246 1.999 .122 4.206 3 1.402 2.588 .060
Q18 Within Groups 44.261 71 .623 38.461 71 .542
Total 48.000 74 42.667 74
Between Groups 3.253 3 1.084 3.824 .013 1.153 3 .384 .728 .539
Q19 Within Groups 20.133 71 .284 37.513 71 .528
Total 23.387 74 38.667 74
Between Groups .288 3 .096 .176 .912 1.146 3 .382 1.994 .123
Q20 Within Groups 38.698 71 .545 13.601 71 .192
Total 38.987 74 14.747 74
The employees are satisfied with the procedure of identifying the training needs in the Heritage dairy unit the
the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation. In the Thirumala Dairy the
means of opinion of employees.2) The employees have been benefitted by attending training programme in the
Heritage dairy unit the significant value is (0.971) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no
significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation In the
significant difference in means of opinion of employees.
The employees have ever faced any problem while attending the training programme in the Heritage dairy unit
the significant value is (0.008) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in
the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation In the Thirumala Dairy the
means of opinion of employees. 6. The employees are aware of the performance appraisal reports in the
Heritage dairy unit the significant value is (0.004) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a
significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation In the
significant difference in means of opinion of employees
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [116]

Performance appraisal duration period in the Heritage dairy unit the significant value is (0.122) so it proves that
between the HRD and Designation In the Thirumala Dairy the significant value is (0.060) it proves that Null
Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of employees. 8. The method of
appraisal is followed in the dairy unit the significant value is (0.013) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is
rejected so there is a significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and
Designation In the Thirumala Dairy the significant value is (0.539) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so
there is no significant difference in means of opinion of employees.
The employees are satisfied with the performance appraisal system the dairy unit the significant value is (0.013)
so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in the means of opinion of the
employees between the HRD and Designation In the Thirumala Dairy the significant value is (0.539) it proves
that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of employees.
Table 8: ANOVA Table for Jersey and Dodla Dairy for Human Resource Development:
JERSEY DODLA
Df F Sig. df F Sig.
Between Groups .405 3 .135 .204 .894 9.808 4 2.452 2.647 .040
Q12 Within Groups 47.115 71 .664 64.858 70 .927
Total 47.520 74 74.667 74
Between Groups .915 3 .305 1.654 .185 1.385 4 .346 1.731 .153
Q13 Within Groups 13.085 71 .184 14.002 70 .200
Total 14.000 74 15.387 74
Between Groups .414 3 .138 .335 .800 .347 4 .087 .309 .871
Q14 Within Groups 29.266 71 .412 19.653 70 .281
Total 29.680 74 20.000 74
Between Groups 4.798 3 1.599 2.203 .095 6.418 4 1.605 1.732 .153
Q15 Within Groups 51.549 71 .726 64.862 70 .927
Total 56.347 74 71.280 74
Between Groups 13.047 3 4.349 1.800 .155 8.751 4 2.188 1.134 .348
Q16 Within Groups 171.539 71 2.416 135.036 70 1.929
Total 184.587 74 143.787 74
Between Groups .434 3 .145 .144 .933 12.338 4 3.084 3.022 .023
Q17 Within Groups 71.246 71 1.003 71.449 70 1.021
Total 71.680 74 83.787 74
Between Groups .874 3 .291 .894 .448 1.504 4 .376 .419 .794
Q18 Within Groups 23.126 71 .326 62.842 70 .898
Total 24.000 74 64.347 74
Between Groups .569 3 .190 .670 .573 .502 4 .125 .208 .933
Q19 Within Groups 20.098 71 .283 42.165 70 .602
Total 20.667 74 42.667 74
Between Groups 3.779 3 1.260 1.904 .137 3.597 4 .899 1.120 .354
Q20 Within Groups 46.968 71 .662 56.190 70 .803
Total 50.747 74 59.787 74
The employees are satisfied with the procedure of identifying the training needs in the Jersey dairy unit the
the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation. In the Dodla Dairy the significant
opinion of employees.2) The employees have been benefitted by attending training programme in the Jersey
Dairy unit the significant value is (0.185) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant
difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation In the Dodla Dairy the
means of opinion of employees.
The employees have ever faced any problem while attending the training programme in the Jersey dairy unit the
significant value is (0.155) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in the
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [117]

means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation In the Dodla Dairy the significant value
is (0.348) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of
employees. 6. The employees are aware of the performance appraisal reports in the Jersey dairy unit the
significant value is (0.933) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is significant difference in the
means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and Designation In the Dodla Dairy the a significant
opinion of employees.
Performance appraisal duration period in the Jersey dairy unit the significant value is (0.448) so it proves that
between the HRD and Designation In the Dodla Dairy the significant value is (0.744) it proves that Null
Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of employees. 8) The method of
appraisal is followed in the dairy unit the significant value is (0.573) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is
accepted so there is no significant difference in the means of opinion of the employees between the HRD and
Designation In the Dodla Dairy the significant value is (0.933) it proves that Null Hypothesis is accepted so
there is no significant difference in means of opinion of employees.
9) The employees are satisfied with the performance appraisal system in the dairy unit the significant value is
(0.137) so it proves that Null Hypothesis is rejected so there is a significant difference in the means of opinion
of the employees between the HRD and Designation In the Dodla Dairy the significant value is (0.354) it proves
that Null Hypothesis is accepted so there is no significant difference in means of opinion of employees.
Analysis:
In Human Resource Development ( Training, Performance Appraisal and Career Development) the employees
according to their designation provides the training needs, Performance appraisal reports provided to the
employees as per the norms of the Dairy units. Through this hypothesis it proves that there is no difference in
means of opinion of employees in the four dairy units of Heritage, Thirumala, Dodla, and Jersey dairies.
Hypothesis:
(a) Ho: Null Hypothesis- There is no significance difference in the means of opinion of the Salary and
Compensation in four Dairy Units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units. (b) H 1: Alternate
Hypothesis- There is significance difference in the means of opinion of the Salary and Compensation in four
Dairy Units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units.
Table 9: Correlation Table for Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection in Heritage Dairy:
HERITAGE
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11
Pearson Correlation 1 .482** 0.102 0.107 0.018 -0.055 -0.082 .636** .a .310** 0.216
Q1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.383 0.362 0.876 0.641 0.484 0 . 0.007 0.063
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .482** 1 .232* 0.137 .334** 0.071 -0.064 .718** .a 0.214 0.123
Q2 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.045 0.242 0.003 0.543 0.583 0 . 0.065 0.293
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.102 .232* 1 .232* .406** -0.031 0.008 0.22 .a 0.057 -0.018
Q3 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.383 0.045 0.045 0 0.795 0.943 0.058 . 0.627 0.877
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.107 0.137 .232* 1 .266* -.288* -.256* 0.002 .a 0.024 0.004
Q4 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.362 0.242 0.045 0.021 0.012 0.026 0.985 . 0.835 0.97
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.018 .334** .406** .266* 1 0.051 -0.12 0.099 .a 0.028 0.005
Q5 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.876 0.003 0 0.021 0.662 0.304 0.4 . 0.809 0.965
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.055 0.071 -0.031 -.288* 0.051 1 .512** 0.157 .a 0.109 0.205
Q6 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.641 0.543 0.795 0.012 0.662 0 0.179 . 0.354 0.077
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.082 -0.064 0.008 -.256* -0.12 .512** 1 0.094 .a 0.093 0.188
Q7 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.484 0.583 0.943 0.026 0.304 0 0.421 . 0.43 0.107
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [118]

HERITAGE
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11
Pearson Correlation .636** .718** 0.22 0.002 0.099 0.157 0.094 1 .a .293* .238*
Q8 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.058 0.985 0.4 0.179 0.421 . 0.011 0.04
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .a .a .a .a .a .a .a .a .a .a .a
Q9 Sig. (2-tailed) . . . . . . . . . .
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .310** 0.214 0.057 0.024 0.028 0.109 0.093 .293* .a 1 .876**
Q10 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.007 0.065 0.627 0.835 0.809 0.354 0.43 0.011 . 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.216 0.123 -0.018 0.004 0.005 0.205 0.188 .238* .a .876** 1
Q11 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.063 0.293 0.877 0.97 0.965 0.077 0.107 0.04 . 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Table 10: Correlation Table for Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection in Thirumala Dairy:
THIRUMALA
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11
Pearson Correlation 1 .279* 0.19 -0.114 0.216 .242* 0.18 .377** -0.107 .266* 0.16
Q1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.015 0.102 0.331 0.063 0.037 0.122 0.001 0.362 0.021 0.171
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .279* 1 0.133 -0.02 .367** .262* .314** .453** 0.088 .314** 0.205
Q2 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.015 0.256 0.863 0.001 0.023 0.006 0 0.453 0.006 0.078
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.19 0.133 1 0.194 .464** -0.169 -0.089 0.087 0.103 0.101 0.104
Q3 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.102 0.256 0.095 0 0.148 0.446 0.46 0.381 0.388 0.376
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.114 -0.02 0.194 1 -0.042 -0.182 -0.047 -0.099 -0.029 -.288* 0.147
Q4 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.331 0.863 0.095 0.723 0.117 0.687 0.398 0.803 0.012 0.207
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.216 .367** .464** -0.042 1 0.143 .251* 0.203 0.188 .267* 0.087
Q5 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.063 0.001 0 0.723 0.222 0.03 0.081 0.106 0.021 0.457
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .242* .262* -0.169 -0.182 0.143 1 .906** 0.209 -0.049 0.034 -0.164
Q6 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.037 0.023 0.148 0.117 0.222 0 0.073 0.678 0.77 0.16
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.18 .314** -0.089 -0.047 .251* .906** 1 .278* -0.044 0.148 0.02
Q7 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.122 0.006 0.446 0.687 0.03 0 0.016 0.706 0.206 0.863
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .377** .453** 0.087 -0.099 0.203 0.209 .278* 1 0.172 .344** 0.123
Q8 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0 0.46 0.398 0.081 0.073 0.016 0.139 0.002 0.291
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.107 0.088 0.103 -0.029 0.188 -0.049 -0.044 0.172 1 -0.161 -.615**
Q9 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.362 0.453 0.381 0.803 0.106 0.678 0.706 0.139 0.167 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .266* .314** 0.101 -.288 *
.267* 0.034 0.148 .344** -0.161 1 .597**
Q10 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.021 0.006 0.388 0.012 0.021 0.77 0.206 0.002 0.167 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.16 0.205 0.104 0.147 0.087 -0.164 0.02 0.123 -.615** .597** 1
Q11 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.171 0.078 0.376 0.207 0.457 0.16 0.863 0.291 0 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [119]

Table 11: Correlation Table for Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection in Jersey Dairy:
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11.
Pearson Correlation 1 0.089 -0.009 -0.039 0.071 -0.141 -0.19 0.011 -0.122 0.019 -0.025
Q1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.448 0.94 0.743 0.546 0.228 0.103 0.928 0.296 0.872 0.832
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.089 1 0.151 -0.202 .340** .319** 0.176 .232* 0.105 .344** 0.089
Q2 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.448 0.197 0.082 0.003 0.005 0.13 0.045 0.371 0.003 0.448
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.009 0.151 1 0.01 0.087 0.063 -0.05 -0.07 0.034 0.066 -0.007
Q3 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.94 0.197 0.932 0.457 0.593 0.668 0.549 0.775 0.574 0.95
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.039 -0.202 0.01 1 0.015 0.103 0.188 -0.158 0.009 -0.114 -0.057
Q4 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.743 0.082 0.932 0.896 0.381 0.106 0.177 0.938 0.33 0.624
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.071 .340** 0.087 0.015 1 0.112 0.067 0.148 -0.179 .259* 0.198
Q5 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.546 0.003 0.457 0.896 0.34 0.565 0.205 0.124 0.025 0.089
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.141 .319** 0.063 0.103 0.112 1 .829** 0.028 .267* 0.183 -0.088
Q6 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.228 0.005 0.593 0.381 0.34 0 0.814 0.02 0.115 0.451
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.19 0.176 -0.05 0.188 0.067 .829** 1 0.07 0.04 0.152 -0.003
Q7 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.103 0.13 0.668 0.106 0.565 0 0.553 0.731 0.193 0.977
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.011 .232* -0.07 -0.158 0.148 0.028 0.07 1 0.015 -0.067 -0.202
Q8 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.928 0.045 0.549 0.177 0.205 0.814 0.553 0.9 0.569 0.082
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.122 0.105 0.034 0.009 -0.179 .267* 0.04 0.015 1 -0.015 -.543**
Q9 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.296 0.371 0.775 0.938 0.124 0.02 0.731 0.9 0.898 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.019 .344** 0.066 -0.114 .259* 0.183 0.152 -0.067 -0.015 1 .394**
Q10 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.872 0.003 0.574 0.33 0.025 0.115 0.193 0.569 0.898 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.025 0.089 -0.007 -0.057 0.198 -0.088 -0.003 -0.202 -.543** .394** 1
Q11 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.832 0.448 0.95 0.624 0.089 0.451 0.977 0.082 0 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Table 12: Correlation Table for Manpower Planning, Recruitment and Selection in Dodla Dairy:
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11
Pearson Correlation 1 .279* .300** 0.02 -0.084 .459** .427** 0.084 0.123 0.121 .256*
Q1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.015 0.009 0.867 0.476 0 0 0.477 0.293 0.302 0.027
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .279* 1 .358** .253* 0.027 .312** .344** .261* 0.149 .451** .250*
Q2 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.015 0.002 0.029 0.82 0.006 0.003 0.025 0.201 0 0.03
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .300** .358** 1 0.111 .291* .332** .282* .260* .261* .277* .259*
Q3 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009 0.002 0.342 0.011 0.004 0.014 0.025 0.024 0.016 0.025
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.02 .253* 0.111 1 0.046 0.125 0.11 0.087 0.16 0.02 0.032
Q4 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.867 0.029 0.342 0.696 0.284 0.348 0.46 0.171 0.867 0.784
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.084 0.027 .291* 0.046 1 -0.005 -0.131 0.018 0.082 0.023 -0.046
Q5 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.476 0.82 0.011 0.696 0.969 0.264 0.878 0.485 0.845 0.698
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .459** .312** .332** 0.125 -0.005 1 .724** 0.136 0.098 0.192 -0.006
Q6 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.006 0.004 0.284 0.969 0 0.25 0.403 0.098 0.96
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Q7 Pearson Correlation .427** .344** .282* 0.11 -0.131 .724** 1 0.103 0.075 .370** 0.011
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [120]

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.003 0.014 0.348 0.264 0 0.382 0.52 0.001 0.926
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.084 .261* .260* 0.087 0.018 0.136 0.103 1 0.066 0.06 0.188
Q8 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.477 0.025 0.025 0.46 0.878 0.25 0.382 0.575 0.609 0.109
N 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74
Pearson Correlation 0.123 0.149 .261* 0.16 0.082 0.098 0.075 0.066 1 .343** 0.22
Q9 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.293 0.201 0.024 0.171 0.485 0.403 0.52 0.575 0.003 0.058
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.121 .451** .277* 0.02 0.023 0.192 .370** 0.06 .343** 1 0.119
Q10 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.302 0 0.016 0.867 0.845 0.098 0.001 0.609 0.003 0.309
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .256* .250* .259* 0.032 -0.046 -0.006 0.011 0.188 0.22 0.119 1
Q11 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.027 0.03 0.025 0.784 0.698 0.96 0.926 0.109 0.058 0.309
N 75 75 75 75 75 74 75 75 75
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Analysis:
There is a positive correlation the Manpower planning, recruitment and selection with the induction and
orientation programme at Pearson correlation value of ( 0.829) and the significant value is (0.000) the null
hypothesis is rejected there is a significant relationship between the Manpower planning, recruitment and
Selection and jersey Dairy . In Dodla Dairy There is a positive correlation for the dairy with the induction and
orientation programme at Pearson correlation value of (0.724) and the significant value (0.000) the null
hypothesis is rejected there is a significant relationship between Manpower planning, recruitment and selection
and Dodla Diary .
Hypothesis:
(a) Ho: Null Hypothesis- There is no significant relationship between Manpower planning and four Dairy Units
of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units. (b) H1: Alternate Hypothesis- There is a significant relationship
between Manpower planning and four Dairy Units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units
Table 13: Correlation Table for HRD in Heritage Dairy Units:

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20
Pearson Correlation 1 -0.008 .622** 0.076 0.182 .278* .322** 0.156 .648**
Q12 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.945 0 0.518 0.119 0.016 0.005 0.181 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.008 1 .275* .256* -0.042 0.041 0.095 .255* -0.069
Q13 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.945 0.017 0.026 0.722 0.725 0.417 0.027 0.555
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .622** .275* 1 0.204 0.139 .261* .523** .447** .589**
Q14 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.017 0.08 0.235 0.023 0 0 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.076 .256* 0.204 1 -0.051 0.153 0.006 0.039 0.006
Q15 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.518 0.026 0.08 0.664 0.19 0.961 0.743 0.962
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.182 -0.042 0.139 -0.051 1 .388** -0.114 0.094 0.042
Q16 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.119 0.722 0.235 0.664 0.001 0.331 0.424 0.722
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .278* 0.041 .261* 0.153 .388** 1 -0.222 .374** 0.093
17 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.016 0.725 0.023 0.19 0.001 0.056 0.001 0.428
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .322** 0.095 .523** 0.006 -0.114 -0.222 1 0.042 .430**
Q18 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005 0.417 0 0.961 0.331 0.056 0.722 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.156 .255* .447** 0.039 0.094 .374** 0.042 1 -0.006
Q19
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.181 0.027 0 0.743 0.424 0.001 0.722 0.958
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [121]

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .648** -0.069 .589** 0.006 0.042 0.093 .430** -0.006 1
Q20 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.555 0 0.962 0.722 0.428 0 0.958
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Table 14: Correlation Table for HRD in Thirumala Dairy Units:

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20
Pearson Correlation 1 -.463** -.285* -0.115 0.14 -.307** 0.02 0.047 .471**
Q12
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.013 0.324 0.232 0.007 0.863 0.691 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.463** 1 .513** 0.061 -0.19 0.095 -0.06 -0.187 -.316**
Q13 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.605 0.102 0.418 0.606 0.107 0.006
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.285* .513** 1 -0.073 -0.024 -0.143 -.228* -0.209 0.058
Q14 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.013 0 0.535 0.839 0.222 0.049 0.072 0.623
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.115 0.061 -0.073 1 -0.109 0.066 0.099 0.057 -0.158
Q15 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.324 0.605 0.535 0.351 0.576 0.396 0.63 0.176
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.14 -0.19 -0.024 -0.109 1 0.226 -.347** 0.221 0.045
Q16 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.232 0.102 0.839 0.351 0.051 0.002 0.057 0.7
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.307** 0.095 -0.143 0.066 0.226 1 -0.187 0.169 -.371**
Q17 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.007 0.418 0.222 0.576 0.051 0.108 0.147 0.001
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.02 -0.06 -.228* 0.099 -.347** -0.187 1 -0.008 -0.013
Q18 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.863 0.606 0.049 0.396 0.002 0.108 0.944 0.91
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.047 -0.187 -0.209 0.057 0.221 0.169 -0.008 1 0.061
Q19 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.691 0.107 0.072 0.63 0.057 0.147 0.944 0.601
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .471** -.316** 0.058 -0.158 0.045 -.371** -0.013 0.061 1
Q20 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.006 0.623 0.176 0.7 0.001 0.91 0.601
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Table 15: Correlation Table for HRD in Jersey Dairy Units:

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20
Pearson Correlation 1 -0.085 -.358** -0.03 0.125 -.247* .569** -.440** .264*
Q12 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.467 0.002 0.797 0.285 0.032 0 0 0.022
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.085 1 -0.029 0.128 0.193 0.076 -0.055 0 -0.06
Q13 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.467 0.802 0.273 0.098 0.518 0.642 1 0.609
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.358** -0.029 1 0.008 -0.079 0.21 -.502** .509** -0.158
Q14 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.802 0.947 0.501 0.071 0 0 0.177
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.03 0.128 0.008 1 .329** -0.137 0.038 -0.037 -0.01
Q15 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.797 0.273 0.947 0.004 0.243 0.746 0.752 0.931
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.125 0.193 -0.079 .329** 1 0.01 0.123 -0.137 .278*
Q16 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.285 0.098 0.501 0.004 0.932 0.292 0.241 0.016
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.247* 0.076 0.21 -0.137 0.01 1 -.371** .405** -0.085
Q17 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.032 0.518 0.071 0.243 0.932 0.001 0 0.469
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Q18 Pearson Correlation .569** -0.055 -.502** 0.038 0.123 -.371** 1 -.898** .304**
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [122]

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.642 0 0.746 0.292 0.001 0 0.008
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.440** 0 .509** -0.037 -0.137 .405** -.898** 1 -.393**
Q19 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 1 0 0.752 0.241 0 0 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .264* -0.06 -0.158 -0.01 .278* -0.085 .304** -.393** 1
Q20 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.022 0.609 0.177 0.931 0.016 0.469 0.008 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Table 16: Correlation Table for HRD in Dodla Dairy Units:

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20
Pearson Correlation 1 -.232* -0.104 0.036 0.033 -0.141 0.044 -.295* .456**
Q12 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.045 0.377 0.761 0.776 0.228 0.706 0.01 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.232* 1 -0.068 -.271* -0.016 .318** -.391** .354** -.387**
Q13 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.045 0.56 0.019 0.892 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.001
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.104 -0.068 1 .334** 0.052 .347** -.379** .513** -.266*
Q14 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.377 0.56 0.003 0.656 0.002 0.001 0 0.021
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.036 -.271* .334** 1 .291* 0.072 0.082 0.051 0.007
Q15 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.761 0.019 0.003 0.011 0.54 0.487 0.665 0.954
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.033 -0.016 0.052 .291* 1 0.032 0.131 -0.029 0.127
Q16 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.776 0.892 0.656 0.011 0.783 0.262 0.805 0.277
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -0.141 .318** .347** 0.072 0.032 1 -.494** .785** -.402**
Q17 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.228 0.005 0.002 0.54 0.783 0 0 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation 0.044 -.391** -.379** 0.082 0.131 -.494** 1 -.581** .252*
Q18 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.706 0.001 0.001 0.487 0.262 0 0 0.029
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation -.295* .354** .513** 0.051 -0.029 .785** -.581** 1 -.560**
Q19 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01 0.002 0 0.665 0.805 0 0 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Pearson Correlation .456** -.387** -.266* 0.007 0.127 -.402** .252* -.560** 1
Q20 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.001 0.021 0.954 0.277 0 0.029 0
N 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Analysis:
There is a positive correlation between the training needs and performance appraisal duration period in the
Jersey Dairy at Pearson correlation value of ( 0.569) and the significant value is (0.000) the null hypothesis is
rejected there is a significant relationship between the HRD and Jersey Dairy . In Dodla Dairy There is positive
correlation for the dairy type of training programme and method of appraisal at Pearson correlation value of
(0.513) and the significant value (0.000) the null hypothesis is rejected there is a significant relationship
between HRD and Dodla Diary .
Hypothesis:
(a) Ho: Null Hypothesis- There is no significant relationship between Compensation and the four Dairy Units of
Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units, (b) H 1:Alternate Hypothesis- There is a significant relationship
between Compensation and four Dairy Units of Heritage, Thirumala, Jersey and Dodla Units
FINDINGS:
70.7% of the respondents in Heritage Dairy 70.7% in Jersey Dairy 62.7% in Thirumala Dairy 88% of the
respondents in Dodla Dairy are aware of the Manpower planning procedure in the organization. 2) 57.3% of the
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [123]

respondents in Heritage Dairy said that the Recruitment and selection is done systematically, 76% in Jersey
Dairy, 44% in Thirumala Dairy, 65.3% in Dodla Dairy.3) 56% of the respondents in Heritage Dairy, 54.7% in
Jersey Dairy, 37.3% in Thirumala Dairy, 30.7% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy said that they satisfied with
recruitment and selection process.4) 97.3% of the respondents in Heritage Dairy, 93.3% in Jersey Dairy, 81.3%
in Thirumala Dairy, 92% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy said that the mode of selection is based on the
Interview method. 5) 93.3% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy said that the selection procedure is fair,
81.3% in Jersey Dairy, 60% in Thirumala Dairy, 78.7% in Dodla Dairy.
93.3% in Heritage Dairy, 92% in Jersey Dairy, 80% in Thirumala Dairy, and 86.7% of the respondents in Dodla
Dairy said that the induction programme properly implemented after selection process. 6) 92% in Heritage
Dairy, 93.3% in Jersey Dairy, 93.3% in Thirumala Dairy, 85.3% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy said that the
induction programme and orientation programs are satisfied. 7) 49.3% in Heritage Dairy, 52% in Jersey Dairy,
62.7% in Thirumala Dairy, 65.3% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy said that they receive promotion.8) 100%
of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy said that the internal promotion is given importance, 97.3% in Jersey
Dairy, 93.3% in Thirumala Dairy, 80% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy.9) 85.3% in the Heritage Dairy. 84%
in Jersey Dairy, 80% in Thirumala Dairy, 68% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy follow both the seniority and
Merit. 10) 66.7% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy are satisfied with training needs in the dairy unit,
60% in Jersey Dairy, 29.3% in Thirumala Dairy, 69.3% in Dodla Dairy.
11) 85.3% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy are benefitted by attending the training programmes, 86.7%
in Jersey Dairy, 81.3% in Thirumala Dairy, 88% in Dodla Dairy. 12) 22.7% of the respondents in the Heritage
Dairy faced the inconvenient timing for training schedule, 12% in Jersey Dairy, 32.7% in Thirumala
Dairy ,50.7% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy. 12) 48% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy are aware of
performance appraisal reports, 58.7% in Jersey Dairy, 58.7% in Thirumala Dairy, 46.7% in Dodla Dairy. 13)
82.7% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy following the grading method, 76% in Jersey Dairy, 90% in
Thirumala Dairy, 80% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy. 14) 2.7% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy are
satisfied with the career planning programme available for the employees, 72% in Jersey Dairy, 46.7% in
Thirumala Dairy, 78.7% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy. 15) 27% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy
are satisfied with the career areas, 72% in Jersey Dairy are satisfied with the career areas, 46.7% in Thirumala
Dairy are satisfied with the career areas, 78.7% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy are satisfied with the career
areas.16) 84% of the respondents in the Heritage Dairy are satisfied with current developments, 64% in Jersey
Dairy, 64% in Thirumala Dairy, 45.3% of the respondents in Dodla Dairy.
SUGGESTIONS:
The employees have stated that they do not have any idea about the existence of the Personnel/HRM sections,
but the subsequent analysis has shown that they appreciate the selection process, training and development
programmes, and performance appraisal system and hence the employees have to be educated. The Dairy unit
should conduct the meetings frequently to the employees to know about the HRM practices in the industry.2)
The objectives, goals and activities of the dairy units and the category of the job have motivated the employees,
revealing the commitment of the employees towards the principles of dairy unit and the organizations and hence
the department should exploit this factor to the benefit of the organization and betterment of the employees.3)
The rewards given to the employees towards the efforts put-forth by them have been found quite low and hence
the dairy units in the A.P will have to adopt suitable reward system to motivate the employees to work better.
Rewards should be extended to cover job security and other benefits in the form of recognition such as
certificates, valuable others like housing and rent loans that have the potential to be cherished by employees.
Performance appraisals are the best should be held at least every 6 months. More frequent appraisals might be
important if someone changes role (even temporarily) or during times of rapid change or unusual activity in the
organization. For new staff, the employer may want to have monthly meetings followed with a review at the
end of the probationary period. Plan to hold meetings at a time when the workload is not at a peak. It is
important to show that appraisals are part of the normal operations of the business and won’t be put off simply
because another job comes along. There should be adequate notice given to the employee about the purpose and
process involved, as well as inviting them to think about issues they would like to discuss. Employees should
prepare for the appraisal through a 'self review' - ideally using the same performance appraisal sheet that is used
by the reviewer. This will prompt them to think about their achievements and save time in the meeting.5) A
separate Section/Department like Personnel Department/ Human Resource Management Department may be
established for the better the Man Power Planning and Recruiting the employees and make them work better to
achieve the goals of these organizations.
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [124]
The management and the HR department should compulsorily take the opinion and suggestions of the workers
and the employees who participate in the trainings programmes through written feedback or by interviewing
them personally wherever written feedback is not possible. After the successful training completion most of the
employees got more responsibility while some of them were promoted. Giving the employees incentives on
successful completion of the training should be thought of as a motivational scheme as this will increase the
interest of the employees in trainings. As the employees acquire new knowledge, skills or aptitude and apply
them on their job, they should be significantly rewarded for their effort.
CONCLUSION:
The study on the Human Resource Management in the four dairy units have been carried out by evaluating the
employees based on the demographic characteristics first, then source of recruitment motivational factors
influenced the employees. The employees were motivated based on different factors at different levels. The
study covered the Performance Appraisal System and the career planning and career development measures
adopted by the dairy units in giving satisfaction to the employees. The employees have given inconsistent
responses to these due to the less popularity of these measures. The promotional avenue giving job satisfaction
was found that the top level employees had good avenues, but the assistant manager, senior executives felt that
they did not have many avenues to come up. The employees have responded positively by stating that the
promotions were carried out impartially. Majority of the employees are satisfied with the promotional policy.
The rewards given to the efforts put forward were rated by the employees as quiet low. More variables were
given job satisfaction through interpersonal relations.
SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

The present study on “The Role of Human Resource Management in the four dairy units and its impact on
performance of dairy units in A.P, were based on the opinions of managerial 300 employees only. In the course
of the study it was observed that there is a lot of potentiality for future research in the area of cooperatives on:
(1) The type of the leadership, (2) The commitment of the members to the principles cooperation. (3) Preventive
measures for losses of the societies.
REFERENCES:
Armstrong, M. (1995). A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice. London: Kogan page.
Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (2003). Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave
McMillan.
Adams Bob and Peter Veruki, (1997). Streetwise Hiring Top Performers, Adams Media Corporation, 1st
edition, January.
Adams Bob and Peter Veruki, (1997). Streetwise Hiring Top Performers, Adams Media Corporation, 1st
edition, January
Aziz A (1993). Performance Appraisal: Accounting and Quantitative Approaches, Pointer.
WinterSpring 1999. Schuler, R. (1998). Managing Human Resources. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College
Publishing
Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 10th edition, London.
Omoankhanlen Joseph Akhigbe (2013). Human Resource Planning: A Key Factor in Ensuring the Effectiveness
and Efficiency of Organization. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences
(JETEMS) 4(4):388-396 © Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2013 (ISSN: 2141-7024) jetems.
Ms.G.Karthiga (2015). Recruitment and Selection Process. International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, Volume 5, Issue 4, April 2015 ISSN 2250-3153
MohsinNadeem (2010). Fauji Foundation Institute of Engineering and Management Sciences (FUIEMS)
Islamabad, Pakistan International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
Maimona Jabeen (2011). Impact of Performance Appraisal on Employees Motivation. European Journal of
Business and Management, ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol 3, No.4, 2011
Eliza Antoniu1 (2010). Annals of the University of Petroşani, Economics, 10(2), 2010,13-22
Smith, Herman W., (1991). Strategies of Social Research (3rd ed.,) Orlando, FL, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Burns, RoberB.,M (1994). Introduction to Research Method (2nd ed.) Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.
----
Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [125]
View publication stats

The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Ind

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Ind

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Ind

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Industry: With Reference

Article in International Journal of Management Studies · July 2018

Shaik Mastan Vali

Mphil - Thesis View project

Phd Thesis View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Role of Human Resource Management in Dairy Industry:

Dr. Battu Nagaraju, Dr. Shaik Mastan Vali,

Human Resource Management (HRM) Roles include:

Human resource development:

Studies on Human Resource Planning, Recruitment and Selection and HRD:

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

Statement of the problem:

Objectives of the study:

Hypothesis of the study:

Universe and Sample Size:

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [110]

Table 1: Universe and sample size:

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SELECTD FOUR DAIRY

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [111]

Heritage Dairy Thirumala Dairy Jersey Dairy Dodla Dairy

Table 4: Cronbach Alpha Table for the Four Dairy units:

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [112]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [113]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [114]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [115]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [116]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [117]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [118]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [119]

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [120]

Table 13: Correlation Table for HRD in Heritage Dairy Units:

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [121]

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

Table 14: Correlation Table for HRD in Thirumala Dairy Units:

Table 15: Correlation Table for HRD in Jersey Dairy Units:

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [122]

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

Table 16: Correlation Table for HRD in Dodla Dairy Units:

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [123]

SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

Vol.–V, Issue –3(4), July 2018 [125]

View publication stats

You might also like