Organization management strategy for Generation Y performance sustainability

Abstract

This paper examines an under explored and integrated organization management strategy issue for the enhancement of the organizational performance. Considering two critical domains namely Human Resource and Organizational Development as theorised by this study is motivated by extend of the influence of those domains on the Generation Y staff of a GLC company in Malaysia. The simple random sampling of a total of 550 questionnaires distributed, where the researcher was able to collect about 506 completed forms or 92% rate of return that was later analysed. The research findings suggested that training and development is most significant and dominant dimension of HR system. Whereas organizational culture is confirmed to be the significant dimension of organisational development. Based on the Re-Specified model of organization management, results also showed that Human Resource system has a direct significant effect on employees’ performance as compared to Organizational Development. It is found a non-significant influence of model on the performance of employees, which is driven to review the organization management strategy by the managers, executives and professionals. The research contributes with the sustainable enhancement of organizational performance model while driving for purpose driven work, rewards, work-life flexibility, among the generation Y workforce.

Impact Statement

The organization management for the generation Y performance reflects the general readers and specific stakeholders to implement the performance, engagement and retention in any organization. The research findings are relevant for the multidimensional stakeholders those are required towards the development of policy frameworks based on the validation of results from PLS-SEM model. The analytics and data interpretation extends the organizational decision-making process while supporting the efficient experience of generation Y workforce that must be part of organizations. The review of HR policies for the organizations is indicating through this research which can better demonstrate the value of consistent training to organize the smooth environment and development of the workplace.

Keywords:

• Management
• organization
• performance
• strategy
• sustainability

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Huifen (Helen) Cai, Middlesex University Business School, United Kingdom

SUBJECTS:

• Organizational Communication
• Sustainable Development
• Business, Management and Accounting

Introduction

Organization Management is the implementation of integrated strategies to increase workplace productivity and organizational effectiveness. It is by developing improved processes of attracting, developing, retaining, and utilizing people with the required skills and aptitude to meet current and business needs (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2017; Kamali & Hewage, 2017; Morgan & Jardin, 2010; Naim & Lenka, 2018; Schaltegger & Hörisch, 2017). Since its introduction in late 1990s, there have been rapid changes in employees’ profile and the challenge of management which is becoming complicated as these have to manage the new breed of employees, Generation Y.

For generation Y, this research is essential with the research gap that is to identify the critical variables for talent management process in MARA organizations (Rosa et al., 2021; Stanitsas et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2017). These variables will be grouped to form a set of employee value metrics (EVM), to be a basis for evaluating employees’ performance (Alam & Kuppusamy, 2023). For that matter, it is justified for this research to develop a rigorous, comprehensive, and integrated talent management model in which critical employee value metrics (EVM) are identified and form the basis for talent management index and measurement. The practice and use of EVM should focus on relevant and measurable outcomes that drive the organizations towards peak performance, that is supported by academic interventions for talent management (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019; Elia et al., 2017; Lopes et al., 2017).

Talent management

Talent Management is the set of human resource management tools that enable an organization to attract, effectively use and keep employees that make a significant contribution to the company development (Cantele & Zardini, 2018; Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017). On the other hand, some researchers identified talent management as a collection of human resource practices, functions, activities such as recruiting selection, development and career and succession management. The term talent management, which emerged in 1990, refers to the activities in the field of personnel management, aiming to involve employees in the innovation process.

In this process of innovation in the globalization era, it is undeniable that talent management for inter-generation, especially for Generation Y is becoming crucial for all organizations. Considering the recent change in employment pool, previous approaches used may not be effective (Martins et al., 2019; Soh et al., 2017; Wijethilake et al., 2018). Generation Y are seen to be highly mobilized and techno-savvy as information can be exchanged easily and fluidity in work and job hopping is seen obvious nowadays. Relations among the generation seem to be at a low point, as Gen Y (defined as people born after 1980s) thinks Gen X (spawned between 1961 and 1980) is a bunch of whiners (Zhang et al., 2018: Abdul-Rashid et al., 2017). Gen X sees Gen Y as arrogant and entitled, while the Baby Boomers (1943–1960) are self-absorbed workaholics (Williams, 2013; Wijethilake et al., 2017).

Generation Y and workplace

Many scholars and researchers agreed that the word ‘generation’ refers to the people who born within the same birth year, age, and raised in the same time span. Generation Y has also been referred to with many labels including Generation Dot-com, Millenials, EchoBoomers, Bridgers, NeXters, Net Generation, First Digitals, Trophy Generation, and C-Generation (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018; Naim & Lenka, 2018). As this generation born during the technology boom, it is said to be people with technology savvy which knows more about digital world than the previous generation.

Unlike the previous generation in the work market, this gen Y is said to be confident, independent, goal-oriented, and high self-esteemed (Daowd et al., 2020; Queiri & Madbouly, 2017) argued that Generation Ys enter a workplace that has become highly networked, team-based, knowledge-intensive and predictably unpredictable; and they are adapting accordingly, developing behaviors that seem to them best suited to the 21st Century workplace they experience (Horváthová et al., 2019; Otaigbe & Beehner, 2019). Hence, the work ethics of gen Y is perceived to be of different dimensions from the work ethics of the gen X or the baby boomers.

Concept of Gen Y in relation to their workplace

The characteristics of Generation Y regard their careers to be numerous and wide ranging. Generation Y is widely considered to be the next big generation’ and employers need to understand it (Jamilakhon et al., 2020; Wötzel, 2018) asserts, in their conceptualization of contemporary management, that the ‘transcendence of Gen Y values’ is one of the main ‘forces’ shaping modern management.’ Several researchers, for example Pitchayadejanant (2019), readily acknowledge that Generation Y is not totally different from previous generations because shared characteristics do exist. Generation Y is levelled to exhibit a raft of characteristics that collectively make their viewpoint of their careers conspicuous (Anselmo-Witzel et al., 2020; Boonsiritomachai & Pitchayadejanant, 2019).

Generation Y is predicted to be the largest in size and the most studied of all generations (Naim & Lenka, 2018; Safeer et al., 2021; White et al., 2017). Some of this generation’s characteristics are included the entertainment driven, exceptionally comfortable with technology, aware and have a strong sense of community, team players, adaptable, physically inactive, and more likely to engage if gaining a sense of pride and purpose (Aman et al., 2017; Van der Merwe, 2019; Ying et al., 2017). In terms of work, these individuals are capable of multi-tasking quickly. These also have working with results-oriented appetite for organizational pressure and above all expect to be empowered within human resource system.

The human resource system

The human resource systems refer to human resource practices for acquiring, deploying, developing and retaining talent (Alam et al., 2023). The authors (Enya et al., 2018; Prakash Yadav & Rai, 2017) argued that human resources system such as recruitment, training, compensation, succession planning as crucial part of talent management. In the context of this study, three major components of human resource systems namely, training and development, compensation, and performance appraisal are seen as essential and have bearing on the human resource and organizational development through training (Dolot & Krakow University of Economics, 2018; George & Wallio, 2017).

Training and development

Training is actually an essential part of human resource development. It is a planned effort by a company to facilitate employees’ learning of job-related competencies. Such competencies include job knowledge, job skill, and abilities that are important to employees for effective job-related performance (Haddouche & Salomone, 2018). According to some scholars, training is seen as being a systematic and planned effort to develop knowledge, attitudes, abilities and skills through learning-experiences, to attain effective performance in an activity or a range of activities (Naim & Lenka, 2017). The training is an essential human resource development (HRD) activity that is being viewed as a powerful change agent in facilitating an organization’s expansion, development of capabilities and profitability improvement. Accordingly, training and development should be perceived as essential elements of employee development compensation practices by organizations (Borkowski & Meese, 2021; Pyöriä et al., 2017).

Compensation

The total compensation an individual receives is broadly categorized into two components namely, direct and indirect compensation (Cho & Song, 2017; Haddouche & Salomone, 2018). Direct compensation comprises bases compensation (wages and salary) and pay incentives (bonuses and profit sharing). Meanwhile, indirect compensation comprises benefits such as health insurance and unemployment insurance (Rehman et al., 2021). A reward infrastructure typically comprised of a variety of financial and non-financial instruments. Direct (basic pay), indirect (benefits), fixed (salary), and/or variable (bonus/incentives) reward are financial in nature (Desai & Lele, 2017; Gonzalez & de Melo, 2018).

The non-financial rewards are also tangible rewards provided and controlled by a firm, although they do not necessarily benefit employees in a monetary sense (Navío-Marco et al., 2018). Examples include recognition, promotion, power and responsibility and training and development. The relationship between the various components of compensation and organizational performance has been widely studied. For example, Vassileva (2017) examined the role of pension plans, one form of indirect benefits, in employee performance appraisal and noted that employees who covered by pension plans had lower turnover rates.

Performance appraisal

The performance appraisal (PA) is a process aimed at determining employee’s work results. Performance appraisal is a management technique used for making human resource decisions (promotion, transfer and pay), as well as dealing with issues like employee development (feedback and training). The appraisal activities are primarily based on the appraisal of employees’ work results and activity (behaviour) (Santalova et al., 2017; Singh, 2018). The author Hällgren et al. (2018) defines performance appraisal more broadly as activities through which organizations seek to assess employees and develop their competence, enhance performance and distribute reward. Performance appraisal (PA) forms the core of performance management systems.

The PA is a formal and systematic process of identifying, observing, measuring, recording and developing the job-relevant strength and weaknesses of employees (Jauhar et al., 2017; Mičík & Mičudová, 2018). Performance appraisal is an important human resource practice and tool which provides information to many critical human resource decisions such as training and development needs compensations and benefits (Gupta, 2019). The layoffs, staffing, pay raises, drug testing, and discipline are leading criteria for performance appraisal.

Criteria of performance appraisal

According to Mičík and Mičudová (2018), since PA systems are not generic or easily passed from one company to another, their design and administration must be tailor-made to match employees and organizational characteristics and qualities (Agostini et al., 2017; A. Mamun & Hasan, 2017; Velghe et al., 2019). It is argued that organizations need to have a systematic framework to ensure that performance appraisal is ‘fair’ and ‘consistent’, and that the system should provide a link between employee performance and organizational goals through individualized objectives and performance criteria (Daud et al., 2019; Naim & Lenka 2017). During the PA process, different criteria and elements are evaluated (Omwandho, 2017). Those include the achieved results and goals, skills and abilities, job-related behaviors, personal characteristics and things that are under the employees’ control (Rehman et al., 2023). The more specialized these factors are, the more efficient is the PA system for organizational development.

Organizational development

According to Ameen and Hameed (2018) the term organization development refers to a system of wide application to plan, improve and reinforce of strategies, structures and processes that leads to organizational effectiveness (Cristea et al., 2017; Frye et al., 2020; G. Arnaud and B. Vidaillet (2018; Othman, 2019; Sadik et al., 2018). Organizational development (OD) is a systematic application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes for improving an organization’s effectiveness.

OD is a new term which means a conceptual, organization-wide effort to increase an organization’s effectiveness and viability. The core of OD is organization—a group working towards one or more shared goal(s), and development—the process an organization uses to become more effective over time at achieving its goals (Sang, 2019: Frye et al., 2020). However, there is a trend towards achieving organizational growth by exploiting the understanding of the relationships between an organization concept and its environment (Frye et al., 2020).

The concept of organizational development

The term Organization Development (OD) has been commonly understood as a planned organization wide effort aimed at improving organizational effectiveness through planned interventions in the organization’s processes using behavioral-science knowledge (Bussin et al., 2019; Gupta, 2019; Naim & Lenka, 2018). This suggests that OD is about achieving organizational effectiveness through the applicability of appropriate knowledge to organizational settings (Pathalung, 2018; Soares et al., 2017). According to Pasla et al. (2021) there are five main characteristics of OD. First, OD is a planned, proactive process as opposed to being a reactive activity. Second, OD focuses on an entire organization or a large part of an organization (Hassan et al., 2019; Pasla et al., 2021; Thevi, 2018; Uluma, 2019; Vlachou, 2017). Third, it is initiated and managed from the top level of an organization (Pathalung, 2018). Fourth, OD enhances an organization’s problem solving and renewal processes so that the organizational culture is able to achieve its goals and objectives.

Organizational culture

The concept of organizational culture has generally been attributed to several individuals, including (Husnain et al., 2019: Clegg et al., 2020). Although organizational culture has been defined in various ways, the definitions share a common view that ‘culture consists of some combination of artifacts (also called practices, expressive symbols, or forms), values and beliefs, and underlying assumptions that organizational members share about appropriate behavior’ (Bektaş et al., 2021).

Culture, therefore, is an explanatory variable that distinguishes one organization from another (Bektaş et al., 2021). Every organization has a distinctive style of addressing these issues and this distinctiveness is shaped by organizational culture (OC). OC is characterized by the pattern of basic assumptions, beliefs and core values it holds (Min et al., 2020; Rafiq et al., 2020). Culture gives an organization a unique identity and provides meaning and context for all activities performed within the climate of organization (Tsoukas, 2017).

Organizational climate

Organizational climate refers to common practices, shared beliefs, and value systems that an organization follows (Handoyo, 2020; Wutijaroenwong, 2017). For the individual members within the organization, climate takes the form of a set of attributes and expectancies that describe the overall pattern of organizational activities (Kiefer et al., 2019; Kluve et al., 2019; Soares et al., 2017; van Hooft et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2017). Organizational climate encompasses organizational structure and process, interpersonal relationships, compensation administration, employee behaviour, performance expectation, and opportunities for growth. The above-mentioned factors constitute organizational climate (Handoyo, 2020; Kraus et al., 2020).

Concept of organizational climate

When investigating organizational climate, we should select variables from the four dimensions: ecology refers to organizational material resources, including equipment, materials, instruments, construction and finance, including socio-economic status, education level, self-concept of members and so on (Thole, 2020). The existing studies, two basic modes are apparent: one is the macro mode, namely investigation aimed at the organizational climate individuals perceives in the entire work environment (Bresciani et al., 2022). The other is the micro mode, namely investigation aimed at a certain dimension or a certain environment of the organization (Goh & Okumus, 2020). For example, from the ecological dimension, organizational climate was investigated in companies with different levels of performance (Hassan et al., 2020; Younas & Waseem Bari, 2020). The social system dimension, the effects of managers on organizational climate observations (McLaren & Durepos, 2021). The organizational climate was assayed from a human resources management aspect.

Figure 1 shows the research framework where two main domains employed to examine the influence on employees’ performance as theorised by Morgan and Jardin (2010) are human resource system and organizational development (Ng & Salamzadeh, 2020; Vui-Yee & Paggy, 2020). The human resource system’s indicators are namely training and development, performance appraisal and compensation (Mollan, 2019). Whereas the indicators for organizational development are commitment and culture (Imbaya & Uluma, 2019). According to Morgan and Jardin (2010) the three main predictors used to assess employees’ performance are performance metrics, engagement metrics, and retention metrics.

Figure 1. The conceptual framework.

Methodology

To undertake this research study, the researcher subscribes to quantitative method where the main approach to data collection was the used of questionnaires (Alam, 2022; Sumra et al., 2020; 2022). The questionnaires about talent management for Y generation (Vui-Yee & Paggy, 2020). Through the use of simple random sampling, a total of 550 questionnaires distributed, the researcher was able to collect and gather about 506 completed forms from the participated respondents (Bahar et al., 2020; Jauhar et al., 2017; Saif & Siddiqui, 2019). This number represented about 92% rate of return which was considered as very high. A total of 550 staff representing 16 agencies in the GLC company selected to participate in this study as the research is using the common bias method while measuring data from a same quantitative method (Arora & Dhole, 2019; Nor et al., 2018; Tharanganie & Perera, 2021). These Gen Y respondents selected randomly between the academics and the supporting staff where the criteria identified on the basis of age group and nature of occupation. However, from the 550 questionnaires collected, only a total of 506 or 92% valid whilst the remainder void.

Data analysis and findings

The justification for the use of PLS-SEM model is to measure the constructs while validating internal consistency of the model developed for organizational performance (Julmi, 2017). It extends the structural model of Organization Management Model, with detail Human Resource System and Organisational Development as predictors of Performance, Engagement and Retention (Dewi, 2019; Santoso & Soehari, 2020; Zhang et al., 2017). A series of multivariate data analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to validate measurements and establish a Talent Management Model (Carter, 2020; King, 2017; Muskat & Reitsamer, 2019; Othman, 2019; Senaratne & Tennakoon, 2019).

A partial least square (PLS) approach using SmartPLS software also employed to validate the detail measurements of variables and dimensions in the structural model (Booysen, 2019; Khoa et al., 2021; Prasetya et al., 2020; Radzi et al., 2018). Human Resource System was measured with three dimensions: Appraisal, Compensation and Training and Development. Organisational Development also measured with Organisational Culture and Organisational Climate. Performance, Engagement and Retention hypothesized as dependent variables.

Reliability of measurements (N = 511)

The present study also conducted a series of reliability test of measurements as listed in the questionnaire (See Appendix). Tables A.1 and A.2 confirmed the actual results of measurements in the significant level of reliability test. Cronbach’s Alpha of reliability test based on the SPSS results shows the detail items and variable (Alam & Bahrein, 2021; Sumra & Alam, 2021). All measurements are fulfilling the requirement of multivariate data analysis. Tables A.2 and A.3 also confirmed the reliability level of items in the dimensions and variables of organizational development and endogenous variables (Performance, Engagement, and Retention).

Based on the reliability test of items, dimensions and variables (Tables A.1–A.3), the present study confirmed the items are reliable for further test of structural model analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM).

Structural model analysis

Re-Specified model of Organization Management Model confirmed the final hypothesized model. Direct effect analysis of predictors to the endogenous variables was configured in detail to answer the listed hypothesis. This determined the achievement of establishment Talent Management Model (Hypothesis 5). Hair et al. confirmed the validated items identified through factor loading score (>0.5) in the Re-Specified Model (Tables A.4 and A.5).

Results of hypothesis testing

Based on the Re-Specified model of Talent Management Model, the direct effect analysis of predictors to the endogenous variables determined in detail (Weeratunga, 2019). It is confirmed the achievement of a fundamental model of Talent Management Model (Hypothesis 5) and configured the result of hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 and 2 determined the validation of HR system and organizational Development constructs. Hypotheses 3 and 4 succeed to examine the direct effect analysis between predictors to the endogenous variables (Performance, Engagement and Retention).

Discussions and achievement of research objectives

This section discussed the detail synchronization between Hypothesis Testing and Research Objectives achievement.

Research objective 1: Validation of HR system

Appraisal, Compensation and Training and Development confirmed as significant measurements of HR system. Using 2nd order CFA, the present study achieved a validation of HR system with detail measurements.

Research objective 2: Validation of organizational development

Organizational culture and organizational climate confirmed as significant measurements of organizational development. Using 2nd order CFA, this study succeeds to identify detail valid measurements of organizational Development.

Research objective 3: Predictors to endogenous variables

HR system and organizational development has a direct positive significant effect to the Performance, Engagement, and Retention. All hypotheses are accepted, except organizational Development has a non-significant influence on the Performance.

Research objective 4: Establishment of talent management model

Based on the Re-Specified model of Talent Management Model, HR system has a dominant effect to the Performance and organizational Development has a dominant effect to the Engagement. Hypothesis 5 confirmed the square multiple correlation (SMC) for each endogenous variable. Performance (58%) shows the dominant effect of influence of HR system and organizational Development. Engagement (44.7%) and Retention (29.2%) also play significant contribution in the structural model of Talent Management Model. Thus, the present study succeeds to establish a fundamental contribution of Talent Management Model for Generation Y.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the measures for the success outcomes reflect that emerging Organization Management Model is an innovative move for human resource, related to the generation Y. It suggests HR system has a dominant effect to the Performance and organizational development followed by dominant effect to the organizational engagement. Hypothesis 5 confirmed the square multiple correlation (SMC) for each endogenous variable. It provides performance at (58%) is the dominant effector of influencing HR system and organizational development. Engagement (44.7%) and Retention (29.2%) also play significant contribution in the structural model of organizational management (Figure 2). Thus, the present study succeeds to establish a fundamental contribution and practice which is important for research on the organizational management model for Generation Y. The research extends the model for the rapidly changing dynamics of the Generation Z in terms of organization management for sustainability and performance to meet the desire issues in change management.

Figure 2. Respecified model of organizational management.

Theoretical and managerial implications

The managerial implications of the organization management strategy for generation Y indicates the integration of workers by managers and executive into work setting for economic and commercial support. It includes the avoidance of termination and turning them off policy within the decision making of organization. The solid primary experience as the groundwork for career is given preferences by the management while considering enterprise based technological support. The theoretical implications for the body of knowledge endorse the theory of (Morgan & Jardin, 2010; Naim & Lenka, 2018), for generation Y workforce under organizational management. The performance, engagement, retention are the leading areas to be extended with the theoretical support for the improvement of HR system which is supported by employees performance for organizational development. A theoretical organizational model is implementable in re-specification of the organization management for upgrading the generation Y employees’ attitude, quality of life and economic well-being. This upgradation of generation Y individuals for generation z performance sustainability leads to the effective management of international organizations. Future research may utilize the current model for the performance sustainability of generation z for the considerable management of global organizations serving under the United Nations. This research practically contributes to the international organization management to ensure the performance in managing the contemporary challenges of generation z, towards the uncertainity, sustainability and result oriented decision making.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mehtab Alam

Mehtab Alam is a PhD in Management from the University of Cyberjaya, Malaysia. The research interests focus on change management, data analysis, organization management among the generation X, Y, and Z and tourism’s role in image branding. Additionally, he is skilled in research diversity, inclusion, and innovation in both theory and practice. With extensive experience as a research specialist in social science subjects and interested in the use of technology in postgraduate studies with actively publishing my research findings. By employing artificial intelligence tools, while he is able to manage research inquiries efficiently and systematically. He has also contributed to the development of knowledge in emerging research areas. Over the course of fruitful research career, he has developed expertise in both the macro and micro levels of scholarly investigation that follows concepts for curriculum development, and course designing.

Mudiarasan Kuppusamy

Mudiarasan Kuppusamy, a PhD in Management from Western Sydney University, Australia, is a skilled data modeling analyst specializing in Information, Communication and Technologies. He is serving as Deputy Vice Chancellor and Dean in the Faculty of Business and Technology, University of Cyberjaya, Malaysia. He has been working in academia and research for more than 20 years with end-to-end knowledge in digital strategy roadmap design at macro and micro levels. In addition, he also designs and deliver various training solutions for corporations, including digital content, digital marketing, digital privacy, and data-driven performance while building knowledge about the values of data privacy unique techniques to identify the value of data modeling for the organizational management. These techniques are implemented in several research projects, which have resulted in multiple publications. My publications are currently cited across leading academic sources, including the Cogent Business and Management (Taylor & Francis), Electronic Journal of Information Systems for Developing Countries, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, etc., amongst others.

Appendices

Table A.1. Reliability of HR system.

Variable	Dimensions	Items code	Cronbach’s alpha	Remark
HR system	Appraisal	V23	0.975	Reliable
		V24	0.912
		V25	0.923
	Compensation	V19	0.954	Reliable
		V20	0.925
		V21	0.925
		V22	0.915
	Training and development	V08	0.912	Reliable
		V09	0.939
		V10	0.952
		V11	0.955

Table A.2. Reliability of organisational development.

Variable	Dimensions	Items code	Cronbach’s alpha	Remark
Organisational development	Culture	V12	0.955	Reliable
		V13	0.931
		V14	0.952
		V15	0.972
	Climate	V16	0.951	Reliable
		V17	0.965
		V18	0.943
		V26	0.915

Table A.3. Reliability of performance, engagement, and retention.

Variable	Items code	Cronbach’s alpha	Remark
Performance	V27	0.923	Reliable
	V33	0.971
	V34	0.922
Engagement	V31	0.963	Reliable
	V32	0.925
	V36	0.942
	V37	0.947
Retention	V28	0.961	Reliable
	V29	0.944
	V30	0.922
	V35	0.917

Table A.4. Standardized regressions weight of re-specified model.

No	Variable/dimensions	Std. reg. weight of dimension	Items	Factor Loading	Remark
HR system
1	Appraisal	0.800	V23	0.869	Significant
			V24	0.835
			V25	0.808
2	Compensation	0.826	V19	0.668	Significant
			V20	0.784
			V21	0.617
			V22	0.778
3	Training and development	0.677	V08	0.861	Significant
			V09	0.968
			V10	0.874
			V11	0.958
Organisational development
1	Organizational culture	0.984	V12	0.919	Significant
			V13	0.977
			V14	0.958
			V15	0.927
2	Organizational climate	0.966	V16	0.951	Significant
			V17	0.961
			V18	0.175
			V26	0.451
Endogenous variables
1	Performance	–	V27	0.413	Significant
			V33	0.889
			V34	0.831
2	Engagement	–	V31	0.688	Significant
			V32	0.728
			V36	0.848
			V37	0.755
3	Retention	–	V28	0.740	Significant
			V29	0.603
			V30	0.798
			V35	0.807

Table A.5. Summary of hypothesis testing.

No	Statement	Pathway	P-Value	Results	Remark
Hy.1	HR System confirm measured with Appraisal, Compensation and Training and Development		0.000	Significant	Hy.1 Asserted
Hy.1a	Appraisal confirm as significant dimension of HR system	0.800	0.000	Significant	Hy.1a Asserted
Hy.1b	Compensation confirms as significant dimension of HR system	0.826	0.000	Significant	Hy.1b Asserted
Hy.1c	Training and Development confirm as significant dimension of HR system	0.677	0.000	Significant	Hy.1c Asserted
Hy.2	Organizational Development confirm measured with Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate		0.000	Significant	Hy.2 Asserted
Hy.2a	Organizational Culture confirm as significant dimension of Organizational Development	0.984	0.000	Significant	Hy.2a Asserted
Hy.2b	Organizational Climate confirm as significant measurement of Organizational Development	0.966	0.000	Significant	Hy.2b Asserted
Hy.3a	HR system has a direct positive significant influence on Performance	0.697	0.000	Significant	Hy.3a Asserted
Hy.3b	HR system has a direct positive significant influence on Engagement	0.410	0.000	Significant	Hy.3b Asserted
Hy.3c	HR system has a direct positive significant influence on Performance Retention	0.331	0.000	Significant	Hy.3c Asserted
Hy.4a	Organizational Development has a direct positive significant influence on Performance	0.088	0.000	Non-Significant	Hy.4a Rejected
Hy.4b	Organizational Development has a direct positive significant influence on Engagement	0.312	0.000	Significant	Hy.4b Asserted
Hy.4c	Organizational Development has a direct positive significant influence on Performance Retention	0.253	0.000	Significant	Hy.4c Asserted
Hy.5	HR system, Organizational Development, Performance, Appraisal and Engagement confirm has a significant interaction in the structural model of talent management	Performance (58%) Engagement (44.7%) Retention (29.2%)	0.000	Significant	Hy.5 Asserted