Job evaluation, a central pillar of human resource management, ensures internal equity, fair compensation, and organizational role clarity (Armstrong, 2020). It systematically determines job worth and wage structures—critical in labor-intensive sectors such as textiles. Despite a variety of techniques, limited scholarship examines employee perceptions of these systems in India. This study focuses on Uttar Pradesh’s textile sector, exploring how employees perceive fairness, transparency, and effectiveness in job evaluation practices.

Background of the Study

Post-independence labor legislation, including the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (1946) and the Minimum Wages Act (1948), institutionalized job evaluation in India (Bhattacharyya, 2015). Liberalization accelerated the adoption of scientific HR tools, yet many textile firms, especially SMEs, continue to rely on informal, discretionary practices (Agarwala, 2007; Khan & Khan, 2019).

Industry Context and Importance            

Employing over two million workers, Uttar Pradesh’s textile clusters in Kanpur, Varanasi, and Meerut face fragmented HR systems and wage inconsistencies

(Ministry of Textiles, 2022; Mitra & Roy, 2018). Employees’ perceptions of fairness significantly influence trust, morale, and retention (Milkovich, Newman, & Gerhart, 2019; Kumar & Yadav, 2020). Analyzing these perceptions provides a diagnostic tool to address equity gaps and align HR systems with contextual realities (Gupta & Dey, 2021).

Statement of the Problem

Job evaluation, designed to ensure equity and fair pay, often falters in developing economies and labor-intensive sectors such as textiles due to flawed design and weak implementation (Armstrong, 2020; Khan & Khan, 2019). In Uttar Pradesh, many SMEs lack formal HR systems, relying on subjective methods shaped by favoritism and seniority. This results in pay disparities, role ambiguity, and dissatisfaction (Kumar & Yadav, 2020; Milkovich et al., 2019). The absence of standardized models and weak communication exacerbate mistrust (Dessler, 2021; Bhattacharyya, 2015). Employee perceptions often depend more on transparency and involvement than on technical rigor (Greenberg, 1990; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In socially stratified contexts, inequities intensify (Mitra & Roy, 2018), eroding trust and threatening organizational sustainability.

Research Objectives

1. To assess the relative value of jobs across different profiles in textile industries.
2. To provide practical recommendations for improving job profile evaluation processes in the textile industries of Uttar Pradesh.

Hypotheses

1. Job evaluation practices have no significant impact on the internal relationships among employees in textile industries.
2. Practical recommendations for improving job profile evaluation processes cannot be significantly derived from current practices in the textile industries of Uttar Pradesh.

Theoretical Framework

This study employs three interconnected models—Equity Theory, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, and internal equity and motivation frameworks—to explain how job evaluation influences employee perceptions and outcomes in Uttar Pradesh’s textile sector.

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) emphasizes fairness through input–output comparisons. Perceived inequities, such as unequal pay for similar work, reduce motivation and increase dissatisfaction (Greenberg, 1990; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In the informal textile industry, transparent and consistent evaluations are therefore crucial (Robbins & Judge, 2019).

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959; 1966) distinguishes motivators from hygiene factors such as pay and job clarity. While evaluation systems may not directly motivate, inconsistencies in wage structures or unclear roles create dissatisfaction (Milkovich, Newman, & Gerhart, 2019; Kumar & Yadav, 2020).

Internal Equity and Motivation Theories highlight that fair compensation, role clarity, and transparent systems underpin motivation. Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964) and Goal-Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) suggest that flawed evaluations disrupt motivational pathways, impair goal alignment, and erode trust (Bhattacharyya, 2015; Armstrong, 2020).

Review of Past Studies

Research consistently shows that job evaluation practices in labor-intensive industries, particularly textiles, are weakened by informal HR systems, limited employee participation, and inconsistent application. Studies across Indian and South Asian contexts highlight how perceived fairness in evaluation strongly shapes retention, satisfaction, and trust.

For instance, Mittar, Saini, and Agarwal (2014) found that fair evaluation and appraisal systems improved retention in Delhi-NCR apparel units, while Hannan (2019) stressed the productivity costs of unstructured models. Ethnographic evidence from Tamil Nadu revealed that CSR-driven reforms were often perceived as top-down and non-participatory (De Neve, 2014). Comparative studies reinforce these findings: Shahidul and Shazali (2011) linked job satisfaction in Indian and Bangladeshi manufacturing to equity in role assignments, while Abraham and Sasikumar (2011) associated unstructured evaluations with inefficiency in exports. Abdulla and Kumar (2021) showed that performance-based evaluations enhanced efficiency when employees perceived them as fair. Cross-national research (Chen et al., 2017; Tilly et al., 2013) confirmed that Indian textile workers report high dissatisfaction due to informal systems.

Conceptual Framework

This study conceptualizes the relationship between job evaluation practices, employee perception, and organizational outcomes as a dynamic triad shaping HR effectiveness in Uttar Pradesh’s textile sector. At the center is employee perception, which mediates how evaluation systems are interpreted and internalized. Perception determines whether systems are seen as fair, transparent, and legitimate, often outweighing technical rigor in influencing trust and morale (Greenberg, 1990; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Job evaluation practices serve as structural mechanisms aligning pay with job complexity and competencies (Armstrong, 2020). In semi-formal textile units, however, reliance on informal or discretionary methods fosters inequity and role ambiguity, while transparent and participatory processes strengthen procedural justice (Milkovich, Newman, & Gerhart, 2019). Organizational outcomes—including engagement, retention, and productivity—depend on how fairly evaluations are perceived (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Contextual moderators such as communication, role clarity, and employee feedback further influence this relationship (Herzberg, 1966; Adams, 1965).

Research Design

The study employed a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews and focus groups to assess employee perceptions of job evaluation in Uttar Pradesh’s textile sector. This approach enabled both statistical validation and deeper exploration of workplace dynamics.

Population and Sample

The population comprised employees from textile units in Kanpur, Varanasi, Noida, and Meerut. Using stratified purposive sampling, 400 survey respondents were selected across roles (operators, clerks, supervisors, managers) and departments, supplemented by 20 interviews and focus groups.

Data Collection Tools

Structured questionnaires measured perceptions of fairness and role awareness, while semi-structured interviews and focus groups probed issues such as favoritism, communication, and reform needs. Observational notes supported data triangulation.

Validity and Reliability

Pilot testing ensured clarity and contextual fit of survey instruments. Content validity was reinforced through established theoretical frameworks, while reliability was confirmed with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.70.

Data Analysis Techniques

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations), inferential techniques (t-tests, ANOVA), and thematic analysis. Hypothesis 1 was tested via MANOVA (p > 0.05), while Hypothesis 2 indicated that only work experience significantly predicted actionable recommendations (p = 0.034). Findings from quantitative and qualitative analyses were integrated to provide holistic, actionable insights.

Descriptive Analysis

Hypothesis 1: Job evaluation practices have no significant impact on the internal relationships among employees in textile industries.

ANOVA Result Interpretation   

The ANOVA tested whether job evaluation practices significantly affected internal relationships among textile employees. The overall model fit was weak (F = 1.242, p = 0.169), with an R² of 0.107 and an adjusted R² of 0.021, indicating that only 10.7% of the variance in internal relationships was explained by the predictors. This suggests that job evaluation practices did not significantly predict internal relationships.

At the individual level, demographic and job-related variables—including age (p = 0.456), gender (p = 0.439), occupation (p = 0.231), job profile (p = 0.354), shift type (p = 0.347), and platform (p = 0.941)—were all nonsignificant. Similarly, job security (p = 0.123), working conditions (p = 0.473), mental demand (p = 0.244), and physical demand (p = 0.173) showed no measurable effects. Education (p = 0.098), experience (p = 0.096), and wage bargaining (p = 0.070) approached marginal significance but did not meet the conventional 0.05 threshold. These results support Hypothesis 1, confirming that job evaluation practices did not have a significant impact on internal relationships among employees in Uttar Pradesh’s textile sector.

Hypothesis 2: Practical recommendations for improving job evaluation processes do not significantly affect employee satisfaction or organizational effectiveness in textile industries.

ANOVA Result Interpretation

The ANOVA tested whether practical recommendations for improving job evaluation significantly influenced employee satisfaction or organizational effectiveness. The overall model was not statistically significant (F = 1.288, p = 0.133), and explanatory power remained low (R² = 0.110; adjusted R² = 0.025), indicating that recommendations accounted for only 11% of the variance in outcomes.

At the individual level, most demographic and job-related factors—including age (p = 0.238), gender (p = 0.216), occupation (p = 0.893), education (p = 0.819), shift type (p = 0.587), job security (p = 0.792), and wage bargaining (p = 0.694)—were nonsignificant. Marginal but nonsignificant influences were observed for job profile (p = 0.131), platform (p = 0.075), and working conditions (p = 0.088). Importantly, experience emerged as the only significant predictor (F = 2.632, p = 0.034), suggesting that employees with longer tenure are better able to generate actionable insights into improving evaluation processes.

Qualitative Data Analysis

1. General Sentiment Distribution

Analysis of 40 employee responses revealed a predominantly positive sentiment. More than 70% rated job evaluation positively, reflecting broad satisfaction. Approximately 20% expressed neutral views, particularly regarding communication, job clarity, and fairness. Negative responses (5–10%) clustered around concerns with wages, fairness, and training, highlighting persistent gaps.

Key Thematic Findings

Fairness and Transparency: Employees generally perceived job evaluation as fair and constructive, though gaps in transparency and communication remained. Several respondents reported uncertainty about processes and policy application (Greenberg, 1990).

Role Clarity and Training: While knowledge of job roles was strong, some employees highlighted insufficient training and occasional role ambiguity.

Internal Relationships: Most employees described teamwork and relationships positively, but a minority reported perceptions of favoritism (Tilly et al., 2013).

Wage Alignment: The weakest area concerned wage negotiation and satisfaction. Many employees expressed neutral or negative views, suggesting limited linkage between evaluation outcomes and compensation.

Moderating Role of Experience: Consistent with ANOVA results, employees with longer tenure provided more actionable insights, supporting Herzberg’s (1966) emphasis on the importance of experience in shaping constructive feedback.

Interpretation and Conclusion   

Overall, employees viewed job evaluation systems positively but expressed skepticism regarding fairness, transparency, and wage alignment. While practical recommendations were not broadly significant predictors of satisfaction or organizational effectiveness, experience stood out as a meaningful factor in shaping actionable feedback. Strengthening participatory design, enhancing communication, and integrating wage-related reforms could improve trust, legitimacy, and effectiveness of job evaluation systems in Uttar Pradesh’s textile sector.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Descriptive Analysis

Survey data from 400 employees across Uttar Pradesh’s textile units revealed a diverse workforce, with operators constituting the largest group (37.25%). Internal relationship scores (M = 29.96, SD = 4.23) indicated moderate cohesion. MANOVA results showed no significant impact of job evaluation practices on internal relationships (F = 1.242, p = 0.169, R² = 0.107). For Hypothesis 2, only employee experience emerged as significant (p = 0.034), demonstrating that long-tenured workers are better positioned to provide actionable recommendations. Complementary qualitative data from 40 employees revealed more than 70% positive perceptions, around 20% neutral, and 5–10% negative, with concerns focused on wages, fairness, and training (Greenberg, 1990).

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1 was supported: job evaluation practices showed no significant influence on internal relationships

(F = 1.242, p = 0.169).     

Hypothesis 2 was partially rejected: experience was the

only significant predictor (p = 0.034), while education, work shift, and other demographic variables remained nonsignificant. The overall explanatory power of the model was weak (F = 1.288, p = 0.133, R² = 0.110) (Herzberg, 1966; Shahidul & Shazali, 2011).

Additional Insights

Qualitative findings revealed low awareness of formal evaluation systems, perceptions of favoritism, weak communication, and resignation toward inequities. Employees advocated for transparent grievance mechanisms, echoing earlier studies showing how informal HR practices undermine trust (De Neve, 2014; Tilly et al., 2013).

Interpretation of Results

The absence of statistically significant effects (R² ≈ 10.7%) supports prior evidence that job evaluation systems in South Asia are hierarchical and disconnected from worker realities (De Neve, 2014; Shahidul & Shazali, 2011). Qualitative findings of favoritism and opacity reinforced these systemic weaknesses (Tilly et al., 2013). A clear trust gap emerged: while employees broadly accepted evaluation systems, they questioned their credibility in wage-setting and communication.

Theoretical Relevance

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) suggests that perceptions of fairness depend more on procedural credibility than distributive outcomes (Greenberg, 1990). Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1966) frames job evaluation as a hygiene factor: its absence causes dissatisfaction, while its presence alone does not directly drive motivation.

Contextualization

In Uttar Pradesh’s semi-formal textile sector, weak HR structures, patriarchal hierarchies, and low union density restrict worker participation (Mitra & Roy, 2018; Abraham & Sasikumar, 2011). Only employees with over 16 years of service provided meaningful recommendations (p = 0.034), underscoring tenure’s role in evaluative insight.

Implications

For HR managers, reforms should prioritize participatory evaluation design, transparent communication, supervisor training, and linking evaluations to career development. Policymakers should set sector-specific norms, mandate baseline HR standards, expand training programs, and integrate perception audits into compliance frameworks.

Summary of Key Findings

This study examined job evaluation practices and employee perceptions across Uttar Pradesh’s textile sector using survey and qualitative data. Internal relationship scores (M = 29.96, SD = 4.23) reflected moderate cohesion without significant demographic variation. Hypothesis 1 was accepted, confirming no measurable effect of job evaluation on internal relationships (p = 0.169). Hypothesis 2 was partially rejected: most demographics lacked predictive value, but experience (p = 0.034) proved significant, highlighting tenure-driven insight. Qualitative data corroborated low awareness, favoritism, and weak communication (De Neve, 2014; Tilly et al., 2013).

Hypotheses and Contributions

Findings confirm that job evaluation, as currently practiced, fails to foster cohesion or stimulate systemic reforms. However, experienced employees provide valuable, practice-based recommendations.

Contributions to the Field

This study bridges quantitative and qualitative gaps, applies Equity and Two-Factor Theories to a regional context (Adams, 1965; Herzberg, 1966), and situates HR practices within India’s semi-formal textile sector. It underscores the policy need for participatory, transparent, and standardized evaluation systems to enhance fairness and legitimacy (Greenberg, 1990; Armstrong, 2020).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Strategic HR Recommendations

• Form participatory evaluation committees with managers and employee representatives (Greenberg, 1990).
• Develop standardized job descriptions in local languages.
• Provide transparent feedback mechanisms aligned with Herzberg’s hygiene factors.
• Train supervisors in bias-free assessment (Armstrong, 2020).
• Link evaluation outcomes to promotions, upskilling, and career development.

Policy Suggestions

• Co-develop regional job evaluation frameworks through labor–industry collaboration (Mitra & Roy, 2018).
• Mandate HR protocols—job descriptions, annual evaluations, and grievance mechanisms—for enterprises with 100+ employees (Tilly et al., 2013).
• Incentivize compliance through export subsidies and tax benefits.
• Launch HR capacity-building programs in Tier 2 and Tier 3 clusters.

Future Research

Future studies should extend to other labor-intensive industries, employ longitudinal designs, examine intersectional dynamics, evaluate digital HR tools (KPMG, 2021), and assess the links between evaluation systems and organizational performance.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Geographical and Industrial Scope          

Findings are restricted to textile hubs in Kanpur, Varanasi, Noida, and Meerut, limiting generalizability to regions such as Tirupur or Surat, or to more structured sectors such as IT and pharmaceuticals (Mitra & Roy, 2018; De Neve, 2014).

Self-Reported Data        

Reliance on surveys and interviews risks social desirability bias, recall errors, and common method variance (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Limited awareness of evaluation processes may also have constrained responses.

Time Constraints           

Conducted over three months during a low production cycle, the study lacked longitudinal depth. Convenience sampling in some units may have introduced selection bias (Shahidul & Shazali, 2011).

Overall, these limitations highlight the need for multi-region, mixed-method, and longitudinal approaches to strengthen validity, generalizability, and contextual depth.

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press.
2. Agarwala, T. (2007). Strategic human resource management. Oxford University Press.
3. Armstrong, M. (2020). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice (15th ed.). Kogan Page.
4. Bhattacharyya, D. K. (2015). Compensation management. Oxford University Press.
5. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
6. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2017). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48.
7. De Neve, G. (2014). Fordism, flexible specialization and CSR: How Indian garment workers critique neoliberal labour regimes. Ethnography, 15(2), 184–206.
8. Dessler, G. (2021). Human resource management (16th ed.). Pearson.
9. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.
10. Gupta, A., & Dey, R. (2021). Employee participation in job analysis: A case of Indian SMEs. Journal of Organizational Behavior Studies, 9(2), 45–60.
11. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. World Publishing Company.
12. Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.
13. Khan, N., & Khan, A. (2019). HR practices in Indian SMEs: A study of textile clusters. Asian Management Review, 5(1), 87–104.
14. Kumar, P., & Yadav, S. (2020). Job satisfaction and HR interventions in textile units: An empirical study. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(3), 312–326.
15. (2021). Digital HR transformation in India: Trends and insights. KPMG India.
16. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice Hall.
17. Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2019). Compensation (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
18. Ministry of Textiles. (2022). Annual report 2021–22. Government of India.
19. Mitra, A., & Roy, D. (2018). Textile and garment sector in Uttar Pradesh: Growth and employment. India Development Review, 14(1), 20–33.
20. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
21. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
22. Shahidul, M. I., & Shazali, S. T. S. (2011). Dynamics of manufacturing productivity: Lessons from labor-intensive industries. Journal of 23. Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(4), 430–445.
23. Tilly, C., Agarwala, R., Ngai, P., & Salas, C. (2013). Informal worker organizing in textile industries. Global Labour Journal, 4(3), 120–138.
24. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.
25. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.