a study on effectiveness of performance appraisal

8/6/2019 A Study on Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal

1/67

CHAPTER- I

Introduction about the topic

Industry profile

Company profile

Objective of the study

Need of the study

Scope of the study

Limitation of the study


2/67


3/67


4/67

1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE

The power sector has registered significant progress since the process of planned

development of the economy began in 1950. Hydro -power and coal based thermal power

have been the main sources of generating electricity. Nuclear power development is at

slower pace, which was introduced, in late sixties. The concept of operating power

systems on a regional basis crossing the political boundaries of states was introduced in

the early sixties. In spite of the overall development that has taken place, the power

supply industry has been under constant pressure to bridge the gap between supply and

demand.

GROWTH OF INDIAN POWER SECTOR

Power development is the key to the economic development. The power Sector

has been receiving adequate priority ever since the process of planned development

began in 1950. The Power Sector has been getting 18-20% of the total Public Sector

outlay in initial plan periods. Remarkable growth and progress have led to extensive use

of electricity in all the sectors of economy in the successive five years plans.

Over the years (since 1950) the installed capacity of Power Plants (Utilities) has

increased to 89090 MW (31.3.98) from meagre 1713 MW in 1950, registering a 52d fold

increase in 48 years. Similarly, the electricity generation increased from about 5.1 billion

units to 420 Billion units 82 fold increases. The per capita consumption of electricity in

the country also increased from 15 kWh in 1950 to about 338 kWh in 1997-98, which is

about 23 times.

In the field of Rural Electrification and pump set energisation, country has made a

tremendous progress. About 85% of the villages have been electrified except far-flung

areas in North Eastern states, where it is difficult to extend the grid supply.

4


5/67

STRUCTURE OF POWER SUPPLY INDUSTRY

In December 1950 about 63% of the installed capacity in the Utilities was in the

private sector and about 37% was in the public sector. The Industrial Policy Resolution of

1956 envisaged the generation, transmission and distribution of power almost exclusively

in the public sector. As a result of this Resolution and facilitated by the Electricity

(Supply) Act, 1948, the electricity industry developed rapidly in the State Sector.

In the Constitution of India "Electricity" is a subject that falls within the

concurrent jurisdiction of the Centre and the States. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,

provides an elaborate institutional frame work and financing norms of the performance of

the electricity industry in the country.

During the post independence period, the various States played a predominant

role in the power development. Most of the States have established State Electricity

Boards. In some of these States separate corporations have also been established to install

and operate generation facilities. In the rest of the smaller States and UTs the power

systems are managed and operated by the respective electricity departments. In a few

States private licencees are also operating in certain urban areas.

From, the Fifth Plan onwards i.e. 1974-79, the Government of India got itself

involved in a big way in the generation and bulk transmission of power to supplement the

efforts at the State level and took upon itself the responsibility of setting up large power

projects to develop the coal and hydroelectric resources in the country as a supplementary

effort in meeting the countrys power requirements. The National thermal Power

Corporation (NTPC) and National Hydro-electric Power Corporation (NHPC) were set

up for these purposes in 1975.

North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) was set up in 1976 to

implement the regional power projects in the North-East. Subsequently two more power

generation corporations were set up in 1988 viz. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation

(THDC) and Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (NJPC). To construct, operate and

maintain the inter-State and interregional transmission systems the National Power

5


6/67

Transmission Corporation (NPTC) was set up in 1989. The corporation was renamed

as POWER GRID in 1992.

The policy of liberalization the Government of India announced in 1991 and

consequent amendments in Electricity (Supply) Act have opened new vistas to involve

private efforts and investments in electricity industry. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948

was amended in 1991 to provide for creation of private generating companies for setting

up power generating facilities and selling the power in bulk to the grid or other persons.

Financial Environment for private sector units modified to allow liberal capital

structuring and an attractive return on investment. Up to hundred percent (100%)

foreign equity participation can be permitted for projects set up by foreign private

investors in the Indian Electricity Sector.

In 1995, the policy for Mega power projects of capacity 1000 MW or more and

supplying power to more than one state introduced. The Mega projects to be set up

in the regions having coal and hydel potential or in the coastal regions based on

imported fuel.

In 1995 GOI came out with liquid fuel policy permitting liquid fuel based power

plants to achieve the quick capacity addition so as to avert a severe power crisis.

Liquid fuel linkages (Naphtha) were approved for about 12000 MW Power plant

capacity. The non-traditional fuels like condensate and orimulsion have also been

permitted for power generation.

GOI has promulgated Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 for setting up

of Independent Regulatory bodies both at the Central level and at the State level viz.

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the State Electricity

Regulatory Commission (SERCs) at the Central and the State levels respectively.

The main function of the CERC are to regulate the tariff of generating companiesowned or controlled by the Central Government, to regulate the tariff of generating

companies, other than those owned or controlled by the Central Government, if

such generating companies enter into or otherwise have a composite scheme for

generation and sale of electricity in more than one State to regulate the inter-state

transmission of energy including tariff of the transmission utilities, to regulate inter-

6


7/67


8/67

1.3 COMPANY PROFILE

Inel power group of companies is a fast growing; quality oriented engineering group

offering a wide range of techno- commercial marketing, services and engineering

excellence in the power sector. Right from its inception the group has been steadily

keeping up to its vision i.e. to offer engineering services like consultancy,erection,

testing & commissioning of projects, operation & maintenance, refurbishment &

modernization operation and trouble shooting.

INEL POWER GROUP OF COMPANIES

Inel power system engineers (p) ltd.

Inel power projects (p) ltd.

Inel power electro mechanical L.L.C

VISION

To excel in power sector.

MISSION

Providing engineering and & site solution in a healthy environment, conforming

to the highest degree in terms of quality, time & safety

POTENTIAL

Excellent quality related engineering services.

Expertise and experience in testing & commissioning.

EPC contracting up to 400 KV.

Approach to jobs as per international standards

8


9/67

INEL POWER SYSTEM ENGINEERS (P) LTD

Established in the year 1997, Chennai, as power system engineers and converted

as pvt ltd in the year 2003 with 4 directors to back its operations and also to carry its

services overseas their vision and goal unanswering.

INEL POWER PROJECTS (P) LTD

Incorporated in the year 2006 to undertake EPC contracts in power sector.

INEL POWER ELECTRO MECHANICAL L.L.C

Located in Dubai, UAE, an associate company to extends our service to the

clients of the Middle East.

DIVISION AND SERVICES

Erection testing & commissioning

Preventing maintenance

Operating and maintenance

Engineering

Refurbishment and modernization

CEIG REGISTRATIONS

Tamil Nadu contracting license - ESA 263

Tamil Nadu Testing -ELEC/TEST/APPROVED/2003/5

Andra Pradesh- contracting license - A-1-907/4055Andra Pradesh-CEIG/TS/OTK -PRT/No.162/06

Karnataka-Testing -28051 -55/07-08

Maharastra contracting license - 20091

9


10/67

CREDENTIALS

SEIMENS-kalwa works-QC testing of control & relay panels at factory.

Independent authorized service centre of L&T switch gear product in Tamil Nadu.

SEIMENS-PTD divn, Mumbai-site support services for T&D products within.

MEMBERSHIP

MSME No.330021210130

The national chamber of commerce, India

The national safety council, India

The institute of electrical technology, UK

CLIENTELE INDIA

Chemical & Fertilizers

Energy & Automation

Automobile

Sugar

Project builders

Minerals & metals

Oil & gas

Cement

Paper

IT & telecom

10


11/67

1.4 NEED OF THE STUDY

To study how effectively the performance appraisal is conducted in Inel power

system engineers (p) ltd.

The study is to provide suitable measures to improve the existing performance

appraisal system.

The study shows the satisfaction level of the employees in performance appraisal.

The study conducted to know the different method of performance appraisal.

11


12/67

1.5 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

A study on the effectiveness of performance appraisal in Inel power system

engineers (p) ltd.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

To find out employees opinion towards performance appraisal system

To identify the requirements of the employees.

To suggest suitable measures to improve the existing performance appraisal.

12


13/67


14/67

1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The data depends totally on the respondents view which may be biased.

The study is applicable only to Inel power system engineers (P) ltd, Chennai

14


15/67

CHAPTER -II

Review of Literature

15


16/67

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Longenecker, Clinton O.

Goff, Stephen J.

Performance appraisals have become a fact of organizational life. Recent research

estimates that over 90% of all large organizations in the U.S. employ some form of

systematic employee appraisal and review. This widespread use can be attributed to

human resource specialists, academics, and consultants who proclaim that performance

appraisal is a critically needed tool for effective human resource management. This, in

turn, is based on the belief that an effectively designed, implemented, and administered

performance appraisal system can provide the organization, the manager, and the

employee a myriad of benefits. The literature on performance appraisals generallysuggests that the appraisal process can 1) increase employee motivation and productivity,

2) provide a solid basis for wage and salary administration, 3) facilitate discussions

concerning employee growth and development, 4) provide data for human resource

decisions, and 5) provide managers with a useful communication tool for employee goal

setting and performance planning.

In theory, the merits of the formal appraisal process are numerous and, indeed,

attractive to any organization considering their use. In practice, however, the problems

associated with the design and implementation of formal performance appraisal systems

are well documented and continue to frustrate both practitioners and academics.

Organizations continually struggle to find an "ideal system" that will be accepted by

managers and subordinates alike and also fulfill the needs of human resource

departments. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that only a small percentage of

appraisals are actually effective and accomplish the goals for which they were intended.

In this vein, serious questions have been raised concerning the functions actually

served by the appraisal process. Are formal appraisals worth the time and effort devoted

to them? What do organizations actually accomplish in conducting formal appraisals?

The functions effectively served by the appraisal process are a source of continuing

16


17/67

debate, as academics seek to better understand the appraisal process and organizations

seek ways to increase its effectiveness.

Research suggests that having a technically sound appraisal system and procedure

is no guarantee that the process will be effective. To be effective, managers and

subordinates must have a shared perception of the purposes and functions of the process

and a shared belief that it is useful to them on an individual basis. Thus, an effective

appraisal system is one that satisfies the needs of the parties involved in the process. In

addition, for a system to be effective managers must have not only the skills necessary to

conduct effective appraisals but also the willingness to do so.

Both research and organizational practice suggest, however, that managers and

subordinates have different needs and expectations concerning appraisals. In a recent

study conducted at a medium-sized organization, researchers found that managers and

subordinates differed significantly in their perceptions of both the role and effectiveness

of the appraisal process on such key issues as the basic purpose, the level of fairness, the

link between pay and performance, honesty of communication, completeness of

feedback, means to improve the manager-subordinate relationship, and the extent to

which appraisal lets subordinates know where they stand. The overall effectiveness of the

process received mixed reviews.

In addition, others have found that employees reacted more favorably to the

appraisal process when it satisfied their needs and included an opportunity to state their

side of the issue; when factors on which they were being evaluated were job-related; and

when objectives and plans were openly discussed. While managers and subordinates may

not agree on what constitutes an effective appraisal, the subordinate's acceptance of the

appraisal increased when managers and subordinates shared an understanding of its

purpose and the role of each party.

Performance appraisals have been characterized by employees as acceptable, fair

and effective when 1) opportunities to challenge or rebut evaluations exist, 2) two-way

communication is encouraged, 3) raters are familiar with the work of subordinates, and 4)

17


18/67

there is a consistent application of performance standards. Collectively, research makes it

clear that it is critically important for managers and their subordinates to have shared

perceptions regarding the appraisal purpose and process.

With this background, we asked a basic question that strikes at the heart of why

organizations conduct formal performance appraisals. How effective is the formal

performance appraisal system in a typical, large organization in the U.S.? To investigate

this issue, we conducted research designed to answer four questions that focus

specifically on the appraisal process as a manager/subordinate interaction.

1) What specific functions (purposes) do managers and subordinates believe are served

by the formal appraisal process?

2) How effective is the appraisal process at fulfilling these functions?

3) Do managers and subordinates differ in their perceptions of appraisal effectiveness?

4) What are the primary causes of appraisal ineffectiveness and failure?

18


19/67

CHAPTER -III

Research Methodology

19


20/67

3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research is a structured enquiry that utilizes acceptable scientific methodology to

solve problems and create new knowledge that is generally applicable.

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

A plan outlining how information is to be gathered for an assessment or

evaluation that includes identifying the data gathering method(s), the instruments to be

used/created, how the instruments will be administered, and how the information will be

organized and analyzed.

3.2 SAMPLING METHOD

A simple random sample is a subset ofindividuals (a sample) chosen from a

larger set (apopulation).

3.3 POPULATION SIZE

The population size is 400.

3.4 SAMPLING SIZE

The sample size is 150.

3.5 DATA COLLECTION

3.5.1 Primary data

The primary data are those that are collected afresh and for first time, thus happen

to be original in character. The primary data is collected using a questionnaire. The

questionnaire so designed is a structured one.

20
http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?informationhttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?assessmenthttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?evaluationhttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?datahttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?instrumentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_populationhttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?informationhttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?assessmenthttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?evaluationhttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?datahttp://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?instrumentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_population


21/67

3.5.2 Secondary data

The secondary data are those which have already been collected by someone else

like journals, Review of literature. The tools used for secondary data were collected

through company profile, organization website and other related library books.

3.6 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Descriptive research

It is also known as statistical research, describes data and characteristics about the

population or phenomenon being studied.

3.7 STATISTICAL TOOLS

The tools used for the analysis are, chi-square test, weighted average method &

correlation co-efficient.

3.7.1 Chi-square test

A chi-square test is any statistical hypothesis test in which the sampling

distribution of the test statistic is a chi-square distribution when the null hypothesis is

true, or any in which this is asymptotically true, meaning that the sampling distribution

can be made to approximate a chi-square distribution as closely as desired by making the

sample size large enough.

21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statisticalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_distributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statisticalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_distributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis


22/67

3.7.2 Weighted average method

The weighted average is obtained on dividing the weighted totals by the sum of

weights totals by the sum of weights. Let X1, X2, Xn

Occur with weights W1, W2, W3Wn then.

Weighted average = WiXi

Wi

A weighted average with appropriated weight is generally used when the

moving averages affected by extreme values.

3.7.3Karl Pearson correlation co-efficient

Correlation is a statistical technique that can show whether and how strongly pairs

of variables are related.

22


23/67


24/67


25/67

4.1.2. TABLE SHOWING THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MODEL IN THE

ORGANIZATION

S.NO PARTICULARS NO OF

RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 Simple 76 50.72 Complicated 0 0

3 Objective 47 31.3

4 Subjective 14 9.3

5 Efficient 13 8.7

6 Inefficient 0 0

TOTAL 150 100

4.1.2. CHART SHOWING THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MODEL IN THEORGANIZATION

INFERENCEIt is inferred that 50% of the respondents said that the performance appraisal

model in the organization is simple & 13% said that it is efficient

25

NO OF RESPONDENTS

76

0

47

14 1300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sim ple Com plicated Objective Subjective Efficient Inefficient


26/67

4.1.3. TABLE SHOWING HOW OFTEN DOES PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

MATCH TO THE EMPLOYEES EXPECTATION


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 Every time 42 28

2 Often 71 47.3

3 Sometimes 29 19.3

4 Rarely 8 5.4

5 Never 0 0

TOTAL 150 100

4.1.3. CHART SHOWING HOW OFTEN DOES PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

MATCH TO THE EMPLOYEES EXPECTATION

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 47% of the respondents said that the performance appraisal

match to the employees expectation & 5% said it match to the expectations rarely.

26

Everytime

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

42

71

29

8 00

20

40

60

80

NO OF RESPONDENTS


27/67

4.1.4. TABLE SHOWING HOW OFTEN THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW

TAKES PLACE


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 Once a week 0 0

2 Month 0 0

3 Every 3 month 27 18

4 Every 6 month 47 31.3

5 Once a year 76 50.7

TOTAL 150 100

4.1.4. CHART SHOWING HOW OFTEN THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW

TAKES PLACE

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 50% of the respondents said that the performance review takesplace once in a year and 18% said that review take place in every 3 month

27

NO OF RESPONDENTS

0

0

27

47

76

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Once a week

Month

Every 3 month

Every 6 month

Once a year


28/67

4.1.5. TABLE SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH, SUPERVISOR GIVES

FEEDBACK TO THE EMPLOYEES REGARDING PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

S.NO PARTICULARS NO OFRESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

1 To a very great extent 55 36.7

2 To a considerable extent 63 42

3 To some extent 32 21.3

4 To a very little extent 0 0

5 None of the above 0 0

TOTAL 150 100

4.1.5. CHART SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH, SUPERVISOR GIVESFEEDBACK TO THE EMPLOYEES REGARDING PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 42% of the respondents said that supervisor gives feedback tothe employees regarding performance appraisal and 21% said that it s only to some extent

28

NO OF RESPONDENTS

5563

32

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

To a very great

extent

To a

considerable

extent

To some extent To a very little

extent

None of the

above


29/67

4.1.6. TABLE SHOWING WHETHER THE SUPERIOR ALLOWS EMPLOYEES

TO VIEW THEIR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 Strongly agree 27 18

2 Agree 53 35.3

3 Neutral 70 46.7

4 Disagree 0 0

5 Strongly disagree 0 0

TOTAL 150 100

4.1.6. CHART SHOWING WHETHER THE SUPERIOR ALLOWS EMPLOYEESTO VIEW THEIR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 46% of the respondents said that the superior allows employees

to view their performance evaluation & 18% strongly agree with the statement

29

NO OF RESPONDENTS

27

53

70

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree


30/67


31/67

4.1.8. TABLE SHOWING WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION IS

DOCUMENTING INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE TO SUPPORT

COMPENSATION AND CAREER PLANNING DECISIONS


1 Strongly agree 43 28.6

2 Agree 87 58

3 Neutral 20 13.4

4 Disagree 0 0


TOTAL 150 100

4.1.8. CHART SHOWING WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION ISDOCUMENTING INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE TO SUPPORT

COMPENSATION AND CAREER PLANNING DECISIONS

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 58% of the respondents agree that the organization isdocumenting individual performance to support compensation and career planning

decisions and 13% of the respondents said that it s neutral.

31

43

87

20

0 00

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly

agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree

NO OF RESPONDENTS


32/67

4.1.9. TABLE SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH, THE ORGANIZATION

MOTIVATE EMPLOYEES AFTER APPRAISAL TO DEVELOP AND IMPROVE

PERFORMANCE


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 To a very great extent 47 31.3

2 To a considerable extent 79 52.7

3 To some extent 24 16



TOTAL 150 100

4.1.9. CHART SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH, THE ORGANIZATION

MOTIVATE EMPLOYEES AFTER APPRAISAL TO DEVELOP AND IMPROVEPERFORMANCE

47

79

24

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

To a very great

extent

To a

considerable

extent

To some

extent

To a very little

extent

None of the

above

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 52% of the respondents said that agree that the organizationmotivate employees after appraisal to develop and improve performance to aconsiderable extent & 16 said that it s only to some extent.

32


33/67


34/67

4.1.11. TABLE SHOWING EVALUATING PERFORMANCE AND DELIVERINGINCENTIVES ARE CARRIED OUT IN A FAIR AND CONSISTENT MANNER


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE


2 Agree 29 19.3

3 Neutral 44 29.3

4 Disagree 0 0


TOTAL 150 100

4.1.11. CHART SHOWING EVALUATING PERFORMANCE ANDDELIVERING INCENTIVES ARE CARRIED OUT IN A FAIR AND

CONSISTENT MANNER

INFERENCE

34

NO OF RESPONDENTS

77

29

44

0 00

102030405060708090

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree


35/67

It is inferred that 51% of the respondents strongly agree that evaluating

performance and delivering incentives are carried out in a fair and consistent manner and

19% agrees.

4.1.12. TABLE SHOWING WHETHER PERFORMANCE RATING WAS DONE

PERIODICALLY

4.1.12. CHART SHOWING WHETHER PERFORMANCE RATING WAS DONE

PERIODICALLY

INFERENCE


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 Yes 150 100

2 No 0 0

TOTAL 150 100

35

NO OF RESPONDENTS

150

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Yes

No


36/67

It is inferred that Most of the respondents said that the performance rating was

done periodically

4.1.13. TABLE SHOWING WHETHER PERFORMANCE-BASED PAYMOTIVATES EMPLOYEE TO IMPROVE/SUSTAINPERFORMANCE



2 Agree 104 69.3

3 Neutral 18 12

4 Disagree 2 1.4


TOTAL 150 100

4.1.13. CHART SHOWING WHETHER PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY

MOTIVATES EMPLOYEE TO IMPROVE/SUSTAINPERFORMANCE

36

Strongly agree, 26

Agree, 104

Neutral, 18

Disagree, 2

Strongly disagree,

0


37/67


38/67


39/67

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 53% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal processresults in better communication between me and my supervisor & 22% said that it is

neutral.

4.1.16. TABLE SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH APPRAISALS ARE

ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE AND ACCOMPLISH GOALS

S.NO PARTICULARS NO OFRESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 To a very great extent 33 22

2 To a considerable

extent

70 46.7

3 To some extent 47 31.34 To a very little extent 0 0


TOTAL 150 100

4.1.16. CHART SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH APPRAISALS ARE

ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE AND ACCOMPLISH GOALS

INFERENCE

39

33

7047

0 00

20

40

60

80

To a very great

extent

To a

considerable

extent

To some

extent

To a very little

extent

None of the

above

NO OF RESPONDENTS


40/67

It is inferred that 46% of the respondents said that appraisals are actually effective

and accomplish goals and 22% to a very great extent.

4.1.17.TABLE SHOWING WHETHER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

HELPS TO IDENTIFY THE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF THEEMPLOYEE


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE


2 Agree 66 44

3 Neutral 53 35.44 Disagree 0 0


TOTAL 150 100

4.1.17.CHART SHOWING WHETHER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEMHELPS TO IDENTIFY THE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF THE

EMPLOYEE

INFERENCE

40

31

66

53

0

0

0 20 40 60 80

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

NO OF RESPONDENTS

NO OF RESPONDENTS


41/67

It is inferred that 44% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal system

helps to identify the strength and weakness of the employee & 20% strongly agrees.

4.1.18. TABLE SHOWING WHETHER EMPLOYEE IS REWARDED FOR

GOOD PERFORMANCE

4.1.18. CHART SHOWING WHETHER EMPLOYEE IS REWARDED FOR

GOOD PERFORMANCE


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 Yes 137 91.3

2 No 13 8.7

TOTAL 150 100

41

NO OF RESPONDENTS

Yes, 137

No, 13


42/67

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 91.3% of the respondents said that employee is rewarded for

good performance & 13 disagree.

4.1.19.TABLE SHOWING, IN WHAT WAY THE ORGANIZATION IMPROVE

EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE


PERCENTAGE

1 Counseling 99 66

2 Training 28 18.6

3 Development programs 23 15.4

TOTAL 150 100

4.1.19.CHART SHOWING, IN WHAT WAY THE ORGANIZATION IMPROVEEMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE

42

99

2823

0

20

40

60

80

100

Counseling Training Development

programs

NO OF RESPONDENTS


43/67

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 66% of the respondents said that the organization improve

employees performance through counseling & 15% said that it is through development

programs

4.1.20. TABLE SHOWING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IS HELPFUL INREDUCING THE GRIEVANCE AMONG THE EMPLOYEES


PERCENTAGE


2 Agree 71 47.3

3 Neutral 12 8

4 Disagree 0 0


TOTAL 150 100

4.1.20. CHART SHOWING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IS HELPFUL IN

REDUCING THE GRIEVANCE AMONG THE EMPLOYEES

43

NO OF RESPONDENTS

6771

12

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Strongly

agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strong ly

disagree

NO OF RESPONDENTS


44/67

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 47% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal is

helpful in reducing the grievance among the employees & 8% said that it is neutral

4.1.21. TABLE SHOWING NEEDS WHICH DERIVED FROM SYSTEM

4.1.21. CHART SHOWING NEEDS WHICH DERIVED FROM SYSTEM


RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1 Training needs 21 14

2 Motivation 43 28.7

3 Counseling 61 40.6

4 Stress Management 5 3.4

5 Developments 9 6

6 Leadership quality 11 7.3

TOTAL 150 100

44

NO OF RESPONDENTS

21

43

61

5

9

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Training needs

Motivation

Counseling

Stress Management

Developments

Leadership quality


45/67

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 40% of the respondents said that needs which derived from

system is training needs & 3% said as stress management.

4.1.22. TABLE SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE

OF AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN INCREASED AFTER APPRAISAL


PERCENTAGE

1 To a very great extent 51 34

2 To a considerable

extent

65 43.3

3 To some extent 34 22.7



TOTAL 150 100

4.1.22. CHART SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE

OF AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN INCREASED AFTER APPRAISAL

45

NO OF RESPONDENTS

5165

34

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

To a very great

extent

To a

considerable

extent

To some extent To a very little

extent

None of the

above


46/67

INFERENCE

It is inferred that 43% of the respondents said that the performance of an

individual has been increased after appraisal to a considerable extent & 22% said that it isonly to some extent

4.1.23. TABLE SHOWING THE OVERALL RATE FOR THE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE ORGANIZATION


PERCENTAGE

1 Very bad 0 0

2 poor 0 0

3 Obscure 0 0

4 Moderate 3 2

5 Fair 9 6

6 Ok 17 11.3

7 Good 34 22.7

8 Very good 15 10

9 Satisfied 64 42.6

10 Excellent 8 5.4TOTAL 150 100

4.1.23. CHART SHOWING THE OVERALL RATE FOR THE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE ORGANIZATION

46

NO OF RESPONDENTS

0 0 0 39

1734

15

64

80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Veryba

d

poor

Obscure

Mod

erate

Fair Ok

Good

Very

goo

d

Satisfie

d

Excelle

nt


47/67


48/67

Gender/response To a

very

great

extent

To a

considerable

extent

To some

extent

To a

very

little

extent

None of

the

above

Total

Male 33 41 23 0 0 97

Female 18 24 11 0 0 53

Total 51 65 34 0 0 150

S.NO Oi Ei (Oi-Ei) 2 Oi-Ei 2/Ei

1 33 32.98 0.0004 02 41 42.03 1.06 0.025

3 23 21.9 1.21 0.06

4 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0

6 18 18.02 0.0004 0

7 24 22.9 1.21 0.06

8 11 12.01 1.02 0.09

9 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0

Total 150 0.235

48


49/67

Calculated value = 0.235

Degree of freedom = (R-1) (C-1)

= (2-1) (5-1)

= (1) (4)

= 4

Table value = 9.48

INFERENCE

For 4 d.f. Chi-square @ 5% level of significance is 9.48, the computed value is

0.235.the computed value is less than the table value, therefore the null hypothesis is

accepted. Thus there is no relationship between the gender and the extent to which the

performance of an individual has been increased after performance appraisal.

4.3 WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD

Weighted average method to show the respondents opinion about, whether

the organization motivate employees after appraisal to develop and improve

performance.

S.NO GROUP NO OF

RESPONDENTS

WEIGHTS

ASSIGNED

WEIGHTED

AVERAGE

1 To a very great

extent

47 5 235

2 To a considerable

extent

79 4 316

3 To some extent 24 3 72

4 To a very little

extent

0 2 0

5 None of the above 0 1 0

Total 150 623

49


50/67

Weighted Average = 623/150

= 4.15

INFERENCE:

From the above table it is inferred that majority of the respondents said that the

organization motivate employees after appraisal to develop and improve performance to a

considerable extent.

4.4 KARL PEARSONCORRELATION COEFFICIENT

X denotes the extent to which supervisor gives feedback to the employees

regarding performance appraisal Y denotes the extent to which appraisals are actually

effective and accomplish goals.

PARTICULARS X YTo a very great extent 55 33

To a considerable extent 63 70

To some extent 32 47

To a very little extent 0 0

None of the above 0 0

X Y XY X^2 Y^2

55 33 1815 3025 1089

63 70 4410 3969 4900

32 47 1504 1024 2209

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

50


51/67

N=5

Sum of x =150

Sum of y=150

Sum of XY= 7729

Sum of X^2 = 8018

Sum of Y^2= 8189

r = 0.895

INFERENCE

It is inferred that there is no relationship between, the extents to which supervisorgives feedback to the employees regarding performance appraisal (X). & the extents to

which appraisals are actually effective and accomplish goals(Y).

51


52/67

CHAPTER -V

Findings

Suggestions

Conclusion

52


53/67

5.1 FINDINGS

All the respondents have responded that the superior has informed about the

performance appraisal model, used in the organization.

50% of the respondents said that the performance appraisal model in the organization

is simple & 13% said that it is efficient

47% of the respondents said that the performance appraisal match to the employees

expectation & 5% said it match to the expectations rarely.

50% of the respondents said that the performance review takes place once in a year

and 18% said that review take place in every 3 month

46% of the respondents said that the superior allows employees to view their

performance evaluation & 18 strongly agree with the statement

64% of the respondents said that Frequency of appraisal should be improved & 8%

said that appraiser should be improved

58% of the respondents agree that the organization is documenting individual

performance to support compensation and career planning decisions and 13% of the

respondents said that it s neutral. 52% of the respondents said that agree that the organization motivate employees after

appraisal to develop and improve performance to a considerable extent & 16 said that

it s only to some extent.

72% of the respondents said that performance is only measured with the review of

past performance & 27% said does not agree with the statement

53


54/67

51% of the respondents strongly agree that evaluating performance and delivering

incentives are carried out in a fair and consistent manner and 19% agrees.

Most of the respondents said that the performance rating was done periodically

51% of the respondents agree that performance-based pay motivates employee to

improve/sustain performance & 1.4% disagrees.

52% of the respondents said that managers and subordinates have shared perception

of purpose and function of appraisal process to a considerable extent & 18% to a very

great extent.

53% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal process results in better

communication between me and my supervisor & 22% said that it is neutral.

46% of the respondents said that appraisals are actually effective and accomplish

goals and 22% to a very great extent

44% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal system helps to identify the

strength and weakness of the employee & 20% strongly agrees.

91.3% of the respondents said that employee is rewarded for good performance & 13

disagree.

66% of the respondents said that the organization improve employees performance

through counseling & 15% said that it is through development programs

47% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal is helpful in reducing the

grievance among the employees & 8% said that it is neutral

40% of the respondents said that needs which derived from system is training needs

& 3% said as stress management.

43% of the respondents said that the performance of an individual has been increased

after appraisal to a considerable extent & 22% said that it is only to some extent

42% of the respondents are satisfied with the overall performance appraisal system in

the organization & 2% said that it is moderate.

For 4 d.f. Chi-square @ 5% level of significance is 9.48, the computed value is

0.235.the computed value is less than the table value, therefore the null hypothesis is

accepted. Thus there is no relationship between the gender and the extent to which the

performance of an individual has been increased after performance appraisal

54


55/67

It is inferred that majority of the respondents said that the organization motivate

employees after appraisal to develop and improve performance to a considerable

extent.

There is no relationship between the extents to which supervisor gives feedback to the

employees regarding performance appraisal (X). & the extents to which appraisals are

actually effective and accomplish goals(Y).

5.2 SUGGESTIONS

The company should circulate the information to the employees with

respect to factors for performance appraisal.

Company should regularly get feedback from employees and change

according to their views & suggestions.

Management can improve the employees performance by conducting

training and development programs.

Employees participation shall be encouraged in the appraisal procedure

in order to make the system more effective.

Managers and subordinates should, share perception of purpose and

functions of appraisal process as it was only 18% of respondents were

shared to a very great extent.

55


56/67


57/67

CHAPTER -VI

Appendix

57


58/67

Bibliography

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear sir/madam,

I am L.Indhu second year MBA student of Anand Institute of HigherTechnology, as a part of my academic curriculum. I intend to do A study on

effectiveness of performance appraisal in Inel power system engineers (P) ltd, Chennai.

In connection with the above topic I need certain information which will be purely used

for my academic purpose. So kindly oblige me by filling up the questionnaire.

Name:

Age :

21-30

31-40

41-50

Above 50

58


59/67

Gender:

Male

Female

Educational qualification:

+2

UG

PG

Other

1. Have you informed about the performance appraisal model, used in the

organization during induction?

Yes

No

2. How do you find the performance appraisal model in the organization? (Mark the

relevant ones)

Simple

Complicated

Objective

Subjective

Efficient

Inefficient

3. According to you, how often does performance appraisal match to your

expectation?

Every time

Often

59


60/67

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

4. According to you, how often the performance review takes place?

Once a week

Month

Every 3 month

Every 6 month

Once a year

5. To what extent, supervisor gives feedback to the employees regarding

performance appraisal?

To a very great extent

To a considerable extent

To some extent

To a very little extent

None of the above

6. Do you agree that the superior allow employees to view their performance

evaluation?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

7. What are the areas that should be improved upon?

Standards

Frequency of appraisal

60


61/67

Appraiser

8. Do you agree that organization is documenting individual performance to support

compensation and career planning decisions?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

9. To what extent, the organization motivate employees after appraisal to develop

and improve performance?



To some extent


None of the above

10. Is your performance is only measured with the review of past performance?

Yes

No

11. Evaluating performance and delivering incentives are carried out in a fair and

consistent manner.

Do you agree with this statement?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

61


62/67

Disagree

Strongly disagree

12. Does the performance rating was done periodically?

Yes

No

13. Do you agree that Performance-based pay motivates employee to

improve/sustainperformance?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

14. To what extent, the managers and subordinates have shared perception of

purpose andfunction of appraisal process?



To some extent


None of the above

15 . The performance appraisal process results in better communication between me

and mysupervisor.

62


63/67


Strongly agree

Agree Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

16 . To what extent the appraisals are actually effective and accomplish goals?



To some extent


None of the above

17. Performance appraisal system helps to identify the strength and weakness of the

employee?


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

63


64/67

Disagree

Strongly disagree

18 . Does the employee is rewarded for good performance?

Yes

No

19. In what way does your organization improve your performance?

Counseling

Training

Development programs

20. Performance appraisal is helpful in reducing the grievance among the

employees?


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

21. Mark the following needs which derived from system?

Training needs

Motivation

Counseling

64


65/67


66/67


67/67

WEBSITE REFERENCES

www.google.com

www.inelpse.com

www.citehr.com

www.wikipedia.com

www.emeraldinsight.com
http://www.google.com/http://www.google.com/

a study on effectiveness of performance appraisal

Documents