performance appraisal allied nippon
TRANSCRIPT
A
SUMMER TRAINING PROJECT REPORTON
A STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
IN ALLIED NIPPON LIMITEDSite-IV, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad(PRODUCTION DEPTARTMENT)
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (Affiliated To M.T.U, Noida)
2011-2012SUBMITTED BY:
Ajay Panwar MBA- III Semester
Roll No.: 1003270002Under the guidance of :
External Guide “ Internal Guide :Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma Mr. Rakesh Passi(HR Executive ) HOD-MBAAllied Nippon Limited.
ABES ENGINEERING COLLEGE (Code-032)
Contents
Acknowledgement.
Executive Summary
1. Company-Profile
2. Introduction of Study
3. Research Methodology
4. Data Analysis
5. Findings
6. Limitations
7. Recommendations
8. Conclusions.
9. Annexure.
Questionnaire.
10. Bibliography.
Acknowledgement
This project is the result of the help of the various people who
rendered their support and suggestions from time to time. I take this
opportunity to thank all of them with a deep sense of gratitude and
reverence.
Firstly, I wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Vinay Kumar
Sharma (HR-Executive) Allied Nippon Limited, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad for his caring and guiding support and for giving a
very patient hearing whenever i needed. he directly made a
significant contribution to emerge to this project report.
My sincere thank to Mr.Rakesh Passi (Head of the Deptt.-
MBA, ABES Engineering College, Ghaziabad) all my friends
for her support and help.
I would like to thank my family and friends who directly or
indirectly helped me in finishing the project successfully.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMPANY ALLIED NIPPON LTD.
PRODUCT Manufacturing Brakes Shoes.
PROJECT TITLE: Performance Appraisal in Allied Nippon Ltd. (Production Department)
MISSION OFTHE PROJECT This report deals with the findings
and recommendations regarding viability of industry under the following heads.
To make a detailed study of the industry in terms of its existing
market size, future market potential and important customer
segments.
To study from various performance appraisal programs adopted
by the company.
To seek the players about the most popular type of products in
demand.
To study the staff workers and their preference parameters.
To study the possibility to change the performance appraisal
method as per needs of the company.
To explore the current market scenario, the major players, the
products being offered by them.
THE COMPANY PROFILE
Allied Nippon Ltd (ANL), an ISO/TS 16949:2002 company, that
manufactures and markets friction products including Disc Brake
Pads, Brake Linings, Brake Shoes, Clutch Facings, and Brake
Hydraulics for Cars, Railways, Commercial Vehicles (CV), Off The
Road Vehicles (OTR )and various other automotive applications.
Allied Nippon Ltd.(ANL) has Joint Venture Collaboration with
Japan Brake Industrial Company Limited (JBI), Tokyo, Japan.
ABOUT OUR PARTNERS
JAPAN BRAKE INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (JBI)
JBI, a Hitachi group company, is a pioneer in the development of
Friction Material Technology. It is a major supplier to the world’s
leading automobile manufacturers including Honda, Suzuki,
Mazda, General Motors and Hyundai.As JBI’s Joint Venture
partner,ANL continuously receives upto date technical knowledge,
and research & development expertise.
NABCO LTD
To widen its automotive product range, ANL has signed a
Technical Collaboration agreement with NABCO Ltd. to
manufacture Railway Brake Blocks. NABCO has been consistently
involved in the development of Automotive Brake Systems and
Railway Car Brake System in Japan.
Anternational Operations
With an exhaustive distributor network, ANL has offices,
warehousing and customer support centres across the globe.
ANL’s International Operations are equipped to handle problems
and technical queries of customers, build better customer contact
and provide superior services.
International Locations :
- ANL Europe Ltd
Bristol (U.K.)
- Allied Comline Ltd
Middlesex (U.K.)
- Nippon Line Ltd
Moscow (Russia)
- Engineering Office Bristol (U.K.)
ALLIED NIPPON
MANUFACTURING A – 12, Site IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad – 201010 Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.) INDIA Tel No.: +91 11 55351409 +91 120 2896686 - 95 Fax No: +91 120 2896685 e.mail : [email protected] website: http://www.alliednippon.com/
REGISTERED OFFICE (INDIA) ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED 1006, Akashdeep Building 26/A, Barakhamba Road New Delhi – 110 001. INDIA Tel No : +91 11 23753575 – 76 +91 11 26428043 Fax No: +91 11 23753575 e.mail : [email protected]
(U.K.) ALLIED COMLINE LIMITED Unit – 30, Northfield Industrial Estate Beresford Avenue, Wembley Middlesex HAO INW, England Tel No. : (44) 020 8902 8989 Fax No : (44) 020 8902 9898 e.mail : mailto:%[email protected] website : http://www.comline.uk.com/
(U.K.) ANL EUROPE LIMITED Unit 16 Londonerry Farm Keynsham Road, Willsbridge Bristol BS 30 6EL, England Tel No : (44) 0117 932 1050 Fax No : (44) 0117 932 1059 e.mail : [email protected] website : http://www.anl-europe.com/
(RUSSIA) NIPPON LINE LIMITED 307,8, 2nd Roschinsky Proezd, Moscow, Russia - 115419 Tel No : +7 (095) 956 6670 Fax No : +7 (095) 956 6670 e.mail :mailto:[email protected] website : http://www.allied-nippon.com/
PRODUCT PROFILE
Disc Brake Pads
Using JBI’s extensive research, proven technology, process
methods and original equipment formulation, ANL Disc
Brake Pads can be classified into 3 categories :
- Asbestos Free (Semi Metallic / Metallic)
- Asbestos Free (Non Asbestos)
- Asbestos
The range of Allied Nippon Disc Brake Pads covers After
Market requirements for Japanese, European, Korean,
American and Australian Vehicles. Additionally, the
recently expanded range of CV & OTR pads have been
well accepted in sophisticated markets such as the
European, North America and Australia.
Brake Linings, Shoes, Discs and Hydraulics
ANL’s Braking range also consists of various products such
as Brake Linings, Brake Shoes and Brake Hydraulics.
The products have been supplied extensively to manufacturers of Passenger Cars,
Suvs, LCVs, Tractors, Two Wheelers and Four Wheelers
Commercial Vehicles - Trucks and Off-The-Road Vehicles
Based on increasing product acceptance& recogination
ANL has expanded its manufacturing and business
activities to include an exhaustive range of Commercial
vehicles (CV) and Off-The-Road (OTR) vehicles pads such
as heavy earth movers. Customers are assured and
guaranteed the safety and reliability of ANL products. The
pads are supplied with complete accessories and wear
indicators.
RailwaysANL is a pioneer in the development and manufacturing of
composition Brake Blocks for Railways. It has acquired the
latest and most cost effective technology from NABCO,
Japan, a worldwide leader in its field and superior quality,
Safety being a paramount importance, ANL Brake Blocks
are manufactured under the most stringent quality checks
MANUFACTURING
Experienced, skilled and trained personnel monitor the
entire production process. All raw materials are screened
through a rigorous selection process and the
manufacturing process ensures zero defect system at
every stage.
The computerized and fully automated plant uses JBI’s
proven technology and process methods. Furthermore the
critical operations – Weighing, Mixing, Pre-forming, Heat
Moulding and Finishing are given high priority.
ANL, equipped with modern tool room facilities, is in a
unique position to design, develop and manufacture
tooling for products required by the customer within
stipulated time schedules.
REACH & DEVELOPMENT
Besides using superior Japanese Technology, ANL has
built and developed its own centre for in-house research
and development activities, thereby providing it with a
solid backing.
To conduct and complete in-house testing for newly
developed products (ranging from two-wheeler to HCVs),
ANL’s R & D centre, approved by the Government of India,
is equipped with a Dynamometer and the Krauss testing
machine.
ANL’s R & D centre also conducts rigorous tests to ensure
that the highest standards are maintained in raw material
selection, mix quality and the entire manufacturing
process.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Allied Nippon friction materials go through systematically
defined Quality Assurance testing procedures and
programmes.
ANL products consistently guarantee the combination of
safety, strength, high endurance, dependability and cost
effective performance. All critical and special
characteristics are statistically measured and controlled.
Well-equipped in-house Quality Control meets the
calibration and inspection requirement as per international
standards.
OEM USERS
The Original Equipment Users
ANL, a major OEM supplier for renowned Vehicle
Manufacturers, caters to the requirement of various
Original Equipment Manufacturers which include Honda,
Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Toyota, Fiat, GM, Ford, Daewoo,
Hyundai, International Harvester and Massey
Ferguson,and Brake system suppliers including Bendix
and Girling.
Allied Nippon Bonded Brake Shoes are also used as
Original Equipment on two wheelers manufactured by
Hero Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki Bajaj, Royal Enfield,
Kinetic Motors in India and Piaggio in Italy.
WHAT IS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL?
Since organizations exist to achieve goals, the degree of
success that individual employees have in reaching their
individual goals is important in determining organizational
effectiveness. The assessment of how successful employees
have been at meeting their individual goals, therefore, becomes
a critical part of HRM. This leads us to the topic of performance
appraisal.
People differ in their abilities and aptitudes. These
differences are natural to a great extent and cannot be eliminated
even by giving the same basic education and training to them.
There will be some differences in the quality and quantity of
work done by different employees even on the same job.
Therefore, it is necessary for management to know these
differences so that the employees having better abilities may be
rewarded and the wrong placements of employees may be
rectified through transfers. The individual employee may also
like to know the level of his performance in comparison to his
fellow employees so that he may improve on it. Thus, there is a
great need to have suitable performance appraisal system to
measure the relative merit of each employee.
The basic purpose of performance appraisal is to
facilitate orderly determination of an employee’s worth to the
organization of which he is a part. However, a fair determination
of the worth of an employee can take place only by appraising
numerous factors some of which are highly subjective, as for
instant, attendance, while others are highly subjective, as for
instant, attitude and personality. The objective factor can be
assessed accurately on the basis of records maintained by the
Human resource or personnel Department, but there is no device
to measure the subjective factor precisely. Notwithstanding this,
appraisal of these factors must be done to achieve the full
appreciation of every employee merit.
What Is Performance Appraisal?
Performance appraisal goes by various
names such as performance evaluation, progress rating, merit rating,
merit evaluation, etc. But in this chapter, we shall use the terms
performance appraisal and merit rating to denote the appraisal of the
performance of the employees of an organization.
Performance appraisal means systematic
evaluation of the personality and performance of each employee by
his supervisor or some other person trained in the techniques of
merit rating. It employs various rating techniques for comparing
individual employees in a work group, in term of personal qualities
or deficiencies and the requirements of their respective jobs. To
quote dale Yoder,” performance appraisal includes all formal
procedures used to evaluate personalities and contribution and
potential of group members in a working organization. It is a
continuous process to secure information necessary for making
correct and objective decisions on employees.” The comparison of
performance with job requirements helps in finding out the merit of
individual employees in a week group. Supervisor or an independent
appraiser may do rating.
Performance appraisal is a formal programme in an
organization, which is concerned with not only the contribution of
the members who form part of the organization, but aims at spotting
the potential also. The satisfactory performance is only a part of the
system as a whole and the management needs more information than
mere performance ratings of the subordinates. There are no two
opinions about the necessity of performance appraisal, which can
meet requirements of the management to achieve the organizational
goals.
Performance appraisal is the systematic
evaluation of the individual with respect to his performance on the
job and his potential for development. Performance appraisal is
concerned with determining the differences among the employees
working in the organization. Generally, the individual’s immediate
superior in the organization and whose performance is reviewed in
turn by his superior does the evaluation. Thus, everyone in
Performance appraisal employs rating techniques for comparing
individual employees in the work group, in terms of personal
qualities or deficiencies and the requirements of their respective
jobs.
Purpose of Performance Appraisal:
The objective of performance appraisal fall in two categories:
1) Administrative; and
2) Self-improvement
1) Administrative Objectives.
a) Promotions:
This is the most important administrative use of
performance appraisal. It is to the common interest of both the
management and employees to promote employees onto position
where they can most effectively utilize their abilities. It is
mismanagement to promote employees into position where they
cannot perform effectively at the time in question. A properly
developed and administered performance appraisal system can aid in
determining whether individuals should be considered for promotions.
The system must rate the ratee for the present job and his potentialities
for the higher job. A person performing the job well does not
necessarily mean that he is fit for promotion.
b) Transfers:
In an organization, it may be necessary to consider various types of
personnel actions such as transfer, layoffs, demotions and discharges.
In some cases, such actions are called for because of unsatisfactory
performance while in other cases it may be called for due to economic
conditions over which the organization has no control because of
changes in production process. Such actions can be justified if they
are based on performance appraisal.
c) Wage and Salary Administration:
In some cases, the wage increases are based on the performance
appraisal reports. In some cases, appraisals and seniority are used in
combination.
d) Training and Development:
An appropriate system of performance appraisal can be helpful in
identifying the areas of skills or knowledge in which certain
employees are not up to par, thus pointing out general training
deficiencies which presumably should be corrected by additional
training, discussions, or counseling. Performance appraisal can also
help in spotting the talented employees so as to train and develop
them to create an inventory of executive skills. It can also provide the
areas where the employees/executives could be further trained and
positioned to meet retirement and expansion situations.
e) Personnel Research:
Performance appraisal helps in research in the
field of personnel management. Various theories in human
relationship are outcome of efforts to find out the cause
and effect relationship between the personnel and their
performance.
2) Self Improvement.
The performance appraisals bring out the
deficiencies and shortcomings of the employees.
Performance appraisal helps human resource development
in a way. A promotion minded individual could ask for the
target programmes of a position he seeks and use the
information given by performance appraisal to prepare
him for the job and enhance his candidacy.
Performance appraisal also helps to spot out a
person’s ability to see an organization problem, devise
ways of attracting it, translate his ideas into action,
incorporate new information as it arises and carry his
plans through the results. It highlights a sort of total
managerial action in contrast to things they customarily
factor out as conceptual entities-things such as planning
function, leadership ability, or financial knowledge. The
manager’s selection will often be improved by this
emphasis on the whole managerial job.
Why Performance Appraisal?
The important reasons or benefits, which justify the
existence of a system of performance appraisal in an enterprise, are as
under:
1) A good system of performance appraisal helps the supervisor
to evaluate the performance of his employees systematically and
periodically. It also helps to assign that work to individual for which
they are best suited.
2) Performance rating helps in guiding and correction of
employees. The supervisor may use the results of rating for the
purpose of constructively guiding employees in the efficient
performance of work.
3) The ability of the staff is recognized and can be adequately
rewarded by giving them special increments.
4) Performance appraisal can be used as a basis of sound
personnel policy in relation to transfers and promotions. If the
performance of an employee is better than others, he can be
recommended for promotion, but if a person is not doing well in a job,
he may be transferred to some other job.
5) Ratings can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of training
programmes. Merit rating reveals weaknesses of employees and the
training programmes can be modified accordingly.
6) Performance appraisal provides an incentive to the employees
to better their performance in a bid to improve their rating over others.
7) Systematic appraisals will prevent grievances and develop
confidence amongst the employees if they are convinced of the
impartial basis of evaluation. The record of merit rating is available in
permanent form to protect the management against subsequent
charges of discrimination, which might be leveled by the trade union
leaders.
Performance Appraisal has a beneficial effect on both the
persons doing the appraisal and being appraised. The appraisal brings
prominently to the attention of supervisors or executives the
importance of knowing their subordinates as human being. The
necessity of performance appraisal leads the appraiser to a thoughtful
analysis of people rated and tends to make him more alive to
opportunities and responsibilities in developing the subordinates.
The objective of appraisal is to derive the point to the
appraisee without inviting his resentment or drawing back into the
shell or taking defensive attitude.
Limitations of Performance Appraisal:
Performance appraisal may not yield the desired
results because of the following deficiencies:
1) If the factor included in the assessment is irrelevant, the result
of merit rating will not be accurate.
2) Different qualities to be rated may not be given proper
weightage certain in cases.
3) Some of the factors are highly subjective like initiative and
personality of the employees; so the actual rating may not be on
scientific lines.
4) Supervisors often do not have critical ability in assessing the
staff. Sometimes, they are guided by their personal emotions and
likes. So the ratings are likely to be biased.
Difference between Performance Appraisal and
Job Evaluation:
Performance Appraisal Job Evaluation1. Performance appraisal is concerned with
the differences among the employees in terms of their performance. It is also termed as merit as it is concerned with the comparative merit of individuals.
Job evaluation is the analysis of various jobs to know the demands, which the normal performance of particular jobs make on average employees. It does not take into account the individual abilities of the job-holder.
2. It considers the abilities and performance of individuals.
It considers the requirement of various jobs in terms of jobs description and job specifications.
3. The purpose of merit rating is to appraise the performance of individuals to take decisions like increase in pay, transfer, promotion, etc. It also serves as guidelines for the management to consider the type of training, which should be imparted to the employees.
The purpose of job evaluation is limited, i.e. to determine the worth of the job on the basis of demands made by a particular job on the average worker. This facilitates fixation of wages for various jobs.
4. Performance appraisal rates the man and not the job as it is concerned with assessing of the abilities of the individuals. As a matter of fact, it measures the worth of different employees to the organization.
Job evaluation analyses the job to determine their relative worth and fix their wage levels that are fair and equitable.
5. Performance appraisal is used as a basis of personnel policies as regards transfer and promotion
Job evaluation is used to shape the wage policy of the organization.
Methods of Appraisal
There are various methods of merit rating may be classified into:
1) Traditional Methods and
2) Modern Methods.
1) Traditional Methods
Traditional methods are very old technique of performance appraisal.
They are based on trait-oriented appraisal. Evaluation of employees is
done on the basis of standards of personal traits or qualities such as
attitudes, judgment, versatility, initiative, dependability, leadership,
loyalty, punctuality, knowledge of job, etc.
There are seven traditional methods of appraisal. They are:
Unstructured appraisal. Employee ranking. Forced distribution. Graphic – rating scales. Check – lists. Critical incidents. Field review.
Unstructured Appraisal.
Under this, the appraiser is required to write down his impression
about the person being appraised in an unstructured way. However,
in some organizations, comments are required to be grouped under
specific headings such as quality of job performance, reasons for
specific job behaviors, personality traits, and development needs.
This system is highly subjective and has its merit in its simplicity
and is still in use especially in the small firms.
Ranking Method:
Ranking is a simple process of placing in a rank according to their job
performance. It permits comparison of all employees in any single
rating group regardless of type of work. All workers are judged on the
same factors and they are rated on the overall basis with reference to
their job performance instead of individual assessment of traits. In this
way, the best in placed first in the rank and the poorest occupies the
last rank. The difficulty of this system is that the rater is ranked to
consider a whole person. Subjectively of the appraiser may enter into
his judgments. Asking the appraiser to rank employees on certain
desirable traits can reduce the subjectiveness in this method. The other
difficulty with this method is that it does not indicate the degree of
difference between the first man and the second man, and so on.
Paired comparison is an improvement over simple ranking. Under
this, every employee in a job family is compared with every other
employee to determine which is the better worker. The rater is
provided with a little booklet containing two names on each page.
Obviously the number of rank order would be n(n – 1)/2, where n is
the total number of persons to be compared. In this way, every
employee is compared with every other employee in the same job
family. The paired comparison gives a more reliable rating than the
order of ranks although this system is more tedious to construct and
use. It cannot be used for periodic employee’s ratings, as it does not
make evaluation of any improvement in the employees that might
have been over a period of time.
Forced Distribution Method:
Some appraisers suffer from a constant error, i.e., they either rate all
workers as excellent, average or poor. They fail to evaluate the poor,
average or excellent employees clearly. The forced distribution system
is devised to force the appraiser to fit the employees being appraised
into predetermined ranges of scales. It has an advantage over the
paired comparison system in that two or more employees can be given
equal ratings. This system is based on the presumption that employees
can be divided into five points scale of outstanding, above average,
average below average and poor. In this system, the appraiser is asked
to distribute the employees into these categories in such a way that
about 10% of the men are in group ‘outstanding’, 20% ‘above
average’, 40% ‘average’, and 10% ‘poor’.
This method obviously eliminates the room for
subjective judgment on the part of supervisors. This system is easy to
understand and administer. The objective of this technique is to spread
out ratings in the form of a normal distribution, which is open to
criticism. Many times, this group is comparatively smaller. As a
matter of fact, forced distribution of rankings is feasible for a large
group.
Graphic Rating Scales:
Under this method, scales are established for a number of specific
factors and qualities. Five degree are established for each factor and
general definitions appear at points along the scale. Generally, the
rater is supplied with a printed form, one for each person to be rated.
The selection of factors to be measured on the graphic rating scale is
an important point under this system.
There are two types:
1) Characteristics, such as initiative and dependability, and
2) Contributions, such as quantity and quality of work.
Since certain area of job performance cannot be objective measured, it
is likely that graphic scales will continue to use a mixture of both
characteristics and contributions.
Graphic scales impose a heavy burden upon the supervisor. He must
report and evaluate the performance of his subordinate on scales
involving as many as five degree on perhaps ten different factors. The
main drawback of this system is that the rater may be biased.
However, one means of ensuring that the rater has based his scoring
upon substantial evidence is to leave space on the form after each
factor and require him to explain the reason for his rating. In effect, he
is asked to give example of the ratee’s behavior that justifies the
assigned rating. A supervisor may tend to rate him men high to avoid
criticism from them.
The graphic rating method is easy to understand and easy to use. It
permits the statistical tabulation of scores in terms of measures of
central tendency, skew ness and dispersion. It permits a ready
comparison of scores among employees. The scores presumably
reveal the merit or value of every individual. However, this method
has certain serious drawbacks. There is an implication that a high
score of one factor can compensate for a low score on another. If a
man scores for attendance, attitude, cooperativeness, etc. Frequently,
the rating tends to cluster on the high side under this system. A
supervisor may tend to rate his men high so that they may receive
high share of pay raises in some cases.
Check Lists:
It also consists of two techniques:
a) Weighted check list, and
b) Forced choice.
a) Weighted Check List:
Under this method, various statements are prepared in such a manner
that they describe various types and levels of behavior for a particular
job. Each statement is attached with a scale value. At the time of
rating the employees, the supervisor just collects and checks all the
statements. After the weights and values are attached to the individual
traits, the rating up to this level is gathered on the rating sheet. Then
the weights are averaged and employee is evaluated. The weighted
check – the persons thoroughly acquainted with job and perfect at
preparing and weighing statements should prepare list. When this
process is over, rating is placed on separate cards. Then raters who
actually observed the accomplishment of the work sort these cards.
They rank the employee from poor to excellent. Weights are then
assigned to the statements in accordance with the way they are ranked
by the raters.
Under this method, the supervisor is not allowed to accumulate vague
impressions as a basis for rating. Because of this, it compels the
supervisor to think in terms of very specific kinds of behavior. This
method involves a lengthy procedure of evaluating employees. It
requires certain qualifications to be met on the part of the supervisor
regarding the job he is assigned to look after. Moreover, this method
is a relatively costlier affair. It puts more strain on the financial
resources of the organization particularly in terms of personnel
development time. Financial burden is further increased when diverse
jobs are evaluated, as a separate procedure must be established for
each job.
b) Forced Choice:
This method is used particularly with the objective of avoiding scope
for personal prejudices. Under this method, the rater is forced to
choose between descriptive statements of seemingly equal worth
describing the person in question. Statements are chosen of both the
sides (favorable as well as unfavorable). For example, the following
two pairs of statement from each pair that is represented by
supervisor.
a) Gives clear instructions to his subordinate.
b) Can be dependent upon to complete any job assigned.
c) Makes promises that he knows he cannot keep.
d) Shows favoritism to some employees.
The rater may feel that neither of the two statements in a pair is
applicable, but he must select the one that is more descriptive. Only
one of the statements in each pair is correct in identifying the better
performances and this scoring key must be kept secret from raters. In
this way, bias removed from the appraisal process. The main
advantage of establishing this system of performance appraisal is that
it has greater objectivity than most other methods.
Forced – choice method is also not free from drawbacks. They are as
follows:
Firstly, it is very expensive to install this system.
Secondly, this procedure involved is very lengthy and hence more
time – consuming.
Thirdly, it is difficult for a supervisor to discuss rating switch
subordinates because the personnel department scores the items.
Critical Incident Method:
A critical incident means a significant act by an employee exceeding
or failing any of the requirements of his job. It represents an
exceptional behavior of an employee at work, as for instance, Resisted
the implementation of change; Became upset over work; Refused to
help a fellow worker; Suggested an improvement in the work method’
Tried to get a fellow worker to accept the management decision;
Welcome new ideas.
This method requires every supervisor to record all such
significant incidents in each employee’s behavior, which indicate
effective or successful action and those, which indicate ineffective or
poor behavior. These are recorded in a specially designed notebook,
which contains categories or characteristics under which various
behaviors can be recorded. Examples of such type of job requirements
of worker a are judgment, learning ability, productivity, dependability,
accuracy of work, responsibility and initiative. Daily recording of
these items seems to be essential because, otherwise, the supervisor
may forget the incidents with his subordinates.
Under the critical incident method, the
supervisor is supposed to refrain from passing overall judgments and
concentrate upon discussing facts as he sees them. Theoretically, this
should provide a sound and an objective basis for appraisal of
performance of an employee. The critical incident method is not a
rating method, as it requires the supervisor to pay close attention to
what an employee is doing.
This method suffers from the defect that outstanding incident
happens so frequently that individual’s appraisal may not vary
markedly between any two time periods. It has been observed that
most of the time the employees have neither positive nor negative
incidents. If the critical event does not happens’ it will be difficult to
rate an employee. Moreover, it may be difficult for a supervisor to
decide what is the critical or exceptional incident. Her against the
human bias may appear in recording the critical incident. To rectify
this defect, Gerald Whitlock designed a specimen checklist, which
consists of a number of behavior incidents, which are considered to be
an example of uncommonly, ineffective, or effective job behavior.
The usual procedure in constructing the specimen checklist is to
collect behavior incidents from certain experts in this area. The
number of such performance behaviors ranges from 80 to 150
incidents, equally divided between effective and ineffective
specimens.
Field Review Method:
Under this method, an expert from the personnel department
interviews the supervisors. The expert questions the supervisor to
obtain all the pertinent information on each employee and takes notes
his notebook. Thus, there is no rating form with factors or degrees, but
overall ratings are obtained. The workers are usually classified into
three categories as outstanding, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. The
interviewer questions the supervisor about the requirements of each
job in his unit and about the performance of each man in his job. He
probes to find out only how a man is doing but also why he does that
way and what can be done to improve or develop him. The supervisor
is required to give his opinion about the progress of his subordinates,
the level of performance of each subordinates, his weaknesses, good
points, outstanding ability, promotion ability, and the possible plans of
action in cases requiring further consideration. The questions are
asked and answered verbally.
The success of field review method depends upon the
competence of the interviewer. If he knows his job, he can contribute
significantly to accurate appraisal. Field review method relieves the
supervisors of the tedious writing work of filling in appraisal forms. It
also ensures a greater likelihood that the supervisors will give
adequate attention to the appraisals because the personnel department
largely controls the process. Superficial judgment can be eliminated if
the appraiser probes deeply.
Criticism of Traditional Methods:
The general criticism of traditional performance appraisal systems is
that they are two subjective in nature because all of them are on
personal judgment of the rater. The personal judgment is always
subjected to personal bias or prejudice as well as pressure from certain
other areas. The appraiser may not be able to judge the competence of
the employees because of lack of training.
Because of the judgment role of the supervisors under the traditional
system, performance ratings are frequently subject to a number of
errors and weaknesses, which are discussed below:
Halo Error: This type of error occurs when the rater allows
one aspect of a man’s character or performance to influence his entire
evaluation. It is the tendencies of many raters to let the rating they
rating to one characteristic excessively influence their rating on all
subsequent characteristics. Many supervisors tend to give an
employee approximately the same rating on all factors. The error can
be recognized quite easily on factors scales. The rating scale technique
of performance appraisal is particularly susceptible to the halo
supervisor judge all of his subordinates on a single factor or trait
before going to the next. In this manner, he can consider all of the
men relative to a standard or to each other on each trait.
Central Tendency: This error occurs when the rater is in
doubt about the subordinates or has inadequate information about
them or is giving less attention and effort to the rating process.
Because of these reasons, generally the raters are reluctant to rate
people at the outer ends of the scale. The rater knows that he has to
appraise his subordinates at periodic intervals but if he is unfamiliar
with some of the subordinates or does not have sufficient time to
devote to the rating process, he may play it safe by neither
condemning nor praising. So he may rate them ‘average’. It is possible
for this type of rating i.e., all average to be a true rating, but its
probability is less than its frequency.
Leniency or Strictness: Some supervisors have a tendency to
be easy raters and others have a tendency to be harsh in their ratings.
Lenient or easy raters assign consistently high values or scores to their
subordinates and strict or harsh raters give consistently low ratings.
Both the trends can arise from varying standards of performance
among supervisors and form different interpretations of what they
observe in employee performance.
Recent Behavior Bias: Often some raters evaluate persons
on the basis pf their performance in recent few weeks; average
behavior is not checked. Some employees being aware of this
tendency show better results when they feel that they are being
observed and the report of their performance is to be compiled soon.
Miscellaneous Biases: In many cases, the rater may give
higher ratings because he thinks that it would look bad for him if
employees in the other department received higher pay increases than
his pay. Supervisors will tend to rate their subordinates near the
middle of the spectrum if their bosses put pressure on them to correct
the worker’s average rates or to get rid of the subordinates. Some
supervisors show bias against members of the opposite sex or of
another caste, religion or nationality. They also give higher ratings to
senior employees because they are too ready to admit that they have
not improved under their leadership. Many a times, a rater is
influenced by organizational positions and may give higher ratings to
those holdings the higher positions.
Many people have attacked the reliability and validity of
traditional systems on different grounds, but the fundamental criticism
has been founded upon the judgment role of the supervisor and the
antagonistic response of the subordinates. In a study of appraisal
systems in General Electric Co. USA, the investigator found that
traditional approach of performance appraisal resulted in the
following responses:
a) Criticism arises from the very nature of the system.
b) Criticism has a negative effect upon achievement of goals.
c) Criticism increases antagonism and defensiveness, which lead
to interior performance.
d) Praise has little effect, one way or other.
In this study, ninety-two appraisal interviews based on traditional
measurements were analyzed. Those subordinates receiving above
average criticism showed less improvement in ensuring ten to twelve
weeks than those receiving less criticism. When the alternative
behavioral approach was introduced by one – half of the supervisors,
differences in subordinates response pattern remained unchanged. For
the appraiser of behavioral supervisor, all reported more favorable
attitudes on such items as amount of help received, respectability of
their supervisors, ability of the supervisors to plan, the extent to which
their abilities were utilized, acceptance of organization goals and
value of the appraisal interviews. That is why it was observed:
1) Coaching should be a day – to – day, not a once - a year
activity.
2) Mutual goal setting not criticism improves performance.
3) Participation by the employee in the goals setting procedure
helps
favorable results.
2) Modern methods
There are two important methods of
performance appraisal, which are used by the modern concerns. The
first is management by objectives, which represents result-oriented
appraisal. The second is behaviorally anchored rating scale, which is
based on the behaviour of the subordinates.
Management by objectives:
It was peter drucker who proposed goal
setting approach to performance appraisal, which he called
“management by objectives and self-control”. Douglas Mc. Gregor
further strengthened this approach. He was concerned with the fact
that most traditional appraisal systems involved rating of traits and
personal qualities that he felt were highly unreliable. Besides, the use
of such trait ratings produced two main difficulties: -
a) The manager was uncomfortable about using them and
resisted making appraisal.
b) It had a damaging effect on the motivation and development
of the subordinates.
Goal setting approach or “management by objectives” (MBO)
is the same as behavioral approach to subordinate appraisal, actually
called “Work planning and review” in case of General Electric Co.,
USA. Under this approach, an employee is not appraised by his
recognizable traits, but by his performance with respect to the agrees
goals or objectives. Thus, the essential feature of this approach is
mutual establishment of job goals. The application of goal setting
approach to performance appraisal involves the following steps:
1) The subordinate discusses his job descriptions with his
superior and they agree on the contents of his job and the key results
areas.
2) The subordinate prepares a list of reasonable objectives for the
coming period of six to twelve months.
3) He sits with his superior to discuss the se targets and plans,
and a final set is worked out.
4) Check – points are established for the evaluation of progress,
and the ways of measuring progress are selected.
5) The superior and the subordinate meet at the end of the period
to discuss the result of the subordinate’s efforts to meet the targets
mutually established.
The goal setting approach is based on clear and
time bound objectives from the corporate level to the operative level.
This approach can be applied with great success if the performance
appraisal programme consists of the following elements:
i) Good job descriptions are available to help setting of goals for
different positions.
ii) Superiors have trust in the subordinates to establish reasonable
goals; and
iii) There is emphasis on problem solving rather than criticism of
the performance of the subordinates.
The goal setting approach has done away
with the judgmental role of the superiors in the appraisal of their
subordinates. It has led to greater satisfaction, greater agreement,
greater comfort and less tension and hostility between the workers and
the management. This approach is considerably superior to the
traditional approach of performance appraisal. It emphasizes training
and development of individuals. It is problem-solving approach rather
than tell and sell approach. This approach has also got a built – in
device of self – appraisal by the subordinates because they know their
goals and the standards by which their performance will be measured.
The Goal setting approach suffers from the following limitations:
The subordinates can apply this approach only when the goal
setting is possible. It is doubtful if such a procedure can be applied for
the blue color workers.
This approach is not easy to administer. It involves
considerable time, thought and the superior and the subordinate. If the
span of supervision is quite large, it will not be possible for the
superior to have discussion with each and every subordinates for
setting up mutually agreed goals.
This approach mainly emphasizes counseling, training and
development. It is argued that critical evaluation and modification to
improve are incompatible. But, in practice, it is not possible to forge
the critical aspect of performance appraisal.
This approach is appropriate for the appraisal of executives
and supervisory personnel who can understand it in a better way.
Operative workers cannot understand this approach and moreover, a
vast majority of them do not want to take initiative in setting their
own goals.
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
are designed to identify the critical areas of performance for a job, and
to describe the more effective and less effective job behavior for
getting results. Performance is evaluated by asking the rater to record
specific observable job behaviors of an employee and then to compare
these observations with a “behaviorally anchored rating scale”. As a
result, the supervisor is in a position to compare the employee’s actual
behavior with the behavior that has been previously determined to be
more or less effective.
Proponents of BARS claim many advantages of this
approach. They argue that such a system differentiates among
behavior, performance, and results, and consequently is able to
provide a basis for setting developmental goals for the employee.
Because it is job- -specific and identifies observable measurable
behavior, it is a more reliable and valid method for performance
appraisal.
Empirical studies of Behaviorally Anchored
Rating Scales (BARS) have provided a fertile ground for study by
both theorists and practitioners. The BARS experience has helped to
clarify three major controversies of the appraisal process. On was the
issue of the rating content (trait vs. job related). The second
controversy involved the multidimensional nature of performance.
The administrative uses of appraisal had encouraged rating systems to
produce an overall measure of performance, which tended to mark
difference in performance in the key result areas (“performance
dimension”) critical to job results. The third controversy involved in
the issue of the most effective way to anchor the rating scales
(numerically or behavioral). By anchoring the scales behaviorally, the
BARS approach was expected to produce more valid and reliable
results by reducing measurement errors (leniency, halo effect, central
tendency, etc.).
Designing an Appraisal Programme
Determining the Objective of ‘performance Appraisal.
Before any performance appraisal programme
is initiated, it is essential to determine its objectives. The objective of
the appraisal programme may be either to appraise the actual
performance of individuals to higher jobs or both. Sometimes,
performance appraisal programmes are associated with specific
objectives like training and development, transfer and promotion,
increase in pay, etc.
Establishing Standards of Performance.
For effective rating of employees, it is
necessary to establish standard on performance against which their
performance should be compared. However, an approach that is more
preferable is to establish, in writing, definite standards of
accomplishment, which the employee can reasonably be expected to
meet. Such a method will take it possible for both supervisor and his
subordinate to reach agreement on just what is expected in terms of
performance. It should be noted that performance standards are
relative to the group and the organization. Not only are the needs of
each organization different, but the talents of manpower also vary
from organization to organization. The expectation of management is
also higher in some organizations than in others.
Who is to do the Appraisal?
Generally, the appraiser is the immediate superior
of the man to be appraised. He is most familiar with the employee’s
work and is in contact with him and so he is considered to be able to
appraise him well. But there are certain limitations of appraisal by one
person. That is why some organizations try to obtain two or more
ratings on each employee. But again the difficulty may arise because
the second rater may not have the necessary contact with the
individual who is to be rated. The possibility is the constitution of a
rating committee, which may consist of a number of supervisors and
specialists from personnel department and a representative of the
worker. The committee will rate each individual collectively. Some
people feel that employee should be allowed to rate themselves. When
this is done, their immediate superiors may offer their rating in
conjunction with ratings.
Whosoever the appraiser may be, the
subjectivity invariably steps in. A well-adjusted person is less subject
to projecting himself into other than a poorly adjusted person and,
therefore he is able to judge them better. It is often assumed that
qualified psychologists are more capable than laymen of making
unbiased judgments since they receive training in the dynamics of the
personality and also in the correct manner of making the judgment.
Frequency of Appraisal
The frequency of appraisal differs from organization
and with the nature of duties performed. There are not spot appraisals,
monthly, quarterly, and six monthly or yearly appraisals. But most of
the organizations conduct yearly or half – yearly appraisals because
more frequent appraisals besides taking away time of the appraiser or
raters, may create a sense of fear amongst the ratees. Idea frequency is
one, which fits into the objectives of the older ones.
Designing of Forms
This is an important step in performance appraisal to
design the rating forms to be utilized in the programme. The forms
should be related to job families such as clerical, mechanical, sales,
technical and supervisory. All require a different evaluation form.
Performance forms may be classified as those involving comparative
ranking and others involving the comparison of each employee’s
actual performance with predetermined standards. The first category
of forms is designed to evaluate employee performance for the
purpose of making wage adjustments, lay offs, promotions, etc. and
second category of forms is used to improve the performance of
workers on their present jobs.
Requirements of a Sound Performance Appraisal Programme
A sound system of performance appraisal must fulfill the following
essentials:
1) The appraisal plan should be simple to operate and easy to
understand. When the appraisal system is complicated, employees
may not understand it fully and may look at the plan with suspicion.
The plan should not be very time-consuming.
2) The performance appraisal system should be performance
based, uniform and non – variable, fair, just and equitable. It should
be ensured that the appraisers are honest, rational and objective in
their approach, judgment and behavioral orientation.
3) The employees should be made aware of the performance in
terms of goals, targets, behavior, etc. expected of them. A personal
between the appraiser and the employee has to be developed to
achieve mutual understanding of the criteria of evaluation.
4) The appraisal plan should be devised in consultation with the
subordinates. This will increase their commitment to the plan and
their understanding of expected performance.
5) The appraisal plan should take into account the appraisal
practices prevailing in other units in the industry as well as the latest
thinking on performance appraisal. It should fit in the structure and
operations of the organization.
6) The top management must create a climate of reliable
appraisal throughout the organization. Goal – orientation, open
communications, mutual trust informal relationships, etc. are the basic
elements of such a climate.
7) The appraisal plan should be designed to achieve specific
objectives. The objectives of the appraisal programme may be to
evaluate current performance on the job and to determine the potential
for higher jobs. In some cases, performance appraisal is linked with
specific objectives like pay raise, training, promotion, transfer, etc.
The number of factors to be considered and the data to be collected
should be tailor-made to achieve the objective of the appraisal.
8) The appraisers should be selected and trained properly so that
they have no personal bias and possess the necessary capabilities for
objective evaluation of employees. In order to ensure objectivity in
appraisal, more persons may rate an individual independently.
9) There should be provision of appeals against appraisals to
ensure confidence of the employees and their associations or unions.
The results of appraisal must be discussed with the rates so that they
may get an opportunity to express their feelings on their progress
reports.
CASE STUDY
Unique Funds Ltd. is a reputed finance company
having 10 branches in different parts of the company. Its staff includes
290 operative employees and 70 executives. The company has a
performance-rating plan under which a committee of two executives
by means of graphic scale rates the staff members at the end of each
financial year. The qualities considered are: responsibilities, initiative,
dependability, and leadership potential, cooperative attitude and
community service. After the performance is evaluated, the ratings are
discussed with the concerned employees by their immediate boss and
are used to counsel them and arrange further training for them. The
ratings are also used for granting or withholding of increments and
promoting of meritorious staff.
Recently, two employees working at the Head Office have
been denied annual increments due to comparatively low ratings.
They have made a representation to the Chief Executive of the
Company expressing their dissatisfaction with the appraisal system
and insisting that community service is not a part of their job and it
should not influence their ratings. The employees seem to organize a
union and demand that annual increments should be granted
automatically.
The Chief Executive feels that performance appraised is a dangerous
source of friction and so it should be discontinued altogether.
QUESTIONS
1) If you were the Human Resource Manager, how would you
defuse the problem?
2) How far do you agree with the Chief Executive’s view that
performance appraisal should be discontinued?
3) On what lines would you recommend modifications in the
performance appraisal system of the company?
QUALITY POLICY
ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED will strive to provide consistently
nutritious and quality products to meet consumer’s satisfaction by
using quality materials and by adopting appropriate processes.
To facilitate the above we will strive to continuously train over
employees and to provide them an open and particular environment.
(CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR)
INTRODUCTION OF STUDY
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The main objectives of study is to: -
To study the process through which Performance Appraisal takes place in ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED.
To know that how much they are aware about the process?
How much they are satisfied with the process.
SCOPE OF STUDY
The Project given to me is to study Performance Appraisal
in ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED. The scope of Work includes
interviewing Senior Production Officers and finds the way
Performance Appraisal is conducted in ALLIED NIPPON
LIMITED.
In this project, I interviewed the Senior Production
Officers to find out the way Performance Appraisal is conducted
and ultimately made recommendations to improve the process.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methodology is the selection of an appropriate research
method and forming some guidelines according to which the
research is carried out.
It consists of choosing pattern and a method of collection
data, sampling, tabulation and ultimately analysis of data to reach
some conclusions, on the basis of which some suggestions are given.
Data collection: -
(a) Primary data : - Primary data is the data collected
specially for a specific purpose.
The methods used for its collection are personal discussion &
questionnaire etc.
The method used in collecting primary data in my research was
personal discussion with the help of a questionnaire. In this I
asked a set of predetermined questions in a predefined order, the
answers given by the respondents were used to fill up the
questionnaire.
Questionnaire: - A questionnaire was prepared which consisted of open-ended
questions with multiple choices. The questionnaire used was
structured type of questionnaire. It was prepared taking into
account the factors, which were to be analyzed to know the
process of Performance Appraisal. The questionnaire is attached
in appendix at the end of the report.
This method was preferred as it is economical, given more
information and the response is very good.
(b) Secondary Data :
Secondary data consists of information that already
exists somewhere and was collected for another purpose, which
may not be the same as the purpose of research. Secondary data
used here was the performa of performance appraisal used in
ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED.
The secondary data provide a starting point for
research and offer advantage of low cost and ready availability.
DATA ANALYSIS
By having discussion with senior production officers of Allied
Nippon Limited and filling of the questionnaire, the data was
collected which is analysed as follows: -
1. Type of performance appraisal preferred
After analyzing the data, the results shows that 85% of
the senior production officers prefer quarterly performance
appraisal and 15% prefer half-yearly performance appraisal.
100% -
80% -
60% -
40% - 20% -
Quarterly Half-yearly Monthly Annually
2. Senior’s satisfied by subordinate’s performance
After analyzing the data, the results shows that 85% of the
senior production officers feel that their seniors are satisfied with
their performance and 15% can’t say.
This analysis shows there is lack of appraisal by
the immediate seniors.
- YES- CAN’T SAY.
3. Satisfied with their own Performance
After analyzing the data, the results shows that 85% of the
senior production officers are satisfied with their own performance
and 15% are not satisfied with their own performance.
-YES-NO
This shows that 85% of the senior production officers are
satisfied with their own performance and 15% are not satisfied with
their own performance.
This implies that satisfaction level has to be increased among
senior production Officers.
4. Performance appraisal improves performance
After analyzing the data, the results shows that 100% of the senior
production officers feels that performance appraisal do helps in
performing better.
-YES -NO
Through this we come to know that process of performance
appraisal is coming out to be positive and it should be continued.
5. Information is submitted timely by the senior
production officers to their seniors
After analyzing the data, the result shows that 100% of the
senior production officers submit all the information timely to their
seniors.
-YES -NO
This shows that all the senior production officers submit all the information timely to the seniors.
6. Adequate and fair chance provided to defend
against adverse entries in your appraisal
After analyzing the data, the results shows that 67% of the senior
production officers feel that they are provided with a chance to
defend them against adverse entries in their appraisal whereas 33%
denies it.
- YES
- NO
This shows that there is lack of chances provided to defend
against adverse entries in appraisal.
1. Reason for bad performance
After analyzing the data, the results shows that 16% of senior
production officers performed bad due to personal reasons, 16% of
senior production officers due to official reasons, 16% of senior
production officer’s due to other reasons and no bad performance
from the rest of the 52% of senior production officers.
100% -
80% -
60% -
40% - 20% -
Personal Official Others No Bad Performance
This shows that there are some reasons, which are required to
be rectified to improve performance.
8. Awareness of appraisal system.
After analyzing the data, the results shows that 67% of the senior
production officers are fully aware of the appraisal system and rest
33% are unaware of this system.
- YES
- NO
This shows that awareness about the performance appraisal system is
to be increased.
FINDINGS
Based on my analysis of data collected during
my study in ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED,
SAHIBABAD, I have got the following
findings: -
1.) Performance appraisal in ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED,
SAHIBABAD, is done annually.
2.) For appraisal in Allied Nippon Limited, Sahibabad, a
SELF-APPRAISAL form is given to the staff members
and they fill it up. And then after according to their self-
observation and through the appraisal form filled by the
staff members rating is given to the members.
Accordingly then incentives and promotions are granted.
3.) In ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED, SAHIBABAD, at the
majority senior staff members submit all the information
timely to their superiors.
4.) In ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED, SAHIBABAD, there
is lack of proper knowledge among senior production
officers about the procedure followed in Performance
Appraisal.
5.) There is lack of fair chances provided to defend yourself
against adverse entries in your appraisal.
6.) All senior production officers agree that performance
appraisal system helps them to perform better.
7.) There is lack of satisfaction level among the senior
production level officers regarding to their own work as
they have monotony at their work.
LIMITATIONS
According to research undertaken by me, and the
results obtained, following are the recommendations to improve
the procedure of performance appraisal followed in Allied
Nippon Limited: -
1) Staff members should be provided with the training about
performance appraisal and they should be made very well
aware about the thing that this exercise can help them in
developing their performance and attitude which will help
them on their own part at majority and company at minority.
2) Senior-Subordinate meetings should be made very regular so
that every can keep his point in front without any hesitation
and that will add to their innovation and creation.
3) The process of performance appraisal should be made goal-
oriented.
4) Staff members should be provided with the well-defined
targets.
Recommendations
As we know “Performance appraisal is a systematic and objective way of judging the relative worth or ability of an employee in performing the task. Performance appraisal helps to identify those who are performing their assigned tasks and those who are not and the reasons for such performance.”
The company should go for the 360degree performance appraisal. Under this method the person whose performance is to be judged is in between and his peers, supervisor, head and the manager of the company is around him who rate the performance of the employee based upon certain predefined criteria’s.
The system is like:
360-degree Performance Appraisal
The company should appraise the performance of the workers by giving them some incentives, which motivate them to work to their
Person whose performance to rate
Supervisors Peers
Head
Manager
fullest capacity and to motivate them to work more and show good and better results.
For the top management of the company it should offer them holiday package, appraise performance by recognizing there work in meetings etc. this will help to raise their moral and they can work better. They don’t want financial help as they earn enough to maintain their status. They want their work recognition.
For the lower group the company can increase their wages, give them pension schemes, provide them the medical facilities etc because they want financial help from the company to insure their proper living.
The should keep changing the raters for the performance appraisal system from time to time so that they don’t become bias at anytime for any employee.
The method of the company should be changed periodically so that the employees have mo chance to complain for the method.
The criteria decided upon which the performance has to be rated should not be fixed it should be changed from time to time.
The standards of the rating should be very specific, clear and concise.
There should be the feeling of teamwork in the organization.
The system should be cost effective and it should suit the budget of the company.
The performance, which is been measured, should be verifiable and measurable afterwards also.
Above are few recommendations, which can be looked over while doing the performance appraisal of the company.
CONCLUSION
After collecting the information from the senior production
officers with the help of personal discussion, filling the
questionnaire and analyzing the data, I have derived the
following conclusion –
In ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED performance appraisal
is conducted annually. Under this process, a self-appraisal
form has been given and senior production officers have to
fill that form which throws light on their basic
achievements during the past accounting year.
After that the immediate boss who has been
observing the immediate subordinate throughout the year
rates him according to the self appraisal form filled and
personal observation under following factors-
a) Quality of work.
b) Quantity of work.
c) Job knowledge.
d) Dependability.
e) Innovation and creativity.
f) Ability to learn.
g) Attendance.
h) Reactions to criticism.
i) Discipline.
j) Customer relations.
k) Subordinate development.
The rating given is confidential and out of the knowledge of
their subordinates. Accordingly, promotions and incentives are
granted to the deserving ones.
Rating given to the senior production officers is done
confidentially and whatever information is been filled in the
self-appraisal form is not cross-questioned.
The sole objective for taking part in performance appraisal of
Senior production officers in Allied Nippon Limited is to be
awarded with promotions and incentives but the basic reason
why performance appraisal is conducted is to develop the
performance and attitude.
Senior production officers of Allied Nippon Limited follow the
procedure of performance appraisal given by the senior
managers because they have monotony in their work and they
have no time for any innovation or creativity.
ANNEXURE STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM
NAME:
1 What type of performance appraisal you prefer?
Annually QuarterlyMonthly Half yearly
2 Are your seniors satisfied with your performance?
Yes No
3 Are you satisfied with your performance?
Yes No
4 If no do you think you can perform better?
Yes No
5 Does performance Appraisal help you in performing better?
Yes No
6 Do you submit information timely to your superiors?
Yes No
7 Do you get adequate and fair to defend your self against adverse entries in your appraisal?
Yes No
8 What actually comes as the reason for your bad performance? (if any)
Personal Official Other
9 Are you fully aware of the appraisal system followed in your company?
Yes No
10 Any suggestion to alter existing Performance Appraisal system of your company?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Human resources development -T.N. CHABBRA
2. Human resources development - V.S.P. RAO
(Text and Cases)
3. www.alliednippon.com
