swapna-0387-performance appraisal

Effectiveness of PAS Bharat Electronics

M P Birla Institute of Mgmt 1

A project work on

“Effectiveness Of Performance Appraisal System at

Bharat Electronics”

A DISSERTATION PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MBA DEGREE OF

BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

submitted by: SWAPNA.M.U

Reg. No – 03XQCM6110

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF Dr.V.Prakash

Professor, MPBIM (INTERNAL GUIDE)

Mrs.Laveena.M.Michael

Personnel Officer/Central and Enquiry officer, Bharat Electronics Ltd.

(EXTERNAL GUIDE)

M. P. BIRLA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

# 43, Race Course Road, BANGALORE – 560001

(2003-2005 Batch)



DECLARATION I hereby declare that the research work embodied in this dissertation entitled

“Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal System at Bharat Electronics Ltd”, has

been carried out by me under the guidance and supervision of Dr. V.Prakash, Adjunct

Professor, M.P. Birla Institute of Management, Bangalore (Internal Guide) and

Laveea.N.Michael, personnel officer/central and enquiry officer, BEL, Bangalore

(External guide).

I also declare that this dissertation has not been submitted to any University/Institution

for the award of any Degree/Diploma.

Place: Bangalore (SWAPNA.M.U) Date: Reg No. 03XQCM6110



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am extremely grateful to Mr. Changappa, AGM/PER, Corporate Office, Bangalore in

fetching me the great opportunity to carry out my project work in Bharat Electronics.

I would like to express my immense gratitude to Dr. V Prakash, Adjunct Professor of

M.P.Birla Institute of Management, associate Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bangalore for his

guidance, continuous encouragement and valuable suggestions at every stage of my

project.

I would like to thank Mr. Sudhakar Chowdry, Manager (central/personnel), BEL,

Bangalore for giving me the opportunity to conduct the study.

My sincere gratitude to Mrs. Laveena.M.Michael, personnel officer/central and enquiry

officer,BEL for sharing her precious time and imparting her invaluable knowledge and

guidance.

I am very thankful to all the respondents and the executives/employees for their

cooperation in the course of my study.

I extend my deep sense of gratitude to all my Friends and Family who have directly or

indirectly encouraged and helped me to complete my project successfully.



Table Of Contents

Chapter Title Page No.

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction

Background of the study

Performance Appraisal and its importance

3

5

2 Company Profile

Performance Appraisal process in BEL

15

24

3 Review of literature

Purpose of the review of literature

Methodology of the review of literature

Summary of Review of Literature

36

36

41

4 Research methodology

Problem Statement

Objectives of the Research

Type of Research

Sampling Technique

Sample size

Instrumentation techniques

Actual collection of data

Interpretation and analysis

Limitations of the research

42

42

42

42

42

43

43

43

43

5 Data Analysis and Interpretation 44

6 Findings of Research 89

7 Recommendations 93

Annexure



List Of Tables table

no. Table Description page

no.

1 Response towards the Awareness of the Performance Appraisal System

followed IN BEL

46

2 Level of satisfaction towards the performance appraisal system followed in BEL

47

3 Response towards the performance standards if they are clear and

achievable

48

4 Response towards knowledge about reporting and reviewing officers 49

5 Response towards training needs for appraisers 50

6 Response towards if counseled to improve performance 51

7 Response towards BEL spending of considerable amount of time and

attention for the Performance appraisal process

52

8 Response towards the Validity of Self Appraisal 53

9 Response towards the Knowledge of Traits/Attributes 54

10 Response towards Sufficiency of Traits 55

11 Response towards the rating of the executives being done by Reviewing

and Reviewing officers

56

12 Response towards the sufficiency of help and guidance provided by

Reporting/Reviewing officers

57

13 Response towards discussion of executives’ performance with

reporting/reviewing officer without any fear/inhibitions

58

14 Response towards the development of new/better managerial qualities and

skills through the training program identified through the performance

appraisal

60

15 Response towards the need for a performance appraisal for the current

designation held by the executives

61

table

no. Table Description Page

no.



16 Response towards the existence of performance related communication

gap b/w rater and ratee

62

17 Response towards review of present performance appraisal system 63

18 Response towards the degree of mutual understanding, possibility of an

unbiased assessment, discovering potential, fulfilling potentials

64

19 Response towards the Training needs identified through the Performance

Appraisal

67

20 Response towards the type of the training programme conducted in the

company

68

21 Response towards the effectiveness of training program in making an

employee confident in terms of Managerial and other skills

70

22 Response towards the overall feeling about the Performance Appraisal

system

71

23 Response towards Level of interpersonal relationship affecting the

appraisal

73

24 Response towards the appraisee getting feedback after the appraisal 75

25 Response towards the executives getting counseling and training (if

needed) after the performance appraisal and feedback

76

26 Response towards the avoidance of criticism 78

27 Response towards importance being given to the executive’s behaviour

rather than on his or her personal characteristics.

80

28 Response towards the rater trying to fully understand the ratee’s job duties

and responsibilities

81

29 Response towards the company setting the policies from time to time

concerning who should evaluate, when and how often

82

30 Response towards problems while doing evaluation 83


32 Response towards the rater advocating a method for evaluation 87



List Of Charts table

no. Chart Description page

no.

1 Response towards the Awareness of the Performance Appraisal System

followed IN BEL

46

2 Level of satisfaction towards the performance appraisal system followed in BEL

47

3 Response towards the performance standards if they are clear and

achievable

48

4 Response towards knowledge about reporting and reviewing officers 49

5 Response towards training needs for appraisers 50

6 Response towards if counseled to improve performance 51

7 Response towards BEL spending of considerable amount of time and

attention for the Performance appraisal process

52

8 Response towards the Validity of Self Appraisal 53

9 Response towards the Knowledge of Traits/Attributes 54

10 Response towards Sufficiency of Traits 55

11 Response towards the rating of the executives being done by Reviewing

and Reviewing officers

56

12 Response towards the sufficiency of help and guidance provided by

Reporting/Reviewing officers

57

13 Response towards discussion of executives’ performance with

reporting/reviewing officer without any fear/inhibitions

58

14 Response towards the development of new/better managerial qualities and

skills through the training program identified through the performance

appraisal

60

15 Response towards the need for a performance appraisal for the current

designation held by the executives

61



table

no. Chart Description Page

no.

16 Response towards the existence of performance related communication

gap b/w rater and ratee

62

17 Response towards review of present performance appraisal system 63

18 Response towards the degree of mutual understanding, possibility of an

unbiased assessment, discovering potential, fulfilling potentials

64

19 Response towards the Training needs identified through the Performance

Appraisal

67

20 Response towards the type of the training programme conducted in the

company

68

21 Response towards the effectiveness of training program in making an

employee confident in terms of Managerial and other skills

70

22 Response towards the overall feeling about the Performance Appraisal

system

71

23 Response towards Level of interpersonal relationship affecting the

appraisal

73

24 Response towards the appraisee getting feedback after the appraisal 75

25 Response towards the executives getting counseling and training (if

needed) after the performance appraisal and feedback

76

26 Response towards the avoidance of criticism 78

27 Response towards importance being given to the executive’s behaviour

rather than on his or her personal characteristics.

80

28 Response towards the rater trying to fully understand the ratee’s job duties

and responsibilities

81

29 Response towards the company setting the policies from time to time

concerning who should evaluate, when and how often

82



32 Response towards the rater advocating a method for evaluation 87



Certificate

I hereby declare that the research work embodied in this dissertation entitled

“Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal System at Bharat Electronics” Bangalore, has

been undertaken and completed by Miss. Swapna.M.U (reg no: 03XQCM6110) under

my guidance and supervision.

I also certify that she has fulfilled all the requirements under the covenant governing the

submission of dissertation to the Bangalore University for the award of MBA degree.

Place: Bangalore (Dr.V.Prakash) Date: Adjunct Professor

MPBIM, Bangalore.



Certificate I hereby certify that this dissertation is an offshoot of the research work undertaken and

completed by Miss Swapna.M.U (reg no. 03XQCM6110) under the guidance of

Dr.V.Prakash, Adjunct Professor, MPBIM, Bangalore (Internal Guide) and

Mrs.Laveena.M.Micheal, Personnel Officer/Central and Enquiry Officer, BEL,

Bangalore (External Guide).

Place: Bangalore (Dr. N.S. Malavalli) Date: Principal,

MPBIM, Bangalore



Executive Summary Bharat Electronics was established in the year 1954 as a Public Sector Enterprise under

the Ministry of Defense, primarily to meet the defense electronic equipment requirements

of the country. Over the years, it has diversified its activities to cover not only the defense

forces but also various other areas such as the Paramilitary Forces, Department of

Telecommunications, All India Radio, Doordarshan, Railways, Meteorological

Department, Energy Conservation and IT sector. Today, Bharat Electronics is a multi-

unit, multi-product Company with nine manufacturing units located in different parts of

the country.

Human Resource Management is a management function that helps managers to Recruit,

Select, Train and Develop members for an organization. Performance appraisal may be

understood as the assessment of an individual’s performance being measured against

such factors as job knowledge, quality and quantity of output, initiative, leadership

abilities, supervision, dependability, co-operation, judgement, versatility, health and the

like.

The Performance Appraisal System needs to be very transparent and helpful both to the

employees and to the organization. The need is to get a feedback from appraisers and

appraisees, working in the organization, about the current state of the PAS. Only after

analyzing the current state of PAS, the human resource managers can go to the next step

of improvements in PAS. A survey is therefore required.

The research is undertaken to ascertain the views/opinions of the Raters and Ratees

working with the company and to suggest appropriate modifications about the existing

PAS.

Structured questionnaire was prepared and discussed personally with the respondents to

get their responses.

The sample size will be restricted to 40 executives chosen on random sampling method.

(Stratified).

The findings indicate that the executives in general, the raters and the ratees are very well

aware of the appraisal system followed in the company. The knowledge about the

appraisal system is also found to be satisfactory. But there exists a performance related

communication gap between the appraiser and the appraisee. The responses of the raters



show that they encounter problems with the standards of evaluation. It was also found

that appraisees don’t get timely feedback from their appraisers. Training/counseling was

provided occasionally to the ratees to improve their performance.

A suitable recommendation needs to be provided in this front. Incorporating a suitable

modification in the existing performance appraisal system can reduce the problems faced

by the raters and ratees. The following recommendations are made:

Appraisee participation in the creation of their own performance goals and development

plans; Performance targets should be set in the beginning of the year; Training should be

provided to fill up forms; Frequent mini-appraisals and feedback sessions should be

conducted; Multi-source assessment of executive behavioral competencies; Transparency

in the system; Atomization of the whole appraisal process; Introduction of 360-degree

appraisal system.



INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study Human Resource Management is a management function that helps managers to Recruit,

Select, Train and Develop members for an organization. HRM is concerned with the

people’s dimension in organizations. HRM is a series of integrated decisions that form

the employment relationship; their quality contributes to the ability of the organizations

and the employees to achieve their objective. Since every organization is made up of

people, acquiring their services, developing their skills, motivating them to higher levels

of performance and ensuring that they continue to maintain their commitment to the

organizational objectives. This is true, regardless of the type of organization, government,

business, education, health, recreation, or social action. Thus, HRM refers to set of

programmes; functions and activities designed and carried out in order to maximize both

employees as well as organizational effectiveness.

Objectives of HRM The primary objective of HRM is to ensure the availability of a competent and willing

workforce to an organization. Beyond this, there are other objectives, too.

Specifically, HRM objectives are four fold:

1.Societal

2.Functional

3.Organizational

4.Personal



HRM objectives - Supporting Functions

1.Societal Objectives Legal Compliance

Benefits

Union Management relations

2.Organizational Objectives Human resource planning

Employee relations

Selection

Training and Development

Appraisal

Placement

Assessment

3.Functional Objectives Recruitment and selection

Appraisal

Placement

Assessment

Training and Development

4. Personal Objectives Personal growth

Learning

Placement

Compensation

Assessment

Job-Satisfaction

Recognition



PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The History Of Performance Appraisal Its roots in the early 20th century can be traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion

studies. But this is not very helpful, for the same may be said about almost everything in

the field of modern human resources management. As a distinct and formal management

procedure used in the evaluation of work performance, appraisal really dates from the

time of the Second World War not more than 60 years ago.

Yet in a broader sense, the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art. In the scale of things

historical, it might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession!

There is, says Dulewicz (1989), "... a basic human tendency to make judgments about

those one is working with, as well as about oneself." Appraisal, it seems, is both

inevitable and universal. In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal,

people will tend to judge the work performance of others, including subordinates,

naturally, informally and arbitrarily.

The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational, ethical and legal

problems in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance of

ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate.

Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income justification. That is,

appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee

was justified.

The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's performance were

found to be less than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their

performance was better than the supervisor expected, a pay rise was in order.



Little consideration, if any, was given to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If

was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide the only required impetus for an

employee to either improve or continue to perform well.

Modern Appraisal

Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a

subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or

semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and

discussed, with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities

for improvement and skills development.

In many organizations - but not all - appraisal results are used, either directly or

indirectly, to help determine reward outcomes. That is, the appraisal results are used to

identify the better performing employees who should get the majority of available merit

pay increases, bonuses, and promotions.

By the same token, appraisal results are used to identify the poorer performers who may

require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases, demotion, dismissal or decreases in

pay.

Whether this is an appropriate use of performance appraisal - the assignment and

justification of rewards and penalties - is a very uncertain and contentious matter.

Basic Purposes

Effective performance appraisal systems contain two basic systems operating in

conjunction: an evaluation system and a feedback system.

The main aim of the evaluation system is to identify the performance gap (if any). This

gap is the shortfall that occurs when performance does not meet the standard set by the

organization as acceptable. The main aim of the feedback system is to inform the

employee about the quality of his or her performance. (However, the information flow is



not exclusively one way. The appraisers also receive feedback from the employee about

job problems, etc.)

One of the best ways to appreciate the purposes of performance appraisal is to look at it

from the different viewpoints of the main stakeholders: the employee and the

organization.

Employee Viewpoint:

From the employee viewpoint, the purpose of performance appraisal is four-fold:

(1) Tell me what you want me to do

(2) Tell me how well I have done it

(3) Help me improve my performance

(4) Reward me for doing well.

(From Cash, 1993)

Organizational Viewpoint:

From the organization's viewpoint, one of the most important reasons for having a system

of performance appraisal is to establish and uphold the principle of accountability.

For decades it has been known to researchers that one of the chief causes of

organizational failure is "non-alignment of responsibility and accountability." Non-

alignment occurs where employees are given responsibilities and duties, but are not held

accountable for the way in which those responsibilities and duties are performed. What

typically happens is that several individuals or work units appear to have overlapping

roles.

The overlap allows - indeed actively encourages - each individual or business unit to

"pass the buck" to the others. Ultimately, in the severely non-aligned system, no one is

accountable for anything. In this event, the principle of accountability breaks down

completely. Organizational failure is the only possible outcome.



Formal versus Informal appraisal Formal appraisals usually occur at specified time periods-once or twice a year. Formal

appraisals are most often required by the organization for the purpose of employee

evaluation.

Informal performance appraisal can occur whenever the supervisor feels the needs for

communication. Many organizations encourage a mixture of both formal and informal

appraisals. The formal appraisal is most often used as primary evaluation. However, the

informal appraisal is very helpful for more performance feedback. Informal appraisals

should not take place of formal performance evaluation.

Whose performance should be rated? To the question as to whose performance should be rated, the answer is obvious-

employees. When we say employees, is it individuals or teams? Specifically, the ratee

may be defined as the individual, work group, division, or organization. It is also possible

to define the ratee at multiple levels. For example, under some conditions, it may be

desirable to appraise performance both at the work-group level for merit-pay increases

and at the individual level to assess training needs.

Who are raters? Raters can be immediate supervisors, specialists from the HR department, department,

subordinates, peers, committees, clients, self –appraisals, or a combination of several.

Problems of rating Performance appraisals are subject to a wide variety of inaccuracies and biases referred to

as ‘rating errors’. These errors occur in the rater’s observations, judgement, and

information processing, and can seriously affect assessment results. The most common

rating errors are

• Leniency or severity

• Central tendency

• Halo effect

• Rater effect



• Primacy and Recency effects

• Perceptual set

• Performance dimension behaviour

• Spill over effect

• Status effect

Solving raters problems The best way to overcome these problems is to providing training to the raters. From a

practical point of view, several factors, including the extent to which pay is related to

performance ratings, union pressure, turnover rates, time constraints and the need to

justify ratings may be more important than training, influencing the ratings that raters

actually give. This means that improving rating systems involves not just training the

raters but rectifying outside factors such as union pressure. And it means that a rater

training, to be effective, should also address real-life problems such as the fact that union

representatives will try to influence supervisors to rate everyone high.

Training helps to improve the appraisal system by overcoming distortion that occurs due

to the raters’ errors such as hal o, leniency, central tendency and bias. Training of raters

must help strengthen the factors that tend to improve accuracy of ratings and weaken

those that lower the accuracy of the performance measurement.

What should be rated? One of the steps in designing an appraisal programme is to determine the evaluation

criteria. It is obvious that the criteria should be related to the job. The six criteria for

assessing performance are:

• Quality

• Quantity

• Timeliness

• Cost effectiveness

• Need for supervision

• Interpersonal impact



These criteria relate to past performance and behaviour of an employee. The first four -

quality, quantity, timeliness and cost effectiveness are objective in nature. The last two -

need for supervision and interpersonal impact are subjective. Objective measures are

quantifiable and are therefore highly useful in measuring the performance of an

employee. But performance of employees should not always be evaluated against

quantifiable measures. Subjective measures are dependent upon human judgement. They

are prone to different kind of errors stated earlier such as leniency or severity, central

tendency, halo and the like. To be useful, subjective measures must be based on a careful

analysis of the behaviour viewed as necessary and important for effective job

performance.

Timing of Evaluation How often should an employee be assessed? The general trend is to evaluate once in

three months, or six months, or once in a year. 70% of the organizations conduct

performance appraisal once a year, according to a survey conducted in 1997 by Arthur

Anderson. Newly hired employees are rated more frequently than the older ones.

Frequent assessment is better than phased evaluation. Feedback in the latter is delayed

and the advantage of timely remedial measures by the employee is lost. Frequent

evaluation gives constant feedback to the ratee, thus enabling him/her to improve

performance if there is any deficiency. The performance of trainees and probationers

should be evaluated at the end of respective programmes.

Methods of Appraisals The last to be addressed in the process of designing an appraisal programme is to

determine method(s) of evaluation. Numerous methods have been devised to measure the

quantity and quality of employee’s job performance. Each of the metho ds discussed

could be effective for some purposes, for some organizations. None should be dismissed

or accepted as appropriate except as they relate to particular type of employees. Broadly

all approaches can be classified into:

• Past-oriented methods

• Future-oriented methods

Each group has several techniques. Some of them are explained in the following section.



Behavioral Anchored Rating Scales

The term used to describe a performance rating that focuses on specific behaviors or sets

as indicators of effective or ineffective performance, rather than on broadly stated

adjectives such as "average, above average, or below average". Other variations are:

• Behavioral observation scales

• Behavioral expectations scales

• Numerically anchored rating scales

Checklists

The term used to define a set of adjectives or descriptive statements. If the rater believes

the employee possessed a trait listed, the rater checks the item; if not, the rater leaves the

item blank. Rating score from the checklist equals the number of checks.

Critical Incident Technique

The term used to describe a method of performance appraisal that makes lists of

statements of very effective and very ineffective behavior for employees. The lists are

combined into categories, which vary with the job. Once the categories are developed and

statements of effective and ineffective behavior provided, the evaluator prepares a log for

each employee. During the evaluation period, the evaluator records examples of critical

behaviors in each of the categories, and the log is used to evaluate the employee year end.

Forced Choice Method

This appraisal method has been developed to prevent evaluators from rating employees to

high. Using this method, the evaluator has to select from a set of descriptive statements,

statements that apply to the employee. The statements are weighted and summed to at,

effectiveness index.

Forced Distribution

The term used to describe an appraisal system similar to grading on a curve. The

evaluators are asked to rate employees in some fixed distribution of categories. One way

to do this is to type the name of each employee on a card and ask the evaluators to sort

the cards into piles corresponding to rating.



Graphic Rating Scale

The term used to define the oldest and most widely used performance appraisal method.

The evaluators are given a graph and asked to rate the employees on each of the

characteristics. The number of characteristics can vary from one to one hundred. The

rating can be a matrix of boxes for the evaluator to check off or a bar graph where the

evaluator checks off a location relative to the evaluators rating.

Narrative or Essay Evaluation

This appraisal method asks the evaluator to describe strengths and weaknesses of an

employee's behavior. Some companies still use this method exclusively, whereas in

others, the method has been combined with the graphic rating scale.

Management by Objectives

The management by objectives performance appraisal method has the supervisor and

employee get together to set objectives in quantifiable terms. The appraisal method is

worked to eliminate communication problems by the establishment of regular meetings,

emphasizing results, and by being an ongoing process where new objectives have been

established and old objectives are modified as necessary in light of changed conditions.

Paired Comparison

The term used to describe an appraisal method for ranking employees. First, the names of

the employees to be evaluated are placed on separate sheets in a pre-determined order, so

that each person is compared with all other employees to be evaluated. The evaluator

then checks the person he or she feels has been the better of the two on the criterion for

each comparison. Typically the criterion is the employees over all ability to do the

present job.

Ranking

The term ranking has been used to describe an alternative method of performance

appraisal where the supervisor has been asked to order his or her employees in terms of

performance from highest to lowest.



Weighted Checklist

The term used to describe a performance appraisal method where supervisors or

personnel specialists familiar with the jobs being evaluated prepared a large list of

descriptive statements about effective and ineffective behavior on jobs.

Performance Interview

Performance Interview is another step in the appraisal process. Once the Appraisal has

been made of employees, the raters should discuss and review the performance with the

ratees, so that they will receive feedback about where they stand in the eyes of the

superiors. Feedback is necessary to effect improvement in performance, especially when

it is adequate. Specifically Performance Interview has three goals

• To change behaviour of employees’ whose performance does not meet

organizational requirements or their own personal goals.

• To maintain the behaviour of employees who perform in an acceptable manner, a

• To recognize superior performance behaviour so that they will be continued.

Use of appraisal data The final step in the evaluation process is the use of evaluation data. The HR department

must use the data and information generated through performance evaluation. In one way

or the other, data and information outputs of a performance appraisal programme can

critically influence employer-employee reward opportunities. Specifically the data and

information will be useful in the following areas of HRM

• Remuneration administration

• Validation of selection programmes

• Employee training and development programmes

• Promotion, transfer and lay-off decisions

• Grievance and discipline programmes

• HR planning



Performance Management verses Performance Appraisal

The shift from performance appraisal to performance management requires a shift in

focus from a single event to a continuous process. The process provides employees with

direction and support via a detailed performance plan composed of goals, action steps,

measurements, and coaching throughout the yearlong cycle.

Performance management is different from the single appraisal because it:

• Begins with planning at the beginning of the year to clarify job expectations and

accountabilities between employee and manager

• Eliminates current employee concerns that expectations are vague or not

articulated

• Turns the appraisal document and appraisal meeting into the year-end feedback

summary, the last of many meetings on performance.



COMPANY PROFILE

Organization Profile Bharat Electronics was established in the year 1954 as a Public Sector Enterprise under

the Ministry of Defense, primarily to meet the defense electronic equipment requirements

of the country. Over the years, it has diversified its activities to cover not only the defense

forces but also various other areas such as the Paramilitary Forces, Department of

Telecommunications, All India Radio, Doordarshan, Railways, Meteorological

Department, Energy Conservation and IT sector. Today, Bharat Electronics is a multi-

unit, multi-product Company with nine manufacturing units located in different parts of

the country. Bharat Electronics Ltd.,’ s sales turnover during 2002-03 was Rs. 1,715

crores. The company has targeted a minimum growth rate of about 15 per cent per annum

during the next five years.

Bharat Electronics totally has nine manufacturing units with its Corporate and Registered

Office in Bangalore. Bangalore unit is the mother unit established in 1954, situated at

Jalahalli in Bangalore. The units along with their year of establishment are as follows:

• Bangalore (Karnataka) 1954

• Ghaaziabad (U.P.) 1974

• Pune (Maharastra) 1979

• Machilipatnam (A.P.) 1983

• Punchkula (Harayana) 1985

• Chennai (Tamil Nadu) 1986

• Taloja (Maharastra) 1986

• Kotdwara (Uttaranchal) 1986

• Hyderabad (A.P.) 1986

Bharat Electronics started its activities by manufacturing basic communication equipment

for the Defense. At this stage, Bharat Electronics Ltd., depended on overseas



technologies for its operations. Bharat Electronics Ltd., gradually consolidated its

technology base and graduated into the design and development of its own equipment.

Ties with Defense Research and Development Laboratories were forged and

strengthened.

Mission Statement: To be the market leader in Defense Electronics and in other chosen fields and products.

Objectives:

• To become a customer-driven company supplying quality products at competitive

prices at the expected time and providing excellent customer support.

• To achieve growth in the operations commensurate with the growth of

professional electronics industry in the country.

• To generate internal resources for financing the investments required for

modernization, expansion and growth for ensuring a fair return to the investor.

• In order to meet the Nation's strategic needs, to strive for self-reliance by

indigenisation of materials and components.

• To retain the technological leadership of the company in Defence and other

chosen fields of electronics through in-house Research and Development as well

as through collaboration/co-operation with Defence/National Research

Laboratories, International Companies, Universities and Academic institutions.

• To progressively increase overseas sales of its products and services. To create an

organisational culture which encourages members of the organisation to realise

their full potential through continuous learning on the job and through other HRD

initiatives.



Strategic Business Units Keeping in view the changed business environment, the Bangalore unit, the biggest unit

of the Company, was reorganized into six independent Strategic Business Units in 2000-

2001. They are:

1. Military Communications and Electronic Warfare Equipment

2. Military Radars

3. Naval Systems

4. Telecommunication and Broadcasting Systems

5. Components

6. Export Manufacturing

This restructuring was carried out to provide greater focus on specific areas of business

and improved response time to customer needs in a global business environment. Each

SBU will have independent resources of Development and Engineering (D&E),

Manufacturing, Quality Assurance, Marketing, Finance and Personnel within itself to

support its business operations. The intension here is to equip each SBU with necessary

infrastructure, provide resources and operational freedom the way they are available in

other units of Bharat Electronics Ltd. The Head of each SBU will report to the Executive

Director (ED) and will be suitably empowered so that they are accountable for growth

and profitability of the SBU’s.

Product Profile Bharat Electronics has remained the leader in professional electronics for the last 3

decades by developing and producing state of the art equipments, components, and

systems for professional and entertainment electronics industries. The company’s in

depth expertise covers a wide range in the areas of radio communication, radar,

broadcasting and other areas of professional electronics.

Areas of Production 1. Defense Communication

2. Telecommunication

3. Satellite communication



4. Radar and sonar

5. Sound and vision broadcasting

6. Opto-electronics

7. Medical electronics

8. Electronic components

PRODUCT PROFILE AT BANGALORE COMPELX

Communications:

• High frequency / Very high frequency man packs, mobile and static Trans-

receivers / Transmitters / Receivers.

• Digital switching systems (time division modular exchange).

• Automatic Electronic Switch, Digital Trunk Units, Data Concentrator.

• Global Positioning System Receiver.

• Universal Emergency Communication System for Railways.

Satellite Communication (SATCOM):

• Satellite Communication Equipment in extended C, S and Ku Bands.

• Fly Away Terminals

• VSATs

• TV uplink earth stations.

• Intelsat F3 earth stations

• Subsystems, Modems, Amplifiers, Up/Down Converters.

Sound and Vision Broadcasting [T&Bs]:

• Sound Broadcast Transmitters and Studio Equipment for AIR.

• Mobile Broadcast Station.

• Television Broadcast Transmitters

• Cable TV Head End Systems.

• Television Studio Equipment.

• TV De-modulators.



Radar:

• Gun Control Radar.

• Mortar Locating Radars.

• C Band Coherent Monopoles Tracking Radar (PCMC)

• Naval Radar (Tracking/Surveillance/Fire Control/Navigational)

• Battle Field Surveillance Radar

• Active and Passive Radar for navigation and attack

• Fire Control Systems for the Navy

• Data Handling Systems

• Optical Director System for Gun Control.

Others:

• Stimulators and Trainers

• Electronic Voting Machines

• Space Electronic Items

• Software Development

• Projects and Consultancy Works

• Integrated Fish-finder cum Navigational Guidance Systems

• Vessel Identification System

• Energy savers for Air Conditioners

• Alarum Systems for Railway Unmanned level crossings

• Pager Amplifier / UHF paging Transmitters

• Cockpit Display systems for LCA

• PC Mother Boards

Components:

SEMICONDUCTORS:

• Silicon Devices

• Integrated Circuits

• Hybrid Micro Circuits



• Liquid Crystal Displays, Display Boards and Systems

PASSIVE COMPONENTS:

• Quartz Crystals, Quartz Crystal Oscillators and Filters.

• Ceramic Capacitors and Feed Through

ELECTRON TUBES:

• Transmitting Tubes

• Microwave Tubes

• Vacuum Interrupter Tubes.

Customer Profile of Bharat Electronics

Defense Sector:

1) Army Tactical & Strategic communication, equipment and systems, secrecy

equipment, digital switches, battlefield surveillance radars, opto-electronics

instruments, tank fire control system, stabilizer system, simulators and trainers.

2) Navy Navigational surveillance, fire control radars, IFF, SONAR system,

Torpedo Decoys, display system, EX system, simulator communication

equipment and system. Control radars, IFF, SONAR system, Torpedo Decoys,

display system, EX system, simulator communication equipment and system.

3) Air force Surveillance and tracking radar, communication Equipment and

system, IFF & EW system, Electronic warfare system.

Non – Defense Sector:

1) Para-military Communication equipment system.

2) Space Department Precision tracking radar, ground electronics, flight and on

board sub system.

3) AIR (All India Radio) MW, SW and FM transmitters.

4) Doordarshan Low medium and high power transmitters, studio equipment and

OB Vans, camera antennas, mobile and Transportable satellite uplinks.



5) Ministry of Education (NCERT) TV studios on turnkey basis for educational

programs.

6) Department of Telecommunications Transmission equipment (microwave and

UHF) and PCM multiplex, Rural and main automatic exchanges, Flyaway

satellite terminals, solar panels for rural exchanges.

7) VSNL MCPC VSATS, SCPC VSATS, flyaway earth station, hub stations,

up/down converter, LNA modem.

8) Civil Aviation Airport surveillance radar, secondary Surveillance radar.

9) Meteorological Department Cyclone warning and multipurpose meteorological

radar.

10) Power Sector Satellite communication equipment.

11) Medical & Healthcare Clinical Equipment for metros Microwave radio relays.

12) Railways Communication equipment

Components:

Defense sector Transmitting tubes, Microwave tubes, Laser, Batteries, Semiconductors,

Discrete, Hybrid and Integrated Circuits.

Non-defense sector:

1) AIR & DD Transmitting tubes, microwave tubes, Vacuum capacitors.

2) Telephone Industry Integrate circuit, crystals.

3) Entertainment Industry B/W TV tubes, silicon transistors, Integrated circuits,

bipolar and CMOS piezo electric crystals, ceramic capacitors & SAW filters.

4) Medical and Healthcare system X-ray tubes, Identity card systems software,

office automation software, LCD online public info display system, and

communication networking VSAT network.



Bangalore Complex The Bangalore complex has seven Strategic Business Units (SBUs), they are:

1. Military Radar

2. Naval Systems

3. Military Communications and Electronic Warfare

4. Transmissions and Broadcasting

5. Components

6. Export Management

7. Central Services

Each SBU contains the following departments:

1) Finance

• Pay Roll

• Purchase Finance

• Bills Payable (foreign and local)

• Bills Receivable (billing customers)

• Material Accounts and Costing

2) Production

• Production control

• Assembly

• Fabrication

• Machine shop

3) Testing

4) Material Management

• Purchase – stores, material inspection, sub-contract, stores.

• Industrial Engineering Department

• Sales

• Development and Engineering [R&D]

• Personnel (Indirect)

• Computer Center

• Quality Assurance



Bharat Electronics Ltd., at a Glance: -

Type of sector Public Sector Unit

Nature of organization Manufacturer of defense products

Website www.bel-india.com

Head of the organization Dr. V.K.Koshy, chairman & MD

Head of Bangalore unit Mr. Y. Gopala Rao – ED

Directors Mr. Y Gopala Rao – ED [BG]

Mr.V.V.G Rao – ED (other units)

Mr. H.S. Shankar – R&D

Mr. S.C. Khanna – C & MS.

Mr. Bhaskar Naidu – Finance.

Mr. V. Ammineedu – Personnel.



PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR EXECUTIVES AT BHARAT ELECTRONICS

The performance appraisal is designed as an open system, which will be used to arrive at the mutually agreeable performance standards and evaluate actual performance based on these standards. This system aims to improve performance and assess potential, not only through the control mechanism of the performance appraisal interview and evaluation, but also through informal and formal progress reviews. Performance appraisal proforma consists of the following sections: PART-A SELF APPRAISAL to be filled by appraisee PART-B PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PART-C POTENTIAL APPRAISAL to be filled in by reporting and reviewing officers PART-D GENERAL TRAITS

GENERAL COMMENTS to be filled in by reporting and reviewing officers and functional head

PART-E DEVELOPMENT PLAN to be filled in by reporting AND TRAINING NEEDS and Reviewing officer PART –F SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT to be filled in by corporate Personnel GUIDANCE FOR ASESSORS:

1. PARTS B and E should be filled in after conducting a performance appraisal interview with the appraisee not only at the end of the year but in between i.e., at least twice a year. PART C and D are to be treated as ‘confidential reports’.

2. Assessment should be based on direct knowledge of executive’s performance during the period under review.

3. When rating each factor, it is necessary to consider the difficulty, complexity and other factors, which influence the result obtained.

4. Each factor may be allotted marks ranging from 1 to 10. 5. Ratings should reflect the typical normal performance. Influence by recent, a

typical instances of success or failure, is avoided. 6. Appraisee will be given opportunity to demonstrate the potential for a specific

factor. Assessors should be concrete while recommending any training that he considers essential in PART-E.



Definition Of Parameters

PART B

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF TASKS

Extents to which targets set/ tasks assigned were accomplished

QUALITY OF DICISION MAKING Extent to which decisions were the best in the given circumstances and were free from negative consequences

IMPLEMENTATION OF TORQUE Extent t which the executive contributed to the implementation of TORQUE

UTILISATION OF RESOURCES Extent to which resources, including time, were effectively utilized to reduce cost on operations under executive’s control

TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT OF SUBORDINATES

Extents to which efforts were made to develop competence & motivation levels of subordinates

MAINTENANCE OF DISCIPLINE Extent to which the executives was able to maintain shop floor/office discipline

PART C

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

Degree to which executives possesses relevant professional knowledge and functional skills.

CONCEPTUAL ABILITY

Degree to which the executive is able to- 1. Grasp the essentials of the job

related problems 2. Exercise judgment to arrive at

appropriate decisions

INTER-PERSONAL SKILLS Ability to relate to the people and obtain their cooperation

COMMUNICATION Clarity of thought and expression INITIATIVE & INTREPRENUERSHIP Ability to be self directed & to take

legitimate risks the interest of work

TEAM BUILING

Ability to inspire & motivate for building commitment to the company’s mission, objectives and values



commitment to the company’s mission, objectives and values

PLANNING ABILITY

Degree to which executive anticipates problems and work needs and develops effective plans in relation to assigned tasks

LEADERSHIP Degree to which executive is abele to gain willing cooperation of his subordinates to achieve the best possible results

PART D

INTEGRITY Degree of honesty and uprightness in giving facts & in use of the position & the company resources

AMENABILITY TO DISCIPLINE Adherence to the company’s poli cies & rules

COMMITMENT Degree to which the executive is committed to the company’s objectives, policies, programmes & values

PERSEVERANCE Steadfastness with which the executive pursues the chosen course of action

GRADE E 1 – E IV

PART A Self Appraisal

PART B Performance Appraisal

PART C Potential Appraisal

PART D General traits and general comments

PART E Developmental plan

PART F Summary of Appraisal



Grade of appraiser Min grade of reporting

officer

Min grade of reviewing

officer

E I

E II

E III

E IV

E III

E IV

E V

E VII

E IV

E V

E VI

E VII

Each reporting and reviewing officer should ideally maintain the following distribution

for the group of persons being reported upon:

EXCEPTIONAL 5%

EXCELLENT 20%

VERY GOOD 25%

GOOD 25%

ACCEPTABLE 20%

UNACCEPTABLE 5%

In case performance (PART B) is “unacceptable” (i.e. 1-2 marks), on any factor, the

reporting and reviewing officer should hold a mid year counseling session in October

with the appraisee and keep the appraisee informed of the need to improve. The outcome

of the mid-year counseling, in addition to end of year counseling, should be recorded in

3.0 of PART E.

Part B and E should be filled in after conducting a performance appraisal interview with

the appraisee. PART C and D should be treated as “confidential reports”.



PARAMETERS FOR E I – E IV AND EV

Performance Appraisal:

Accomplishment of tasks/targets

Quality of work

Implementation of torque

Utilization of resources

Development of subordinates

Maintenance of discipline

Potential Appraisal:

Professional competence

Problem solving ability

Creativity and innovation

Initiative and drive

Inter-personal skills and leadership

Holistic perception

Planning ability

General Traits:

Integrity

Amenability to discipline

Commitment

Perseverance



PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Performance management is vital for any organization to be a global competitor and

achieve business excellence.

PMS enables clarifying roles, fixing responsibilities, aligning individual’s activities with

organizational objectives and builds value based performance culture in the organization.

PMS also identifies developmental needs of the individuals and creates a database for

rewarding and motivating its executives.

PMS is being introduced in BEL to start with, for senior executives i.e. DGMs and above

up to director level (including direct reportees to GMs).

Objectives Of PMS

• Clarify roles and fix responsibility

• Align individual activities with group goals and organizational objectives

• Optimal use of employee competencies

• Focused work using competencies resulting in reduction of waste and overheads

• Identify developmental needs and build competencies of individuals/dyads/groups

and prepare for higher levels of jobs

• Create database for rewards, motivation, and promotions

• Build value based performance culture

Coverage

Initially all executives in E-VI and above up to directors-level are covered. In addition all

the direct reportees to unit/SBU heads will be covered irrespective of the levels. This will

be extended to other levels in due course.



PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORMAT

Part I – performance The “performance” is divided into 4 parts:

1. Performance plan and mid year review

2. Year-end performance review

3. Developmental need assessment

4. Performance review sheet

Performance plan: Performance planning is the first and the most important part of PMS and is done at the

beginning of the year (April). Every individual has to first define his role, identify

stakeholders and his or her needs and expectations. The needs and expectations are then

prioritized and about 7 to 8 key result areas (KRA) / key performance areas (KPA) are

formulated jointly with the help of superior. The relative weightages out of 100 have to

be jointly fixed between appraisee and appraiser. Having formulated KPAS they have to

be broken into various workable and measurable activities. These activities vary

depending on the level of the executive. While middle level executive of current jobs,

senior level executives focus mainly on visioning, strategy planning and preparing road

maps for next few years besides executing / facilitating higher level jobs. For each of

such activity the performance measures/indicators have to be formulated jointly with the

help of subordinates, colleagues and superiors.

The targets against each activity should be SMART

(Specific, measurable, agreed/ambitious/achievable, realistic and time bound)

The performance plan after finalizing jointly is signed by both appraisee and appraiser.

The original format is kept with appraiser; the appraiser keeps a copy for his reference

and regular monitoring.

Mid year review: The mid year review is done in October every year in a structured performance review

discussion (PRD) meeting held between appraisee and appraiser. At the end of the PRD

meeting the appraisee formally lists down in the column to what extent he could achieve



his half yearly targets and the reasons for the variances if any. During PRD he will

discuss with the appraiser if he need to amend the year-end KPAs, targets or marks.

Appraiser in the 5th level will give his concurrence or otherwise and firm up KPAs.

Targets and wieghtage marks jointly for the year-end and the firmed up KPAs for year-

end are entered in the 1st three columns of page 3.

Performance Review Discussion (PRD): The PRD as a part of midyear or year-end review is another most important activity in

PMS and therefore this process needs to be understood clearly and followed properly.

PRD aims at making appraiser and appraisee understand each other better by formal

communication and analysis of performance once in 6 months. PRD meetings are fixed

between appraiser and appraisee well in advance. Sufficient time of about 2 to 3 hours is

allowed for PRD and is conducted in a quit and congenial environment ensuring no

interruptions. During PRD the appraiser should be friendly and supportive, with positive

approach without getting personal and be prepared to give and take feedback. It should be

a two-way dialogue. Precise tasks and targets are set and reviewed jointly. Performance

dairy is referred often to give specific feedbacks on performance. The review should be

for entire period and not based on recent incidents.

PRD if done properly can be used as problem solving tools and helps mutual

understanding, mutual learning, trust and openness and fosters team spirit. It helps in

improving the effectiveness and productivity of subordinates as well as boss and the

department as a whole.

During PRD, the appraiser also gives feedback on performance, competencies, value and

potential factors and identifies training/developmental needs of the subordinate.

Before PRD is conducted one should monitor and analyze the performance. Without

proper monitoring and analysis system, the PRD may lead to negative results. Therefore

it is necessary to understand how performance has to be monitored and analyzed.

Performance monitoring: Having set the KPA and performance measures and indicators (targets) every individual

has to continuously monitor one’s own performance vis-à-vis target set between him and

his superior and see that set targets are achieved well within the time schedule. Similarly



one has to monitor the performance of the subordinates continuously; give mid course

feed backs and make necessary corrections. Best way is to maintain the performance

diary of the subordinates and record significant achievements and short falls if any from

time to time. The performance diary is often referred in PRD and is considered a very

effective tool for reviewing the performance of the subordinates during PRD.

Performance analysis: Both appraisee and appraiser must do performance analysis first independently and later

together during PRD.

The actual performance is analysed vis-a–vis KPA/tasks/targets set earlier. During

performance analysis one has to find answers for various questions – whether

performance fall short or exceeds and by how much; is it exceptional, very good or more

than what is possible/expected or same as expected or less than expected. What factors

related appraiser (competence, motivations, ability, hard work) helped him to

perform/fail and what factors of boss or subordinate, or policies/organizational support

helped him to perform/fail; which of these factors could have been influenced by

appraisee/Appraiser and how. One should not start rating based on simple fact that

subordinates has either met or not met the targets, without finding answers for above

questions.

Performance analyses is a time consuming process and if done properly can help to meet

a variety of objectives including performance rating in more objective PRD.

Year-end performance review:

The year end performance review of previous year and formulating KPAs, targets etc.,

for next year should be done together in a well structured PRD meeting between

appraiser in April every year. The process to be followed for the performance of

appraisee vis-à-vis targets at against each KPA. The average of the total marks awarded

by the appraiser and reviewing officer is worked out and the total average marks thus

obtained out of 100 prorated to 50%. Thus the wieghtage given for the performance vis-

à-vis targets during the year is 50% of total marks. The marks awarded confidentially by

the appraiser and reviewing officer after PRD meetings is over.



Developmental need assessment: Developing performance and identifying developmental needs is an important activity in

PMS. This can be done at the year beginning, or mid year review or year-end review and

recorded.

Performance review: The appraiser to record comments on performance and summary of PRD meetings in the

middle and end/beginning of the year uses this. Besides feedback given with reference to

competencies, values and potentials are also recorded here. Any organizational support

required to perform may also be recorded. The remarks of midyear review could be

referred at improvements made by individuals during 6 months on the feed back points.

PART I – COMPETENCIES This part deals with assessment of 9 functional/technical and managerial competencies

required foe successful performance on the job. Brief description of what the expected

under each competency is given in the format itself. The appraiser is assessed and rated

on a 5-point scale against each competency at the end of the year by the appraiser and

reviewing officer confidentially.

PART II – VALUES This part deals with assessment of 10 crore values and ethical behaviour values, which

are required to be demonstrated in day-to-day activities by the appraisee. Brief

description of what is expected under each value is given in the format itself. The

appraisee is assessed and rated on a 5-point scale against each value at the end of the year

by appraiser and reviewing officer confidentially.



PART III – POTENTIAL APPRAISAL

This part deals with 5 attributes, which represent the leadership and managerial qualities

required at senior level and to occupy higher positions. Brief explanation of what is

expected against each attribute is given in the format itself. He appraisee is assessed and

rated on 5 point scale against confidentially by appraiser and reviewing officer.

POINTS

EXCEPTIONAL 4.5 - 5

EXCELLENT 4 - 4.5

VERY GOOD 3.5 - 4

GOOD 3 - 3.5

ACCEPTABLE 2.5 - 3

UNACCEPTABLE <2.5

Normalization Of Ratings The ratings given by appraising officer may not sometime coincide with the views of

reviewing officer. The reasons for variation may be many. In such situations where

reviewing officer feels that the rating need certain modifications he will discuss with

appraising officer and arrive at consensus. However, the reviewing officer should take

necessary care to see that the authority of appraising officer is not abrogated and similarly

the appraising officer should be able to see the rationale behind reviewing officers’ view

and both at consensus.

Normally the distribution of performance in any department/division would be about

20% in exceptional or excellent category and about 20% are average and below average

performers. Rest 60% would be very good/good category. The appraisers and reviewers

should make sure that ratings across their department follow normal standard BELL

CURVE.

Due to lack of proper understanding of the guidelines variation do occur between one

appraising officers to another for the same and similar level of the performance. Such



variations are taken care by reviewing officer and appraising officer by mutual

discussion. It is also not uncommon that appraising officers and reviewing officers are

together are either too lenient or too strict resulting in large variation between

departments and divisions. All out efforts should be made by unit heads to reduce if not

totally eliminate such variation since the ratings are sacrosanct for promotions and

rewards. In order to reduce such variation the personnel department would make study of

previous year’s ratings of various appraisers in each department/divisions and make a

statistical analysis for each department/divisions versus company wide/ unit wide

statistics and give feedback to departmental/divisional heads in march every year. In case

of senior executives, corporate and personnel may make such analysis unit wise as

against company wide statistics and give feedback to unit heads in the month of March

every year. This will enable unit heads/divisional/unit heads to take necessary steps when

they finalize the current years KPAs, measures and ratings. All out efforts should be

made by all concerned to see that ratings are normalized to see that there is no large

variations between department, division-to-division and unit-to-unit.

However, it is not uncommon though in rare situation certain departments have

predominantly high performers or very low performers. One should not lose sight of such

exception in trying to statically normalize and deny due to ratings to genuinely

performing officers.



REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Purpose of the review of literature

The purpose of literature review is to identify the problem statement, understand the

secondary data that has been gathered in the field of study and to make new findings on

the problem statement.

Methodology of the review of literature

Methodology of the literature review different facets of information sources concerning

to motivation factors for employee satisfaction. Different sources used in order to collect

the information or data are:

• Magazines and journals

• The internet

• Publications

• Articles

The articles have been analyzed and used in the research for better understanding of the

Topic.



Title: How to make performance reviews more useful Author: Bruce L. Katcher, Ph.D. President of The Discovery Group.

Website referred: www.discoverysurveys.com

According to this article More than half of all employees believe that performance

reviews have not been useful in helping them to improve their job performance.

Employees have become cynical about the performance management process.

The management can

• Reinforce Positive Behaviors: "Reinforcing positive behavior will

increase the probability of that behavior."

• Uncouple Employee Development and Compensation Discussions:

Salary reviews should occur separately on an annual basis.

• Make Certain that the Performance Standards are Clear and

Achievable: Performance measures must be made crystal clear. Use

quantitative rather than qualitative measures whenever possible.

• Make Sure the Performance Measures are Relevant: Each performance

measure should be relevant to each particular employee.

• Provide Team and Customer Feedback: Performance feedback from

team members and customers is often much more useful than supervisory

feedback.

In summary, most employees find their performance reviews useless, but there are many

steps that management can take to make them much more meaningful.



Title: How to Improve the Effectiveness of Performance Management and

Appraisal by Overcoming the Root Cause of the Problem Author: Julie Freeman

Website referred: www.hrmguide.com

This article explores why existing formal and informal approaches to Employee

Performance Management and Appraisal (EPMA) tend to work well enough in theory,

but fail to meet expectations in practice.

Organizations encourage, even urge, their managers to talk informally with their

employees about their performance on an ongoing basis. However, this rarely happens.

Moreover, even when managers do talk to their employees, the communication often falls

short of having the desired effect on their morale, motivation, and productivity. Despite

our best efforts to date, managers still report that they are uncomfortable giving feedback

and discussing performance with their employees, especially if poor performance is a

factor. It identifies the root cause of the problems associated with giving and discussing.

Performance related information in formal and informal settings and presents a solution

to overcome them. Various suggestions for how the solution can be applied to meet

differing individual or corporate needs are also outlined.

Only about 10 per cent of the managerial population has a natural ability to discuss

performance with their employees in an effective way. According to the author, the root

cause of the problem does not appear to lie in a lack of ability within the managerial

population to honestly and accurately assess and evaluate an employee’s performance

and potential. Actually most managers can do this very well. The root cause of the

problem is that, to a greater or lesser extent, the vast majority of managers cannot

actually translate what they know about that performance into useful information and

then communicate it to the employee in an effective and practical way regardless of the

method they are asked to use. The proposed solution for such a problem according to the

author does not lie in trying to improve the technical elements of any given approach.

The PAF (Performance Analysis and Feedback) technique discussed in this article

provides a breakthrough in helping managers to deal with difficult situations like this. It

works because it shows managers a simple and logical way that they can analyze and



validate both the positive and negative aspects of their subjective fuzzy mental

impressions.

PAF is particularly effective for communicating "negative" information (the "hard stuff")

without the kind of stress and anxiety that managers ordinarily expect to experience in

such situations, and in a way that has the desired effect on employee behaviour, outputs,

motivation and morale. However, it is equally effective for conveying positive

conclusions and opinions because it does so in a way that has the effect of building the

employee's self -esteem, confidence, and desire to do well, while negative conclusions

can be conveyed in a way that gets the hoped-for results.

This technique works because Firstly, regardless of whether the feedback is positive or

negative, the PAF Technique forces managers to analyze their conclusions in a very

specific, positive, future-focused way. Specificity is a golden rule of feedback of course,

but this approach goes ones step further because conclusions, once formed, are rarely

examined and communicated in this way.

Secondly, for negative feedback, the way that a problem is brought up and presented

makes it easier on the manager to say and easier on employees to hear, understand, and

accept, which decreases the potential for conflict and hurt feelings. Thirdly, the

specificity of the desired performance combined with the discussion about solution

options dramatically increases the probability that the process will achieve the hoped-for

results.

In summary, the big problem of improving performance-related communication between

managers and employees can be solved by simple solution. All it takes is the will to

implement it.



Title: How to link pay and job performance Author: Bruce L. Katcher, Ph.D. President of The Discovery Group

Website Referred: www.discoverysurveys.com

7 out of 10 employees say there is no relationship between their job performance and

their pay. Employees want to feel that their good work is appreciated and appropriately

compensated. Problems discovered from this article are:

• Employees believe that their performance is above average they therefore, believe

that he or she should be paid above average.

• Employees feel that they are not adequately paid compared to those performing

similar work in other organizations.

• Employees often perceive that there are poor performers in their organization who

are earning as much if not more than they earn.

• Supervisors don't have the know-how or guts to differentiate between poor,

average, and above average performers.

• Tying pay to performance is very important to employees. This is particularly true

in unionized organizations where the union has negotiated contracts that require

their employer to tie pay increases to years of service rather than performance.

The management can link pay to performance in the following manner:

• Make the organizations Pay-for-Performance Philosophy Clear to Employees.

• Use Bonuses Rather than Pay Increases.

• Rate Supervisors on how well they Rate their Subordinates.

• Train Supervisors how to talk about Pay.

• Use Objective Performance Measures.

• Weed out Ineffective Performers.

In summary, employees typically want to be paid commensurate with the quality of their

job performance. Doing so requires a carefully constructed pay program, a commitment

from supervisors, and well-orchestrated communications to employees about their pay.



Title: Using a Balanced Scorecard Approach to Measure

Performance Authors: Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton

Website referred: www.work911.com

Traditionally, organizational performance is measured by focusing on internal or process

performance, looking at factors such as the number of fulltime equivalents (FTE) allotted,

the number of programs controlled by the agency, or the size of the budget for the fiscal

year. In contrast, private sector businesses usually focus on the financial measures of

their bottom line: return on- investment, market share, and earnings-per-share. Alone,

neither of these approaches provides the full perspective of an organization's performance

that a manager needs to manage effectively. But by balancing internal and process

measures with results and financial measures, managers will have a more complete

picture and will know where to make improvements.

Summary of Review of Literature:

The articles reviewed tell us it is difficult to introduce a new system of performance

appraisal or modify the existing appraisal system. There always exist some problem

regarding the performance evaluation. The study therefore tries to suggest ways in which

the changes can be incorporated in a sequential and an ordered manner. Performance can

also be linked to the monetary benefits associated with the job. The recommendation part

of the research guides as to how the management can make the performance appraisal

system more effective. One of the ways to measure performance of an employee with

respect to organizational strategies is by designing Balance Scorecard. A balance

scorecard can be constructed with a specific purpose of linking any aspect of the

organization with the overall organizational goals.



RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Problem Statement: A critical study of the effectiveness of the performance appraisal system and suggest

ways for improvement.

Objectives of the Research: The research survey is proposed to be undertaken with the following objectives:

• To study the present Performance appraisal system at BEL.

• To ascertain the views/opinions of the Raters and Ratees working with the

company about Performance Appraisal System, existing in the company.

• To suggest appropriate modifications in the existing Performance Appraisal

System.

Type of Research: Our research investigation is analytical. The respondents have been contacted through

questionnaires blended with focus group interviews and responses with regard to the

current performance appraisal system of the company have been analyzed.

Sampling Technique: Though the study is confined to only one unit situated in Bangalore, a complete survey of

all the employees is not possible, because of their busy schedule. The respondents

belonging to the Executive level have been chosen.

Sample size: A sample size of 40 employees has been selected on the basis of Stratified Sampling

method.



Instrumentation techniques:

• Structured Questionnaire

• Focus Group Interviews

Actual collection of data: Data is the fact of an event. Data is the base for every research work. The data is mainly

classified into two groups.

Primary data: Thrust has been on collection of primary data. Structured

questionnaire has been used and discussed personally with the respondents to get

their responses.

Secondary data: Books, journals, websites etc., have been consulted for obtaining

related information, and also for crosschecking of primary data.

Interpretation and analysis:

• The data collected from the questionnaire have been synthesized in the form of

tables and tabulated data has been analyzed.

• Percentage is calculated for each and every table.

• Analysis and interpretation is done based on primary data.

• Inference is drawn from the analysis of primary data, to attain the objective of the

study.

• The primary data is diagrammatically represented.

Limitations of the research

• Study is limited to the Bangalore unit of BEL only.

• The sample size is limited to only 40 employees

• Analysis of primary data is done on the assumption that the answers given by the

respondents are true and correct.

• Time and Resource constraints.



PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

SAMPLE SIZE 40

No %

No. of questionnaires distributed 40 100

No of respondents 40 100

No %

No. of respondents for questionnaire-1(ratee) 40 100

No of respondents for questionnaire-2 (rater) 30 75

CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON

SBUs No %

Naval systems 18 45.0

Military communication and electronic warfare 15 37.5

Components 4 10.0

Telecommunication and broadcasting 3 7.5

TOTAL 40 100


NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE RENDERED No %

01 – 10 13 32.5

11 – 20 15 37.5

21 – 30 06 15.0

> 30 06 15.0

TOTAL 40 100




GRADE No %

E I 3 7.5

E II 8 20.0

EIII 7 17.5

E IV 7 17.5

E V 11 27.5

E VI 4 10.0

TOTAL 40 100


AGE No %

25 – 35 11 27.5

36 – 45 16 40.0

46 – 55 12 30.0

> 55 1 2.5

TOTAL 40 100


NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE RENDERED No %

01 – 10 13 32.5

11 – 20 15 37.5

21 – 30 06 15.0

> 30 06 15.0

TOTAL 40 100



Questionnaire 1(To The Ratees) Awareness About The Performance Appraisal System

Followed In BEL Q1.Are you aware of the Performance Appraisal System followed at BEL?

TABLE 1: Table showing the response towards the Awareness of the Performance

Appraisal System followed IN BEL

Awareness about PAS No %

Yes 40 100

No 0 0

TOTAL 40 100

CHART 1:

AWARENESS ABOUT PAS FOLLOWED IN BEL

aware100%

unaware0%

Source: field investigation

Observation: The above table shows that 100% of the respondents are aware of the

performance appraisal system followed.

Inference: This shows that the company follows a strict policy about the appraisal.



Level Of Satisfaction Towards The Performance Appraisal System Followed In BEL

Q2. How satisfied are you with the present Performance Appraisal system?

TABLE 2: Table showing the level of satisfaction towards the performance appraisal system followed in BEL

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION No %

Fully satisfied 4 10

Partially satisfied 32 80

Not satisfied at all 4 10

TOTAL 40 100

CHART 2:

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

fully satisfied10%

partially satisfied80%

not at all satisfied10%


Observation: The above table shows that 80% of the executives are partially satisfied

with the PAS followed, only 10% of the executives are fully satisfied where as another

10% of the executives responded that they are not at all satisfied with the PAS followed.

Inference: This shows that the present performance appraisal system is satisfactory to

some extent. Further improvement in the system can be made in order to attain full

satisfaction of the employees/executives of the company.



Response Towards Performance Standards

Q3. The performance standards set are clear and achievable.

TABLE 3: Table showing response towards the performance standards if they are clear and achievable

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS No %

Strongly agree 0 0

Agree 24 60

Disagree 12 30

Strongly disagree 4 10

TOTAL 40 100.00

CHART 3:

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SET ARE CLEAR & ACHIEVABLE

strongly agree disagreeagree


Observation: The above table shows that the greater part (60%) agrees that the

performance standards set are clear and achievable. But 40% of the respondents disagree.

Inference: Executives should participate with their supervisors in the creation of

performance goals and development plans which would lead to clear understanding of the

key performance areas. It can be inferred from above that the performance standards are

clear and achievable.

Strongly disagree



Knowledge About Reporting And Reviewing Officers

Q4. Do you know who are your Reporting officer and Reviewing officers?

TABLE 4 :Table showing response towards knowledge about reporting and reviewing officers

KNOWLEDGE ABOUT REPORTING AND REVIEWING

OFFICERS No %

Yes 38 95

No 2 5

TOTAL 40 100

CHART 4:

KNOWLEDGE ABOUT REPORTING & REVIEWING OFFICERS

no5%

yes95%


Observation: The above pie chart depicts that 95% of the respondents are aware of who

their reporting and reviewing officers are. Surprisingly there are respondents (2%) who

agreed otherwise.

Inference: From the above table it can be inferred that the appraisees are aware of their

Reporting and reviewing officers. Hence it can be said that executives have well thought-

out appraisal as a serious issue.



Assessment Of Training Needs For Appraisers

Q5. Is it essential to provide training to the appraiser to develop his skills to carry appraisal programme?

TABLE 5: Table showing the response towards training needs for appraisers

TRAINING NEEDS FOR APPRAISERS No %

Yes, it is essential 25 62.5

Sometimes essential 15 37.5

No, it is not essential 0 0

TOTAL 40 100.0

CHART 5:

TRAINING NEEDS FOR APPRAISERS

62%

38%

0%

yes, it is essentialsometimes essentialno, it is not essential


Observation: The above table shows that majority of the respondents i.e. 62% favored

training for the appraisers to carry appraisal programme, 38% respondents felt it is

sometimes essential, none answered negatively.

Inference: The above table shows that all the respondents experience the necessity of

training for the appraisers. Training appraisers would escort to a much accurate appraisal.



Response Towards If Counseled To Improve Performance

Q6. Have you been counseled at any time to improve your performance? TABLE 6: Table showing response towards if counseled to improve performance

IF COUNSELED TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE No %

Yes 4 10.0

Sometimes 13 32.5

No 23 57.5

TOTAL 40 100.0

Chart 6:

IF COUNSELED TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

10%

33%57%

yessometimesno


Observation: The above chart depicts that only 10% of the respondents agreed that they

have been counseled, where as the major part – 57% of the respondents says that they

have never been counseled, 10% responded saying they were counseled irregularly.

Inference: This shows that the most of the times executives are not counseled after

appraisal programme, hence it should be seen that executives are counseled time to time

in order to pick up their performance.



Response Towards BEL Spending Time And Attention On

Performance Appraisal Process Q7. The management at BEL spends considerable amount of time and attention for the

Performance Appraisal process.

TABLE 7: Table showing the response towards BEL spending of considerable amount of time and attention for the Performance appraisal process

TIME & ATTENTION ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL No %

Strongly agree 1 2.5

Agree 19 47.5

Disagree 18 45.0

Strongly disagree 2 5.0

TOTAL 40 100.00

CHART 7:

BEL SPENDS CONSIDERABLE TIME & ATTENTION OM PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

3%

47%45%

5%

strongly agreeagreedisagreestrongly disagree


Observation: In response to the question company spending of considerable time and

attention for the performance appraisal system, 50% of the respondents answered

positively, whereas another 50% of the respondents flatly disagreed to the concept.



Inference: The management should take effectual steps so that appraisees sense that they

have been fairly judged.

Response Towards Importance Of Self Appraisal

Q8. In the Performance Appraisal system at BEL the “ Self Appraisal” forms a part. Do you think it is relevant?

TABLE 8: Table showing the response towards the Validity of Self-Appraisal

IMPORTANCE OF SELF APPRAISAL No %

Yes 29 72.5

No 5 12.5

Not sure 6 15.0

TOTAL 40 100.00

CHART 8:

IMPORTANCE OF SELF APPRAISAL

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.00

yes no not sure

%


Observation: The responses analyzed show that 72% of the executives actually felt that

Self-Appraisal is important. This aids in the free flow of information from the executives

regarding the Job-Performance to the Reporting and reviewing officers. 5% of the

Respondents felt Self-Appraisal is not necessary.



Inference: This shows that the executives are satisfied with the Self-Appraisal process

being followed in the company.

Response Towards Awareness Of Different Traits

Q9. Are you aware of the different traits/attributes according to which you are

rated?

TABLE 9: Table showing the response towards the Knowledge of Traits/Attributes

KNOWLEDGE OF TRAITS / ATTRIBUTES No %

Yes, completely 22 55.0

No 7 17.5

Not very sure 11 27.5

TOTAL 40 100.0

CHART 9:

KNOW LEDGE OF TRAITS / ATTRIBUTES

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

yes no not very sure

%


Observation: This issue analyzes the awareness about the Traits/Attributes contained in

the Appraisal system. 55% of the respondents say they are completely aware of the traits

based on which they are appraised. But 18% of the respondents answered that they are

not aware of all the different traits where as 28% said they are not very sure.



Inference: It can be inferred that the management has been effective in making an

appraisee aware about the traits contained in the appraisal formats only to some extent. If

appraisees are not aware of the traits then there won’t be a clear -cut thought on which

they can develop their performance.

Response Towards Sufficiency Of Traits

Q10. The traits/attributes so contained in the Performance appraisal system is

sufficient.

TABLE 10: Table showing Response towards Sufficiency of Traits

SUFFICIENCY OF TRAITS No %

Agree 30 75

Disagree 10 25

TOTAL 40 100

CHART 10:

SIFFICIENCY OF TRAITS

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

agree

disagree

%




Observation: Out of the 40 respondents 75% felt that the traits are sufficient. Of the

remaining 25% respondents felt the need of more explicit traits.

Inference: Since 75% of the respondents have answered in favour show that the traits

contained in the formats are Sufficient. It can also be inferred that the appraisee is rated

on all possible attributes.

Response Towards Relevance Of Rating By Reviewing And Reporting Officers

Q11. Is it relevant of the Performance Appraisal system at BEL in which Reporting and

Reviewing officers rate you?

TABLE 11: Table showing the response towards the relevance of rating being done by Reviewing and Reporting officers

RELEVANCE OF RATING No %

Yes 27 67.5

No 6 15.0

Not sure 7 17.5

TOTAL 40 100.0

CHART 11:

yes no

not sure

%0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

RELEVANCE OF RATING

%




Observation: In the appraisal system followed in BEL, Reviewing and Reporting officers

rate the Performance of an appraiser. This system is valid according to the response of

67% of the respondents. 15% of the employees agreed otherwise.

Inference: It can be concluded that the present system of performance appraisal is

effective in bringing out the performance feed back by the reviewing and reporting

officers. The executives also have no issues about the rating by 2 officers.

Sufficiency Of Help And Guidance Provided By Reporting/Reviewing Officers

Q12. Help and guidance provided to you by your Reporting/Reviewing officers is: TABLE 12: Table showing the response towards the sufficiency of help and guidance provided by Reporting/Reviewing officers.

SUFFICIENCY OF HELP & GUIDANCE PROVIDED No %

Highly sufficient 2 5

Sufficient 22 55

Insufficient 14 35

Highly Insufficient 2 5

TOTAL 40 100

CHART 12:

SUFFICIENCY OF HELP & GUIDANCE PROVIDED

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

highly sufficient sufficient insufficient highly insufficient

%




Observation: Of the respondents 55% of the executives felt that the help and guidance

provided is sufficient. Only 5% strongly agreed that the help and guidance is highly

sufficient. Few of the respondents’ also thought of help being insufficient. 35% of the

executives said that the guidance is insufficient. A very few (5%) felt that the help and

guidance is highly insufficient.

Inference: This indicates that the management spends considerable time on providing

help and guidance to the executives.

Response Towards Discussion About Ratings With Reporting Officers

Q13. The discussion of your Performance with that of the Reporting/Reviewing

officer provides you with a platform, whereby you can discuss your ratings without

fear/inhibitions:

TABLE 13: Table showing the response towards the discussion of employees’ performance with reporting/reviewing officer without any fear/inhibitions.

DISCUSSION ABOUT PERFORMANCE No %

Strongly agree 2 5

Agree 18 45

Disagree 18 45

Strongly disagree 2 5

TOTAL 40 100

CHART 13:



strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree%

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

DISCUSSION ABOUT PERFORMANCE


Observation: This question tries to analyze how free are the executives to express their

explanation for their performance on the job. 45% of the respondents agreed to the fact

that the discussion with the reporting/reviewing officer provides with a platform to

discuss the executives ratings. Only 5% strongly agreed that the platform is effective

enough. As much as 45% of the executives disagreed that the discussion with their ratees

is a good platform to discuss the performance. Only 5% of the respondents strongly

disagreed implying the executives could not discuss their rating in a fair manner.

Inference: On the whole 50% of the respondents are on the positive side where as another

50% are on the negative side. Hence the management should take steps in order to shrink

the gap between the raters and the ratees.



Response Towards The Development Of New Skills

Q14. The development of new or better managerial qualities and skills through the

training programme, identified through the Performance Appraisal is:

TABLE 14: Table showing the response towards the development of new/better managerial qualities and skills through the training program identified through the performance appraisal.

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SKILLS No %

Significantly important 8 20

Important 28 70

Not at all important 4 10

TOTAL 40 100

CHART 14:



DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SKILLS

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

sigificantlyimportant

important not at allimportant

%


Observation: This particular the question tries to get the feed back from executives about

the significance of training programs. Of the 40 respondents, 70% felt the development of

new or better managerial skill through the training programme identified through the

performance appraisal is important. 20% felt that it is significantly important. A mere

10% said that the development is not at all important.

Inference: This shows that the executives show responsibility towards the management

by participating in the training programs.

Response Towards The Need For Performance Appraisal For Executives

Q15. The need for Performance Appraisals for officers like you is: TABLE 15: Table showing the response towards the need for a performance appraisal for the current designation held by the executives.

NEED FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL No %

Very much necessary 15 37.5

Necessary 22 55.0

Not Necessary 3 7.5

TOTAL 40 100



CHART 15:

NEED FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

38%

54%

8%

very much necessary necessary not necessary


Observation: 55% of the respondents agreed that the performance appraisal is very much

necessary for the Job-designation they are holding. Whereas 38% of the respondents

strongly agreed that it is very much necessary to have a performance appraisal system. Of

the 40 respondents only 3 of them felt that the performance appraisal is not necessary.

Inference: The fact that most of the respondents answering in the favour of the appraisal

system justifies the need for the appraisal for the executives.

Response Towards The Existence Of Communication Gap

Q16. There exist performance related communication gap between the Rater and

Ratee.

TABLE 16: Response towards the existence of performance related communication gap b/w rater and ratee

EXISTANCE OF COMMUNICATION GAP No %

Strongly agree 7 17.5

Agree 26 65.0

Disagree 7 17.5

Strongly disagree 0 0.0

TOTAL 40 100



CHART 16:

EXISTANCE OF COMMUNICATION GAP

17%

66%

17%0%

strongly agreeagreedisagreestrongly disagree


Observation: From the above numeral it is apparent that there exist performance rated

communication gap b/w rater and ratee. 65% of the respondents answered in favour, 17%

strongly agree that the gap exist, again 17% of the respondents believe that there is no

such gap.

Inference: It can be concluded that many executives do face the difficulty of

communicating with their appraisers.

Response Towards Review Of Present Performance System Q17. Do you think the present Performance Appraisal system should be reviewed?

TABLE 17: Table showing response towards review of present performance system

REVIEW OF PAS No %

Yes 27 67.5

No 8 20.0

Can’t say 5 12.5

TOTAL 40 100.0

CHART 17:



REVIWAL OF PAS

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

yes no cant say

%


Observation: 68% of the respondents sense that the present appraisal system should be

renewed, where as 20% of the respondents are satisfied with the present PAS, 12% didn’t

give any view.

Inference: It can be said that many executives are not contented with the present PAS and

consequently experience the need for the restoration of the system.

Response Towards The Degree Of Mutual Understanding, Possibility Of An Unbiased Assessment, Discovering Potential,

Fulfilling Potentials

1-Very Low 2-Quite Low 3-Quite High 4-Very High TABLE 18:

1 2 3 4 TOTAL

Degree of mutual understanding 2 5 28 5 40

Possibility of unbiased assessment 5 10 23 2 40



Discovering potential of higher responsibility 9 12 16 3 40

Fulfilling potentials discovered 4 20 14 2 40

TOTAL 20 47 81 12

% 12.5 29.4 50.6 7.5 100.0

CHART 18:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4degree of Mutual Understanding Possibility of Unbiased assessment

discovering your potential for higher responsibility fulfilling the Potentials discovered


(1) Observation: The degree of mutual understanding is the mutual respect the

employee and the reporting/reviewing officers’ share.

Of the responses it has to be noted that very few respondents answered very low.

The executives have a very high mutual understanding according to only 5 out of

40 (12%)respondents. 28 of 40 i.e. 70% of the respondents felt that the

understanding is Quite high. 5% of the respondents felt that the mutual

understanding is low.



Inference: It can be inferred that the degree of mutual understanding in work

relationships with the executive’s superior is quite high. Overall 83% of the responden ts

agree that the degree of mutual understanding is High. This implies that “Rater Bias” is

not prevalent in the company.

(2) Observation: Possibility of an unbiased assessment motivates an employee to

perform better on the job. In the survey only 5% of the respondents felt that the

possibility of an unbiased assessment is very high. 58% of the executives agreed

that the possibility of the assessment being unbiased is quit high. Few respondents

felt that the assessment is not fair. 25% of the respondents felt that the assessment

is quite low in terms of bias. 13% felt with respect to the possibility of unbiased

assessment is very low.

Inference: It can be inferred that the possibility of an unbiased assessment of the

performance is quite high.

(3) Observation: As seen from the graph, majority of the respondents agreed to the

fact that the extent of discovering potential for higher job responsibility as high.

40% of the respondents agree that the possibility of the management discovering

the potential for improvement is quite high. Again 30% of the respondents felt

that the response is quite low from the management to discover the potential.

8% of the respondents agreed that the response is very high. Of the respondents a

few thought that the management is showing very low interest in discovering the

potential. 22% of the respondents felt the possibility of the management

discovering the potential for improvement is very low.

Inference: It can be inferred that the extent of effort from the management in discovering

executives potential for higher responsibility through Performance Appraisal is quite low.

53% of the overall response shows inclination towards low. Thus the management is

should take effective steps in discovering the employees’ potential for imp rovement.



(4) Observation: Evidently the responses show a positive inclination towards quite

low. 35% of the respondents were convinced that the management spends

considerable amount of time in fulfilling the potential identified. 5% agreed that

the response is very high. But 50% of the respondents felt that the response is

quite low and 25% felt that it was indeed very low.

Inference: This shows that the extent of action taken by the company to assist executives

in fulfilling the potentials discovered in an executive is unsatisfactory since 75% of

overall response was on the negative side.

Response Towards Training Needs Identification

TABLE 19: Table showing the response towards the Training needs identified through the Performance Appraisal.

TRAININD NEEDS IDENTIFICATION CODE No %

Are formulated into a training programme A 17 42.5

Not considered for training B 12 30.0

Is considered, but the wrong person ends with the right training C 3 10.0

Don’t know D 6 17.5

TOTAL 40 100



CHART 19:

IDENTIFICATION OF TRAINING NEEDS

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

A B

C D

% 42.50 30.00 10.00 17.50

A B C D


Observation: Highest % of the respondents (43%) has agreed to the fact that the training

needs are formulated into a training program in the company. As seen in the table, 30%

felt that the training needs identified are not considered for the training programme. 10%

of the respondents felt that the training needs are identified but the wrong person gets it.

18% was non-responsive as the respondents were not aware of what happens to the

training needs identified.

Inference: It can be inferred that the management is effective in recognizing the training

needs and then incorporating the needs into an appropriate training programme.

Response Towards The Type Of The Training Programme Conducted In The Company.

TABLE 20: Table showing the response towards the type of the training programme conducted in the company.

TRAINING NEEDS IDENTIFICATION CODE No %

Strongly helps in enhancing your Job Knowledge and Individual Skill.

A 18 45.0

Helps in overcoming the shortcomings identified in B 15 37.5



Doesn’t help in any way C 7 17.5

TOTAL 40 100.0

CHART 20:

TYPE OF TRAINING PROGRAMME CONDUCTED

17%

37%45%

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

A B C

%


Observation: 45% of respondents agreed that the training programme conducted in the

company strongly helps in enhancing Job-Knowledge and Individual skill. This is a

strong point to be noted in the study as the training program influences the enhancement

of job skill. 37% of the respondents felt that the training program helps in overcoming the

shortcomings identified in the employee. 18% of the respondents said the training

program conducted doesn’t help in any way.

Inference: Important is the fact that many respondents felt that the training program

strongly helps in enhancing job knowledge and individual skill. This also shows that the



management designs a training program based on the training needs identified through

the appraisal procedure. The types of training programs are Job-Knowledge and

Individual skill oriented.

Response Towards Effectiveness Of Training Programme

TABLE 21: Table showing the response towards the effectiveness of training program in making an employee confident in terms of Managerial and other skills

EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING PROGRAMME No %

Yes 34 85

No 6 15

TOTAL 40 100



CHART 21:

EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING PROGRAMME

yes85%

no15%


Observation: Training program helps in building an employee’s personality. Also

training programs if effective increases the productivity of the employee, which, in turn,

will increase the productivity of the organization as a whole.

85% of the respondents agreed that the training programs make executives confident in

terms of managerial and other skills. 15% of the respondents didn’t agree to this point.

Inference: This implies that the training program helps in making an executive confident

in terms of managerial and other skills.

Response Towards The Overall Feeling About The Performance Appraisal System

TABLE 22: Table showing the response towards the overall feeling about the Performance Appraisal system.

OVER FEELING ABOUT PAS CODE No %

Highly relevant in the present economic scenario,

Provides an opportunity for growth

A

15 37.5

Not of much value as it does not help in any

enhancement

B

17 42.5



Is of no significance in the present scenario, Not at all

growth oriented

C

6 15.0

Highly irrelevant. Does not help the individual or the

company

D

2 5.0

TOTAL 40 100.0

CHART 22:

OVERALL FEELING ABOUT PAS

38%

42%

15%

5%

ABCD


Observation: 38% of the respondents felt that the Performance appraisal is highly

relevant in the present scenario as well as provides an opportunity for growth. Also 42%

of the respondents said that the performance appraisal is not of much value, as it doesn’t

help in any enhancement. Some of the respondents 15% of them felt that the Performance

Appraisal is not growth oriented. Barely 5% of the respondents felt that the appraisal

procedure is irrelevant.

Inference: This question tries to analyze the overall opinion of the executives about the

Performance Appraisal. This shows that the executives respect the appraisal procedure

being followed in the company but there are few who feel that it is of not much value.



Questionnaire 2 (To The Raters)

Response Towards Level Of Interpersonal Relationship Affecting The Appraisal

Q1. Do you think that the level of interpersonal relationships with the appraisee

influences the performance appraisal process? If so, up to what extent?

TABLE 23: Table showing response towards Level of interpersonal relationship affecting the appraisal

LEVEL OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP

AFFECTING THE APPRAISAL

No %



AFFECTING THE APPRAISAL

Yes to a very large extent 9 30.0

To a certain extent 17 56.7

Depends 4 13.4

Not much 0 0

TOTAL 30 100.0

CHART 23:

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AFFECTIG APPRAISAL

30%

57%

13% 0%

yes to a very large extent to a certain extent depends not much


Observation: Almost all the respondents felt that the level of interpersonal relationship

influences the appraisal procedure. The respondents were then questioned to what level

does it affect. 30% of the respondents felt that it effects to a very large extent. Again

majority of the respondents 57% felt that the interpersonal relationship affects to a certain

level. 13% felt that it depends on the person rating. None felt that the level of relationship

does not influence the performance rating.

Inference: This shows that the raters feel that the level of interpersonal relationship

influences the rating of the executives to a certain extent. This can be understood by the



fact that the supervisor and the subordinate share a common task. Also the rater has to

consider the behaviour of the subordinate while rating, which again depends on the level

of interpersonal relationship shared by the rater and the ratee.

Response Towards Appraisee Getting A Feedback After Appraisal

Q2. After the appraisal, does the Appraisee get feedback? TABLE 24: Table showing the response about the appraisee getting feedback after the appraisal.

FEEDBACK AFTER APPRAISAL No %

Yes 8 26.7

No 14 46.7

Sometimes 8 26.7



TOTAL 30 100.0

CHART 24:

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

yes no sometimes

FEEDBACK AFTER APPRAISAL

yesnosometimes


Observation: This question was asked to the respondents in order to know how well the

executives get to know about their performance. Only 27% of the respondents agreed that

they let appraisees know about their performance. Most of the respondents i.e. 47%

agreed that they don’t give feedback. 27% of the respondents give feedback occasionally.

Inference: The executive or the ratee will know as to where they stand in the eyes of the

Supervisor/Management if the feedback is given. This would help the executive improve

on their future performance. Hence effective steps need to taken in order to provide

feedback to the ratees. Response Towards Providing An Executive With Counseling &

Training After Appraisal

Q3. After the performance appraisal and feedback, do the Appraisee get counseling and

training, if needed, to improve their performance in future?

TABLE 25:Table showing the response about the executives getting counseling and training (if needed) after the performance appraisal and feedback.



PROVIDING AN EMPLOYEE WITH COUNSELING &

TRAINING AFTER APPRAISAL No %

Yes 8 26.7

No 16 53.3

Sometimes 6 20.0

TOTAL 30 100.0

CHART 25:

COUNSELING & TRAININGAFTER APPRAISAL

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

yes no sometimes

%


Observation: This question was asked in order to get the feel about the

training/counseling programs conducted by the company. The responses were not very

good, indicating only 27% of respondents agreeing to the fact that the executives are

given counseling and training. As much as 53% of the respondents opined that the

training is not provided. Another 6% of the respondents answered that counseling is

provided infrequently.



Inference: From the above analysis it can be said that management should take

responsive steps in designing a counseling/training program that will foster the growth of

executives.

Response Towards Avoidance Of Criticism

Q4. Do you try to avoid criticism?

TABLE 26: Table showing the response the avoidance of criticism



AVOIDANCE OF CRITICISM No %

Yes 15 50

No 9 30

Sometimes 6 20

TOTAL 30 100

CHART 26:

AVOIDENCE OF CRITICISM

yes

no

sometimes

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

0 1 2 3 4

%


Observation: Constructive criticism if taken in a positive way can influence the growth of

an executive’s performance in a positive manner. The respondents (most of them) felt it

is not fair not to give criticism, especially if the criticism is taken seriously. Also if it a

justifiable one, they would like to criticize. 50% of the respondents said that they would

avoid criticism. 30% responded that they avoid criticism where as 20% of the



respondents opined that criticize when necessary.

Inference: It can be inferred from the above responses that the raters give importance not

only to the performance appraisal system, but also to individual executive growth. As

mentioned if valid criticisms are taken in a positive manner, the executives can excel in

the performance.

Appraisers should not confront employees directly with criticism. Rather, they should

aim to let the evidence of poor performance emerge "naturally" during the course of the

appraisal interview. This can be done by way of open-ended questioning techniques that

encourage the executives to identify their own performance problems. Instead of blunt

statements or accusations, the appraisers should encourage an employee to talk freely

about their own impressions of their performance

Response Towards Importance Of Behaviour Over Personal

Characteristics

Q5. Is importance given to the Appraisee’s behaviour rather than on his/her personal

characteristics?



TABLE 27: Table showing the response of employees towards importance being given to the executive’s behaviour rather than on his or her personal characteristics.

BEHAVOIUR OVER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS No %

Yes 12 40

No 1 4

Both 17 56

TOTAL 30 100

CHART 27:

yes n o b o th

%

B E H AV IO U R O V E R P E R S O N AL C H AR A C T E R IS T IC S


Observation: When evaluating an employee, importance is laid more on the

characteristics, which will showcase the employee’s performance on the job. Therefore

emphasis should be laid on the behaviour of an employee rather than on personal

characteristics. Only 40% of the respondents agreed to this fact. The remaining 56% felt

that importance should be given both to the behaviour and personal characteristics, just 1

out of 30 respondents said that importance is given to the behavior.

Inference: The above analysis suggests that majority of the raters consider both the

executives behaviour on the job rather as well as personal characteristics.

Response Towards Understanding Of Appraisee's Job Responsibilities

Q6. Do you try to fully understand the Appraisee’s job duties and responsibilities? TABLE 28: Table showing the response towards the rater trying to fully understand the Executive’s job duties and responsibilities



UNDERSTANDING OF APPRAISEE’S JOB RESPONSIBILITIES No %

Yes 25 83

No 3 10

Sometimes 2 7

TOTAL 30 100

CHART 28:

UNDERSTANDING OF APPRAISEE'S JOB PERFORMANCE

83%

10%7%

yesnosometimes


Observation: Before evaluating an executives’ performance it is very much mandatory

for the rater to fully understand the ratee’s job responsibilities. Job responsibilities form a

basis for evaluation. This question explores the possibility of the raters being aware of the

employee’s job responsibilities. The respondents, 83% of them answered positively, 10%

agreed otherwise where as merely 7% says occasionally they try to understand.

Inference: It can be inferred from the above analysis that the raters are aware of the job

responsibilities of their appraisees. Also the management has set up a good policy in

performance evaluation of understanding the ratee’s job responsibility by the rater.

Response Towards Setting Of Company Policies

Q7. Does the company set the policies from time to time concerning who should

evaluate, when and how often?



TABLE 29: Table showing the response towards the company setting the policies from time to time concerning who should evaluate, when and how often.

SETTING OF COMPANY POLICIES No %

Yes 11 37

No 11 37

Sometimes 8 26

TOTAL 30 100

CHART 29:

0 .0 0

1 0 .0 0

2 0 .0 0

3 0 .0 0

4 0 .0 0

S E T T IN G O F C O M P A N Y P O L IC IE S

y e sn os o m e tim e s


Observation: It is very much necessary for the company to set policies that guide the

evaluation system followed in the company. The above question was asked to gain an

insight about the company policies. 37% of the respondents said that the company sets

policies as to who should evaluate, when and how often, on a regular basis, where as 37%

of the respondents disagreed to this point. Another 26% of the respondents felt only

sometimes company sets policies regarding appraisal.

Inference: It is can be said that the executives are not clear as to what the company is

doing regarding the improvement of the present performance appraisal. Response Towards The Rater’s Problem/Error Encountered While

Evaluation



TABLE 30: Table showing the response towards problems while doing evaluation

RATER’S PROBLEM CODE No %

Problems with standards of evaluation A 13 29

Halo effect B 9 20

Leniency or harshness C 4 9

Central tendency errors D 5 11

Recency E 6 14

Contrast effects F 2 5

Personal bias G 3 7

No problem H 2 5

TOTAL 44 100

CHART 30:

ADVOCATE FOR EVALUATION

29%

20%

9%

11%

14%

5%

7%5%

ABCDEFGH


One of the barriers for proper evaluation is the inhibition that a rater has towards the

ratee. The raters were asked for the opinion about the factors influencing the appraisal



procedure. The description of each of the problem was explained, and response collected.

Each respondent could tick more than one choice if hey feel there are more problems.

Observation: 29% of the response was that the problem existed because of the evaluation

standards. Halo effect and Recency of events accounted for 20% and 14% respectively.

About 9% felt Leniency /harshness affected the performance rating. 11% said that

Central tendency influenced the evaluation process. 5%, 7% felt the problem of contrast

effect and personal bias respectively. 5% felt that these problems do not exist while

rating.

Inference: The raters themselves (a majority of them) agree that problems with

performance standards do affect the evaluation procedure. This can be eradicated by

conducting proper training programs designed specially for the raters.

Response Towards The Satisfaction Of The Ratees With The Rater’s Evaluation



Q9. Is your Appraisee satisfied with your evaluation?

TABLE 31: Table showing the response towards satisfaction of the ratees

SATISFACTION OF THE RATEES WITH THEIR

APPRAISAL No %

Yes 8 27

No 5 17

Don’t know 17 56

TOTAL 30 100

CHART 31:

SATISFACTION OF THE RATEES

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

yes no don’t know




Observation: This question was asked is to analyze the overall opinion about the

performance appraisal system followed in the company. Since the question was asked to

the raters (a majority of them) 56% felt that they did not know about how the ratees felt

about the appraisal done by them. This can be understood from the fact that the raters

won’t know what happens to the final analysis of executives. Abo ut 27% of them felt that

the appraisees are satisfied with their rating. Only 17% agreed that the appraisees are not

satisfied.

Inference: It can be concluded that the raters are not aware about the satisfaction of the

appraisees towards the evaluation done by them.



Advocate For Evaluation

TABLE 32: Table showing the response towards the rater advocating a method for

evaluation.

ADVOCATE FOR EVALUATION CODE No %

Rating by a committee of several supervisors A 1 3

Rating by the executives’ peers (co-workers) B 1 3

Rating by executives’ sub-ordinates C 3 10

Rating by someone outside the immediate work situation D 0 0

Self-evaluation by the executives E 3 10

360-degree evaluation F 22 74

TOTAL 30 100

CHART 32:

ADVOCATE FOR EVALUATION

3% 3%

10%

0%

10%

74%

ABCDEF




Observation: There are many ways in which performance can be evaluated. This question

was asked to the raters as to what system they would advocate, if not for the present

system followed in the company. 3% favored rating by the employee’s peers. About 3%

the respondents encouraged rating by a committee of several supervisors. 10% of the

respondents suggested appraisal by the subordinates, 10% on self –evaluation. But the

highest % of respondents favoured 360-degree evaluation.

Inference: It can be inferred from the above analysis that given an option many

executives would prefer 360-degree appraisal.



Findings Of Research

From the responses collected it can be inferred that the employees are aware of

the present Performance appraisal System followed in the company. This is evident

from the responses collected from the raters as well as the ratees. 100% of the ratees

gave positive answer.

80% of the executives are partially satisfied with the performance appraisal

system followed in the company. This shows that the present performance appraisal

system is satisfactory only to some extent. Further improvement in the system can be

made in order to attain full satisfaction of the employees/executives of the company.

Greater part agrees that the performance standards set are clear and achievable.

It can be seen from the analysis; the ratees have a good knowledge about who

their respective Reporting and the Reviewing officers are. 95% of the respondents

knew the rating officers.

Majority of the respondents i.e. 62% favored training for the appraisers to carry

appraisal programme.

Only 10% of the respondents agreed that they have been counseled after the

appraisal programme, where as the major part – 57% of the respondents says that they

have never been counseled.

In response to the company spending of considerable time and attention for the

performance appraisal system, 50% of the respondents felt that the company spends

the necessary time and attention in following the Performance appraisal System,

whereas 50% of the respondents flatly disagreed to the concept.



72% of the executives surveyed are satisfied with the Self-Appraisal process

being followed in the company. The general awareness about the traits/attributes is

average (52%).

It can be said that the present system of performance appraisal is effective in

bringing out the performance feed back by the reviewing and reporting officers. The

employees also have no issues about the rating by two reviewing officers since 67%

of the respondents answered in favour of it.

55% of the respondents agree that the help and guidance provided is sufficient

indicating that the management spends considerable time on providing employees

with help and guidance.

45% of the respondents agreed to the fact that the discussion with the reporting

/reviewing officer provides with a platform to discuss the executives ratings.

The executives view the training program conducted to develop managerial skills

as important.

Many executives do face the difficulty of communicating with their appraisers.

This can be understood since 67% of the respondents felt there exists performance

related communication gap between the rater and ratee.

55% of the respondents agreed that the performance appraisal is very much

necessary for the Job-designation they are holding.

68% of the respondents felt that the present appraisal system should be renewed.

A set of respondents suggested an appraisal system where in the whole process is

transparent so that the appraisee can know what are his/her weak points and hence

improve on that. Many felt the need of a better format where there is enough space is

available to fill up the KPAs/achievements.



The degree of mutual understanding in work relationships with the executive’s

superior is quite high. Overall 83% of the respondents agree that the degree of mutual

understanding is High.

From the ratees’ point, the possibility of an unbiased assessment is high. This

implies that there is no bias during the evaluation.

40% of the respondents agree to the fact that the possibility of management

discovering the potential for improvement is quite high.

The extent of action taken by the company to assist executives in fulfilling the

potentials discovered in an executive is unsatisfactory since 75% of overall response

was on the negative side.

Respondents feel that the training program strongly helps in enhancing job

knowledge and individual skill.

45% of respondents agreed that the training programme conducted in the company

strongly helps in enhancing Job-Knowledge and Individual skill.

38% of the employees felt that the Performance appraisal is highly relevant in

the present scenario as well as provides an opportunity for growth. Also 42% of the

respondents opinioned that the performance appraisal is not of much value as it don’t

help in any enhancement.

Raters feel that the level of interpersonal relationship influences the rating of the

employees to a certain extent.

Most of the respondents (raters) i.e. 47% agreed that they don’t give feedback.

27% of the respondents give feedback occasionally.



Majority of the raters consider both the executives’ behaviour on the job as well

as personal characteristics.

As much as 53% of raters surveyed opined that the training/counseling is not

provided to the appraisers after the appraisal programme.

50% of the respondents said that they would avoid criticism. 30% responded

that they avoid criticism where as 20% of the respondents opined that criticize when

necessary.

Raters are aware of the job responsibilities of their appraisees since 83% of the

respondents answered positively.

The raters themselves (a majority of them) agree that problems with

performance standards do affect the evaluation procedure.

One important finding is that most of the raters do not have the opinion about

the satisfaction of the appraisees towards the evaluation done by them. 56% said that

they did not know how the ratees felt about their evaluation.

Highest % of respondents favour 360-degree evaluation.



Recommendations

Executives should participate with their supervisors in the creation of their

own performance goals and development plans. Mutual agreement is a key

to success. A plan wherein the executives feel some degree of ownership

is more likely to be accepted than one that is imposed. Both appraisee and

appraisers are to be held accountable for performance management. The

performance related communication gap would consequently diminish.

Performance targets should be set in the beginning of the year.

Effective performance management requires all executives with

supervisory responsibilities to develop new coaching skills. The five core

competencies for effective coaching are:

• Ability to Influence

• Active Listening

• Conceptual Thinking,

• Holding People Accountable



• Interpersonal Understanding

Coaching to the appraisees should be given throughout the appraisal

process. The coaching that begins during the planning phase must

continue throughout the performance plan year. Although coaching

opportunities are built into the performance plan at agreed-upon points,

they should take place whenever either party sees a need. Coaching can

occur during formal meetings or through brief contacts.

Training should be provided to fill up appraisal forms.

A free and fair feedback to be given to the appraisee so that he/she can

give there best to the company and also allows self-development.

Frequent mini-appraisals and feedback sessions will ensure that executives

receive the ongoing guidance, support and encouragement they need.

Multi-source assessment of executive behavioral competencies to provide

feedback and as an input to the executive’s performance plan should be

employed i.e. performance feedback from others beyond their manager.

The assessment should take place in the planning phase. In this way,

employees receive feedback and still have an opportunity to address any

resulting developmental needs during the year.

Incentives, financial or non-financial, may offered to encourage

supervisors to make special efforts to help poor performers improve.

Individual officers performance should be reviewed with the team seniors.

The whole process of performance appraisal should be made more

transparent.

It has been identified that the appraisal form has limited space due to

which additional sheets need to be attached to fill up key performance area



or achievements. Hence there is a requirement for the redesign of the

present appraisal format with adequate space so that appraisers can fill up

expediently whatever is required.

With the availability of technology for sharing documents, the entire

documentation process can be fully automated. The system should be

developed so that it does the following:

• Generates multi-source competency assessment data for distribution

and analysis

• Creates a planning document that is shared, accessible and easily

updated

• Converts the planning document into a year-end feedback summary

form

Important system features include:

• A secure user-friendly interface

• A start/stop/save capability

• Easy document storage

• Company-wide access with adequate security

• A download capacity

• Ease of workflow.

• An online training component

Majority of the respondents have advocated 360-degree appraisal system.

360 degree appraisals are a powerful developmental method and quite

different to traditional manager-subordinate appraisals (which fulfill

different purposes). As such a 360 degree process does not replace the

traditional one-to-one process - it augments it, and can be used as a stand-

alone development method.



360-degree appraisals involve the appraisee receiving feedback from

people (named or anonymous) whose views are considered helpful and

relevant. The feedback is typically provided on a form showing job

skills/abilities/attitudinal/behavioral criteria and some sort of scoring or

value judgement system. The appraisee should also assess himself or

herself using the same feedback instrument or form.

360-degree appraisal system should be first introduced in the company for

a feedback purpose subsequently for a year for the experimental purpose.

Based on the success of the experiment it ought to be introduced.

A guide for introducing 360-degree appraisals:

• Choose/design a system (or system provider), i.e., research and

investigate options (other local or same-sector companies using 360

already are a helpful reference point, or trade association HR group, or

a specialist HR advisory body).

• When decided on a system, pilot it with a few people to make sure it

does what expected. (It's best to establish some simple parameters or

KPA's by which one can make this assessment, rather than basing

success on instinct or subjective views.)

• When satisfied with the system, launch it via a seminar or workshop,

preferably including role-plays and/or practical demonstration.

• Support the implementation with ongoing training, (include an

overview in your induction training as well), a written process

guide/booklet, and also publish process and standards on intranet.

• Establish review and monitoring responsibility.

• Ensure any 360-degree appraisal system is applied from top down, not

bottom up, so everyone can see that the CEO is happy to undertake

what he/she expects all the other staff to do. (As with anything else, if



the CEO and board agree to undertake it first, the system will have

much stronger take-up and credibility.)

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM

E I – E IV, E V (grades) PART ‘A’

SELF-APPRAISAL (TO BE FILLED BY THE APPRAISEE)

TARGET IS SET/ TASKS ASSIGNED

(RELATING TO KPA)

EXENT OF

ACHIVEMENT

CONSTRAINTS IF

ANY

GENERAL COMMENTS RELATING TO

PERFORMANCE

DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING NEEDS

PERIOD REPORTING OFFICER



SIGNATURE OF APPRAISEE: DATE:

(TO BE FILLED BY REPORTING & REVIEWING OFFICER) NAME: (DEFINITION OF THE RARAMETERS GIVEN OVERLEAF) PERIOD:

PART’B’

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

PARAMETERS WIEGH TAGE

RATING ON A 10 POINT SCALE

FACTOR SCORE RATING X WEIGHTAGE

REPORTING OFFICER

REVIEWING OFFICER

REPORTING OFFICER

REVIEWING OFFICER

1. ACCOMPLISHMENT OF TASKS

4

2. QUALITY OF DICISION MAKING

4

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF TORQUE

10

4. UTILISATION OF RESOURCES

4

5.TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT OF SUBORDINATES

3

6. MAINTENANCE OF DISCIPLINE

5

PART’C’

POTENTIAL APPRAISAL

1. PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

2. CONCEPTUAL ABILITY

3. INTER-PERSONAL SKILLS

4. COMMUNICATION

5. INITIATIVE & INTREPRENUERSHIP

6.TEAM BUILING 7. PLANNING ABILITY

8. LEADERSHIP



PART’D’

GENERAL TRAITS

1. INTERGRITY 2. AMENABILITY TO DISCIPLENE 3. COMMITMENT 4. PERSEVERENCE

SIGNATURE OF THE REPORTING OFFICER: DATE: SIGNATURE OF THE RETRIEWING OFFICER: DATE: GENERAL COMMENTS

(In this section, a pen picture of the entire reflecting his predominant characteristics,

outstanding contributions, if any, social attributes relevant to work, his awareness of

socio-economic environmental, etc., along with the reasons for exceptional/unacceptable

ratings may be given)

Reporting officer

Reviewing officer

Functional head

Global assessment of promotability:

Reporting officer Reviewing officer

Out of turn

In normal course

To wait

Unproven

PART-E

DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1.0 Major strengths and weaknesses:

REPORTING OFFICER:

REVIEWING OFFICER:

2.0 Does the executive need any change of placement/job rotation for development? If

so, to which area?



so, to which area?

3.0 Counseling: state briefly the result of counseling

TRAINING NEEDS

NAME: DESIGNATION:

DIVISION: PERIOD:

RECOMMENDED TRAINING PROGRAMME:

REPORTING OFFICER

REVIEWING OFFICER

SIGNATURE OF REPORTING OFFICER: DATE:

SIGNATURE OF REVIEWING OFFICER: DATE:

Reporting officer and reviewing officer to ensure

Property returns are submitted before/towarding

Performance appraisal

PART – F

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

(TO BE FILLED BY CORPORATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT)

NAME:

PERIOD:

1.0 TOTAL FACTOR SCORE:

TOTAL FACTOR

SCORE

WIEGHTAGE WEIGHTED TOTAL

FACTOR SCORE

Reporting officer

Reviewing officer

FINAL SCORE

2.0 GRADING (circle the appropriate letter)



On the basis of total score

By review committee

A+

A+

A

A

B+

B+

B

B

C

C

C-

C-

SIGNATURE:

QUESTIONNAIRE - 1 (To the Ratees)

Dear Sir/Madam, I, Swapna.M.U, MBA student at MP Birla Institute of Management am doing a project titled “EFFECTIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM AT BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD”. Please spend time in filling up this Questionnaire, with your valuable opinions and suggestions. The information so gathered will be maintained confidential and used only for the research purpose as mentioned.

SECTION A

Employee Details Age: Grade: Total number of years of service at BEL: Dept: Designation held in the company:

SECTION B For the Questions that follow Please tick (¥) from the given option. 1. Are you aware of the Performance Appraisal System followed at BEL?

�� Yes �� No

2. How satisfied are you with the present Performance Appraisal system? �� Fully satisfied �� Partially satisfied �� Not at all satisfied 3. The performance standards set are clear and achievable. �� Strongly agree �� Agree �� Disagree �� Strongly Disagree



4. Do you know who are your Reporting officer and Reviewing officers? �� Yes �� No 5. Is it essential to provide training to the appraiser to develop his skills to carry appraisal programme? �� Yes, it is essential �� Sometimes essential �� No it is not essential 6. Have you been counseled at any time to improve your performance? �� Yes, I have �� Sometimes �� No, I have not 7. The management at BEL spends considerable amount of time and attention for the Performance Appraisal process. �� Strongly agree �� Agree �� Disagree �� Strongly Disagree 8. In the Performance Appraisal system at BE the “ Self Appraisal” forms a part. Do you think it is relevant? �� Yes �� No �� Not sure 9. Are you aware of the different traits/attributes according to which you are rated? �� Yes, completely �� No �� Not very sure 10. The traits/attributes so contained in the Performance appraisal system is sufficient. �� Agree �� Disagree If Disagree - What other traits/attributes do you think should be included? Please Specify ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………



11. Is it relevant of the Performance Appraisal system at BEL in which Reporting and Reviewing officers rate you? �� Yes �� No �� Not sure 12. Help and guidance provided to you by your Reporting/Reviewing officers is: �� Highly Sufficient �� Sufficient �� Insufficient �� Highly Insufficient 13. The discussion of your Performance with that of the Reporting officer provides you with a platform, whereby you can discuss your ratings without fear/inhibitions �� Strongly agree �� Agree �� Disagree �� Strongly Disagree 14. The development of new or better managerial qualities and skills through the training programme, identified through the Performance Appraisal is: �� Significantly Important �� Important �� Not at all Important 15. The need for Performance Appraisals for officers like you is: �� Very much necessary �� Necessary �� Not Necessary 16. There exist performance related communication gap between the Rater and Ratee �� Strongly agree �� Agree �� Disagree �� Strongly Disagree 17. Do you think the present Performance Appraisal system should be reviewed? �� Yes �� No �� Can’t say If yes, what are your suggestions? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………



……………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………………………………………

SECTION C From Questions 20 to 23, Rate as follows: 4-Very High 3-Quite High 2-Quite Low 1-Very Low 19. The degree of Mutual Understanding in your work relationships with your superior is: ___ 20. The Possibility of Unbiased assessment of your Performance, relative to that of your colleagues under the present Appraisal system is: ___ (I.e. Do you think there is no Partiality when you are rated?) 21. The extent of effort in discovering your potential for higher responsibility through your Appraisal is: ___ 22. The extent of action taken by the company to assist you in fulfilling the Potentials discovered in you is: ___

SECTION D

For the Questions that follow, Please tick whichever option you think is applicable 23. The training needs identified through the Performance Appraisal: (a) Are formulated into a training programme at BEL (b) Not considered for training (c) Is considered; but the wrong person ends up with the right training (d) Don’t Know 24. The training programme conducted at BEL: (a) Strongly helps in enhancing your Job Knowledge and Individual Skill. (b) Helps in overcoming the shortcomings identified in you. (c) Doesn’t help in any way. 25. Is the Training Programme effective in making you confident in terms of managerial and other skills: � Yes � No 26. What is your overall feeling about the Performance Appraisal system at BEL?



(a) Highly relevant in the present economic scenario, Provides an opportunity for growth.

(b) Not of much value as it does not help in any enhancement. (c) Is of no significance in the present scenario, Not at all growth oriented. (d) Highly irrelevant. Does not help the individual or the company.

Thank-You!!!

QUESTIONNAIRE - 2 (To the Raters – Answer only if you belong to the grade E III and above)

1. Do you think that the level of interpersonal relationships with the appraisee influences the performance appraisal process? If so, up to what extent? �� Yes To a very large extent �� To a certain extent �� Depends �� Not much 2. After the appraisal, does the Appraisee get feedback? �� Yes �� No �� Sometimes 3. After the performance appraisal and feedback, do the Appraisee get counseling and training, if needed, to improve their performance in future? �� Yes �� No �� Sometimes 4. Do you try to avoid criticism? �� Yes �� No �� Sometimes 5. Is importance given to the Appraisee’s behaviour rather than on his/her personal characteristics? �� Yes �� No �� Both 6. Do you try to fully understand the Appraisee’s job duties and responsibilities? �� Yes �� No �� Sometimes



7. Does the company set the policies from time to time concerning who should evaluate, when and how often? �� Yes �� No �� Sometimes 8. Do you encounter the following problem while doing evaluation?

�� Problems with standards of evaluation. �� Halo effect - tendency to let the assessment of an individual’s one trait

influence the evaluation of that person on other specific traits. �� Leniency or harshness. �� Central tendency errors – average ratings to all the executives in order to avoid commitment/involvement or due to lack of knowledge about the behavior of the executive. �� Recency of events errors. �� Contrast effects. �� Personal bias (Stereotyping).

9. Is your Appraisee satisfied with your evaluation? �� Yes �� No �� Don’t know 10. Which one of the following you advocate for evaluation?

�� Rating by a committee of several supervisors. �� Rating by the executives’ peers (co -workers). �� Rating by executives’ sub -ordinates. �� Rating by someone outside the immediate work situation. �� Self-evaluation by the executives �� 360-degree evaluation.

Thank-You!!!



Bibliography

BOOKS:

“ Human Resource Management “ by Robert L. Mathis and J ohn. H. Jackson

South western College Publications, USA 2003

“ Essentials of Human Resource Management “ by P. Subba Rao, Himalaya

Publishing house , 2003

“ Strategic Human Resource Management” by Michael Armstrong, Kogan page,

Newyork,2001

“ Strategic Human Resource Management” by Jefferey A Malo, Southwestern

College publications, USA 2002.

JOURNALS:

1. ICFAI HRM Review

2. Training & Development

3. Executive Excellence

4. O.D Communication

5. Management Next

6. Southern Asian Journal of management

7. Human Capital

8. ICFAI Effective executive

BUSINESS MAGAZINES:

1. Business Today

2. Business World

3. Economic Times

WEBSITES SURFED:

http://www.hr-guide.com/data/209.htm



http://iso9k1.home.att.net/pa/performance_appraisal.html

http://www.performance-appraisal.com/home.htm

http://www.workplacetoolbox.com/index.jsp

http://www.unep.org/restrict/pas/paspa.htm

http://www.bel.com

swapna-0387-performance appraisal

Documents