New Performance Appraisel Completed Project.docx

CHAPTER – I INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN 1.1 INTRODUCTION Performance appraisal is a systematic evaluation of present potential capabilities of personnel and employees by their superiors, superior’s superior or a professional from outside. It is a process of estimating or judging the value, excellent qualities or status of a person or thing. It is a process of collecting, analysing, and evaluating data relative to job behaviour and results of individuals. The appraisal system is organised on the principle of goals and management by objectives. Management decisions on performance utilise several integrated inputs: goals and plans, job evaluation, performance evaluation, and individual history. It connotes a twodimensional concept - at one end of the continuum lies the goals set by the authority, and at the other end, the performance achieved by the individual or any given group. Performance appraisal can be either formal or informal. Usage of former systems schedule regular sessions in which to discuss an employee’s performance. Informal appraisals are unplanned, often just chance statements made in passing about an employee’s performance. Most organisations use a formal appraisal system. Some organisations use more than one appraisal system for different types of employees or for different appraisal purposes. Organisations need to measure employee performance to determine whether acceptable standards of performance are being maintained. The six primary criteria on which the value of performance may be assessed are: quality, quantity, timelineness, cost effectiveness, need for supervision, and interpersonal impact. If appraisals indicate that employees are not performing at acceptable levels, steps can be taken to simplify jobs, train, and motivate workers, or dismiss them, depending upon the reasons for poor performance. The results of appraisal are normally used to: (1) estimate the overall effectiveness of employees in performing their jobs, (2) identify strengths and weaknesses in job knowledge and skills, (3)determine whether a subordinate’s responsibilities can be expanded, (4) identify future training and development needs, (5) review progress toward goals and objectives, (6) determine readiness for promotion, and (7) motivate and guide growth and development.

Performance appraisal plans are designed to meet the needs of the organisation and the individual. It is increasingly viewed as central to good human resource management. This is highlighted in Cumming’s classification of performance appraisal objectives. According to Cummings and Schwab (1973), the objectives of performance appraisal schemes can be categorised as either evaluative or developmental. The evaluative purpose have a historical

1

dimension and are concerned primarily with looking back at how employees have actually performed over a given time period, compared with required standards of performance. The developmental performance appraisal is concerned, for example, with the identification of employees’ training and development needs, and the setting of new targets. The broad objectives of performance appraisal are: 1. To help the employee to overcome his weaknesses and improve his strengths so as to enable him to achieve the desired _performance. 2. To generate adequate feedback and guidance from the immediate superior to an employee working under him. 3. To contribute to the growth and development of an employee through helping him in realistic goal setting. 4. To provide inputs to system of rewards (comprising salary increments, transfers, promotions, demotions or _terminations) and salary administration. 5. To help in creating a desirable culture and tradition in the organisation. 6. To help the organisation to identify employees for the purpose of motivating, training and developing them. 7. To generate significant, relevant, free, and valid _information about employees. In short, the performance appraisal of an organisation provides systematic judgments to backup wage and salary administration; suggests needed changes in one’s behaviour, attitudes, skills, or job knowledge; and uses it as a base for coaching and counseling the individual by his superior. Appraising employee performance is, thus, useful for compensation, placement, and training and development purposes. 1.1.1 USES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL The appraisal systems do not operate in isolation; they generate data that can contribute to other HRM systems - for example to succession planning and manpower planning.Some of the common uses of appraisals include:  Determining appropriate salary increases and bonuses for workers based on performance measure.  Determining promotions or transfers depending on the demonstration of employee strengths and weaknesses.  Determining training needs and evaluation techniques by identifying areas of weaknesses.  Promoting effective communication within organisations through the interchange of dialogue between supervisors and subordinates.  Motivating employees by showing them where they stand, and establishing a data bank on appraisal for rendering assistance in personnel decisions. Organisations use performance appraisals for three purposes: administrative, employee development, and programme assessment. Programme appraisal commonly serve an administrative purpose by providing employers with a rationale for making many personnel decisions, such as decisions relating to pay increases, promotions, demotions, terminations and transfers. Valid performance appraisal data are essential to demonstrate that decisions are based on job related performance criteria. An employee’s performance is often evaluated relative to other employees for administrative purposes, but may be assessed in relation to an absolute standard of performance. Performance appraisal for employee development purposes provides feedback on an employee’s performance. The intent of such appraisals is to guide and motivate employees to improve their performance and potential for advancement in the organisation.

2

Appraisal data can also be used for employee development purposes in helping to identify specific training needs of individuals. Programme assessment requires the collection and storage of performance appraisal data for a number of uses. The records can show how effective recruiting, selection, and placement have been in supplying a qualified workforce. Performance measures can be used to validate selection procedures and can also be used as”before” and “after” measures to determine the success of training and development programmes. In brief, the various uses of performance appraisal can be classified into two broad categories. One category concerns the obtaining of evaluation data on employees for decision-making for various personnel actions such as pay increases, promotions, transfers, discharges, and for selection test validation. The other main use is for employee development including performance improvement training, coaching, and counseling.

1.1.2 PLANNING THE APPRAISAL A meaningful performance appraisal is a two-way process that benefits both the employee and the manager. For employees, appraisal is the time to find out how the manager thinks they are performing in the job. For a manager, a formal appraisal interview is a good time to find out how employees think they are performing on the job. The planning appraisal strategy has to be done: Before the appraisal 1. Establish key task areas and performance goals. 2. Set performance goals for each key task area. 3. Get the facts. 4. Schedule each appraisal interview well in advance. During the appraisal 1 Encourage two-way communication. 2. Discuss and agree on performance goals for the future. 3. Think about how you can help the employee to achieve more at work. 4. Record notes of the interview. 5. End the interview on an upbeat note. After the appraisal 1. Prepare a formal record of the interview. 2. Monitor performance.

3

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Managers go wrong with performance appraisals in so many ways, that it’s difficult to identify all of them. Some of the problems have to do with the overall system of performance appraisal, and other problems are the result of the one-on-one meeting that is held for the appraisal interaction. Here are four of the big problems managers and employees experience with performance appraisals. If you are clear on the problems, you have an opportunity to fix the problems. Performance Appraisals Are Annual Start with the fact that performance appraisals are usually annual. Employees need feedback and goal planning much more frequently than annually. Employees need weekly, even daily, performance feedback. This feedback keeps them focused on their most important goals. It also provides them with developmental coaching to help them increase their ability to contribute. The feedback also recognizes them for their contributions. Employees need and respond best to clear expectations from their manager. Feedback and goal setting annually just doesn't cut it in the modern work environment. In this environment, goals are constantly changing. Work is under constant evaluation for relevance, importance, and contribution. Customer needs change with such frequency that only the nimble respond in a timely manner. It is what performance feedback needs to do—respond nimbly and with serious responsiveness in a timely manner. 1.2.1 Performance Appraisal as a Lecture Managers, who don't know any better, make performance appraisals into a one-way lecture about how the employee did well this year and how the employee can improve. In one example, employees reported to HR that they thought that the performance development planning meeting was supposed to be a conversation. Their manager was using 55 of the 60 minutes to lecture his reporting staff members about their performance—both good and bad. The employees' feedback was relegated to less than five minutes. It is not the point of a performance appraisal discussion. Additionally, once a manager tells an employee about problems with their work or a failure in their performance, employees tend not to hear anything else the manager has to say that is positive about their performance. So, the feedback sandwich in which managers praise an employee, then give the employee negative feedback that is followed, once again, by positive feedback is an ineffective approach to providing needed feedback.

4

So, it’s a combination problem. The best performance appraisals are a two-way discussion and focus on the employee assessing his or her own performance and setting his or her own goals for improvement. 1.2.2 Performance Appraisal and Employee Development Performance appraisals rarely focus on developing the employee’s skills and abilities. They do not provide commitments of time and resources from the organization about how they will encourage employees to develop their skills in areas of interest to the employee. The purpose of performance evaluation is to provide developmental feedback that will help the employee continue to grow in their skills and ability to contribute to the organization. It is the manager's opportunity to hold a clear exchange about what the organization expects and most wants and needs from the employee. What a lost opportunity if a manager uses the meeting in any other way. 1.2.3 Performance Appraisals and Pay In a fourth way that performance appraisals often go astray, employers connect performance appraisals with the amount of pay raise an employee will receive. When the appraisal is a deciding factor in employee raises, it loses its ability to help employees learn and grow. You will train employees to hide and cover up problems. They will set their manager up to be blindsided by problems or an issue in the future. They will bring only positives to the appraisal meeting if they are a normal employee. Don’t ever expect an honest discussion about improving an employee's performance if the outcome of the discussion will affect the employee’s income. Doesn't this make perfect sense? You know it does, so why go there? It should be one component of your salary setting system. Let your employees know that you will base raises on a wide range of factors—and tell them what the factors are in your company annually. Employees have short memories, and you need to remind them every year about how you will make your decisions about merit increases.

5

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY Performance appraisals are systematic ways of measuring, reviewing and analyzing employee performance over a given period of time and using the information gathered to plan for the employee’s future with the organization. This periodical, impartial feedback is used to judge employee effectiveness as well as provide necessary development and training to improve the employee’s contributions to the organization’s goals. Employees are the most significant resource of any business, and performance appraisals reflect the organization’s commitment in developing this important resource of human capital. Performance appraisals grant upper management an opportunity to reward excellent performance or reprimand unsatisfactory performance. This powerful managerial tool should directly reflect the overall organization’s goals and objectives; the employee assessment should provide useful feedback about the employee’s contributions or lack of contributions toward these goals. According to North Carolina State University’s Employee Performance Appraisal Program, the “appraisal process consists of three stages: planning, managing, and appraising.” The planning stage requires communication between the employee and supervisor about the employee’s work plan, development plans and job expectations. The managing stage includes monitoring performance and providing feedback throughout the process. The appraising stage involves making decisions regarding rewards, punishments and possible training or development needed. (See Reference 1: Employee Performance Appraisal Program)

1.3.1 APPROACHES TO PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL George Odiorne has identified four basic approaches to performance appraisal. Personality-based systems: In such systems the appraisal form consists of a list of personality traits that presumably are significant in the jobs of the individuals being appraised. Such traits as initiative, drive, intelligence, ingenuity, creativity, loyalty and trustworthiness appear on most such lists. Generalised descriptive systems: Similar to personality-based systems, they differ in the type of descriptive term used. Often they include qualities or actions of presumably good managers: “organises, plans, controls, motivates others, delegates, communicates, makes things happen,” and so on. Such a system, like the personality-based system, might be useful if meticulous care were taken to define the meaning of each term in respect to actual results. Behavioural descriptive systems: Such systems feature detailed job analysis and job descriptions, including specific statements of the actual behaviour required from successful employees. Results-centred systems: These appraisal systems (sometime called work-centred or job-centred systems) are directly job related. They require that manager and subordinate sit down at the start of each work evaluation period and determine the work to be done in all areas of responsibility and functions, and the specific standards of performance to be used in each area. When introducing performance appraisal a job description in the form of a questionnaire has to be preferred. A typical questionnaire addressed to an individual would cover the following points:  What is your job title?  To whom are you responsible?

6

   

Who is responsible to you? What is the main purpose of your job? To achieve that purpose what are your main areas of responsibility? What is the size of your job in such terms of output or sales targets, number of items processed, number of people managed, number of customers? What targets or standards of performance have been assigned for your job? Are there any other ways in which it would be possible to measure the effectiveness with which you carry out your job?  Is there any other information you can provide about your job?

1.3.2 COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL The components that should be used in a performance appraisal system flow directly from the specific objectives of appraisal. The following components are being used in a number of Indian organisations. 1. Key Performance Areas (KPAs) / Key Result Areas (KRAs) 2. Tasks/targets/objectives; attributes/qualities/traits 3. Self appraisal 4. Performance analysis 5. Performance ratings 6. Performance review, discussion or counseling 7. Identification of training / development needs 8. Ratings / assessment by appraiser 9. Assessment / review by reviewing authority 10. Potential appraisal.

1.3.3 TYPES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL There are two types of performance appraisal systems which are normally used in organisations:  close ended appraisal system,  open ended appraisal system. In the close ended appraisal system, commonly used in government organisations and public enterprises, a confidential report is submitted on the performance of the employee. Only where an adverse assessment is made against an individual, the concerned individual is informed about the same. The main shortcoming of this system is that an individual is not informed about his/her inherent strengths and weaknesses and, therefore, is not given an opportunity to respond to the assessment made on him/her. The employees are, therefore, in a constant dilemma as to how their performance is viewed by the management. Introduction of Performance Appraisal System Performance Appraisal is the formal conclusion to a performance management process at the end of a prescribed term.

7

Prescribed terms may be any length but are usually a 12 month period. The Performance Appraisal process involves an interview between a staff member and their manager where the objectives and deliverables for the staff member are reviewed, and an overall assessment of the staff member's performance is agreed. It must be understood that a Performance Appraisal is only a component part of a Performance Management System. Many people confuse the two and interchange the terminology. Performance appraisal is a management tool which is helpful in motivating and effectively utilizing human resources. Assessment of human potential is difficult, no matter how well designed and appropriate the performance planning and appraisal system is. Management cycle and is the process of assessing an employee’s performance in the current position. Thus ‘Appraisal’ is an annual affair while performance ‘management’ is a year round activity. Appraisal focuses on ratings while ‘management’ focuses on the work , the stakeholders, service levels, productivity, motivation effort and all such performance related variables. 1.3.4 The performance appraisal system should: 1.)be correlated with the organizational mission, philosophies and value system; 2.)cover assessment of performance as well as potential for development; 3.) take care of organizational as well as individual needs; and help in creating a clean environment by - linking rewards with achievements, - generating information for the growth of the employee as well as of the organization, and - suggesting appropriate person-task matching and career plans. Feedback is an important component of performance appraisal. While positive feedback is easily accepted, negative feedback often meets with resistance unless it is objective, based on a credible source and given in a skilful manner. What is a Performance Appraisal? A performance appraisal is an evaluation of job performance over a period of time. It is basically an annual report card on an employee and how they performed over the prior year.

8

Unfortunately not all performance appraisal processes are the same and some are designed to not only fail, but to create a negative experience for both the employee and the manager. Performance Appraisal is the formal, systematic assessment of how well employees perform their jobs in relation to established standards . What is Performance Management? It is a system which manages performance. Potgieter(Human Capital Magazine, undated) says it sets performance objectives aligned to strategic and/or operational plans It is the system for managing, leading, organising it and controlling performance. Performance Appraisal is the tool used to assess how well a person completes their job – a process which is part of the overall performance management system. Definition of Performance Appraisal System 1.)The process by which a manager or consultant examines and evaluates an employee's work behavior by comparing it with preset standards, documents the results of the comparison, and uses the results to provide feedback to the employee to show where improvements are needed and why. 2.)Performance appraisals are employed to determine who needs what training, and who will be promoted, demoted, retained, or fired. 3.)Performance appraisal is the process of obtaining, analyzing and recording information about the relative worth of an employee. The focus of the performance appraisal is measuring and improving the actual performance of the employee and also the future potential of the employee. Its aim is to measure what an employee does. 4.)According to Flippo, A prominent personality in the field of Human resources, "performance appraisal is the systematic, periodic and an impartial rating of an employee’s excellence in the matters pertaining to his present job and his potential for a better job." 5.)Performance appraisal is a systematic way of reviewing and assessing the performance of an employee during a given period of time and planning for his future.

9

1.4 Period of study The study was conducted for 1 month at HI TECH ARAI PRIVATE LIMITED, and data was collected from (02.02.2019 to 02.03.2019).

1.5 Area of study The study was placed in the HI TECH ARAI PRIVATE LIMITED company and located in near valai restaurant and J C residency, madurai , tamil nadu , 625002

1.6 limitations of the period

1. Halo effect :In this case the superior appraises the person on certain positive qualities only. The negative traits are not considered. Such an appraisal will no give a true picture about the employee. And in some cases employees who do not deserve promotions may get it. 2. Horn effect :In this case only the negative qualities of the employee are considered and based on this appraisal is done. This again will not help the organization because such appraisal may not present a true picture about the employee. 3. Central tendency :In this case the superior gives an appraisal by giving central values. This prevents a really talented employee from getting promotions he deserves and some employees who do not deserve any thing may get promotion. 4. Leniency and strictness :Some bosses are lenient in grading their employees while some are very strict. Employee who really deserves promotions may loose the opportunity due to strict bosses while those who may not deserve may get benefits due to lenient boss.

10

5. Spill over effect :In this case the employee is judged +vely or –vely by the boss depending upon the past performance. Therefore although the employee may have improved performance, he may still not get the benefit. 6. Fear of loosing subordinates and spoiling relations :Many bosses do not wish to spoil their relations with their subordinates. Therefore when they appraise the employee they may end up giving higher grades which are not required. This is an injustice to really deserving employees. 7. Goodwill and techniques to be used :Sometimes a very strict appraisal may affect the goodwill between senior and junior. Similarly when different departments in the same company use different methods of appraisal it becomes very difficult to compare employees. 8.Lack Of Clarity:The objective of performance appraisal is to evaluate and develop employees. An organization should avoid using one appraisal system to achieve both objectives. The particular system of the appraisal system should clarify before it is designed and should be discussed with all managers and employees to gain their commitment. Any performance appraisal system, however good the design, is unlikely to succeed if the managers and employees are suspicious of its objectives. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to device a system that will be able to satisfy both performance and reward. It happens because employees are likely to resist negative feedback and tend to be defensive when weakness in current performance is identified. It is because of this type of overlap in purposes that the appraisal loses it’s practically and increases the conflict between the manager and the employees. 9. Appraisal Errors:These are as follows; Halo, Recency, Contrast effects: the Halo effect occurs when a manager rates an employee high or low on all teams, because of one characteristic. For instance; if an employee has few absences, his manager might give him high rates in all other area of work. The recency effect happens when a rater gives greater weight to recent occurrence when appraising an employee’s performance. This sort of effect is an understandable rater’s error. It may not be easy for the manager to remember all events that happened like for instance; six months ago.

11

Contrast error occurs when employees are rated relatively to other employees rather than to performance standards. For example; if everyone else in a group is doing mediocre job, an employee performing somewhat better may be rated as excellent because of the contrast effect. 10. Unequal Performance:Unequal Performance Standards People differ from each other in the way they perceive things. What is good for some may be bad for others. Therefore managers have different judgments in appraising their employees. Managers’ attitudes to their employees differ, so different managers will appraise the same people quite differently which could make appraisal system subjective and manipulative. 11. Cultural Factors:Culture has profound impact on the appraisal system as it should be in consonance with the organizational culture. A system based on the employee participation and openness would be non-starter if the organizational culture is authoritarian and non-participative in its approach to other employee related policies. ‘Readymade’ performance review system imported from other organization rarely function satisfactorily. Their failure is partly due to culture differences. Thus culture is a vital factor to look after.

12. Time Consuming It is recommended that a manager spend about an hour per employee writing performance appraisals and depending on the number of people being evaluated, it can take hours to write the department’s PA but also hours meeting with staff to review the PA. I’ve know managers who had 100 plus people to write PAs on. 13. Discouragement If the process is not a pleasant experience, it has the potential to discourage staff. The process needs to be one of encouragement, positive reinforcement and a celebration of a year’s worth of accomplishments. It is critical that managers document not only issues that need to be corrected,

12

1.7 PRIMARY DATA Primary data is known as data collected for the first time through field survey. Such data are collected with specific set objectives. Primary data always reveals the cross section picture of anything studied. This is needed in research to study the effect or impact any policy.

1.8 SECONDARY DATA Secondary data refers to the information or facts already collected. Such data are collected with the objectives of understanding the past status of any variable data collected and reported by some source is accessed and used for the objectives of the study. The secondary data were collected from:  Magazine  Books  Journals  Records maintained by HR department

1.8.1 SAMPLING DESIGN: STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLING: A random sample of specified size is drawn from each stratum of a population. Stratified sampling is a method of sampling from a population, when sub-population vary considerably, it is advantageous to sample each sub population (stratum) independently. Stratification is the process of grouping members of the populations into relatively homogenous subgroups before sampling. SAMPLE SIZE: Due to time and resource constraint the sample size is taken as 100 for the survey from the total population (700) employees.

13

1.9 STATISTICAL TOOLS

The statistical tools used for analysis are:

 Percentage method  Weighted average

1.9.1 PERCENTAGE METHOD In this method frequency of the various criteria factors are tabulated and the percentage for each value with respect to the total is found out. They are presented pictorially by way of graphs in order to have better understanding. The formula is

=

No of Respondents Total Respondent

1.9.2 WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD Under this method the relative importance of the different items is not the same. The term weights stands for relative importance of the different items. The formula for calculating the weighted arithmetic mean is X =

∑WF

∑F Where, X

=

weighted arithmetic mean

F

=

Frequency or no of respondents

14

1. Chi-square Analysis 2. Rank correlation method 3. ANOVA

1.9.3 STATISTICAL TOOLS USED: The main of the analysis is to determine the relationship between the various factors potential and to determine which factor is significant in enhancing the same .various statistical tools are of: 1. Chi-Square Analysis: Chi square test is non-parametric test used most frequently by marketing research to test hypothesis. The main aim is to determine whether significant difference exist among the groups of data or whether difference due to sampling when a small number of degree of freedom is involved is greater skewed. As the degree of freedom increases, distribution curve became most significant and resembles the nominal curve. Chi-Square test: (𝑂𝑖𝑗 − 𝐸𝑖𝑗) 2 2 ‫ ∑ = ال‬Eu Where, Oij = Observed frequency of the cell in the row and jith column Eij = Expected frequency of the cell in the row and jith column. Chi-Square test: 2 ‫ ال‬Test is based on the chi-square distribution and it is parametric test. It is used for comparing a sample variance to a theoretical population variance. In a non parametric test, no assumption about the parameters of the population is made. The non – parametric tests originally were applied in sociological and psychological research. Conditions to be satisfied for applying chi-square test. 1. Data should have been collected random. 2. Items constituting the sample should be independent 3. The total number of items should at least be 50. It has been already stated that chi-square is used for different purpose .These are explained below:  Chisquare as a goodness of fit.  Chi –Square as a test of independence 1.9.4 RANK CORRELATION OF CO-EFFICIENT: 6∑𝑑 2 r = 1 - (𝑛 2 − 1)  ∑ = notation meaning “the sum of”  n = the number of paired observations “A Study On Performance Appraisal System At Wipro Infrastructure Engineering Pvt Ltd” www.iosrjournals.org 18 | Page  r= coefficient of rank correlation. Correlation is one of the statistical tools very widely applied as a tool of analysis in every subject. A nonparametric counterpart of the conventional correlation coefficient. A correlation coefficient calculated in this manner is known as the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and is denoted by r.

15

1.9.5 Advantage of rank correlation: 1. We do not assume the underlying relationship between x and y to be linear and, therefore when data posses a distinct curvilinear relationship, the rank correlation coefficient will likely be more reliable than the conventional measure. 2. The greatest advantage occurs when one is unable to make meaningful numerical measurements but nevertheless can establish rankings. ANOVA: Another test of significance is analysis of variance test (ANOVA). The primary purpose of ANOVA is to test for the differences between multiple means. It can be calculated by comparison of two tools of data with difference in sample. It can be calculated as  Identify the independent and dependent variables.  Describe the variation by breaking it into parts the total variation.  The portion that is within groups and the portion is between groups (or among groups for more than two groups).  Measures the difference between each goup‟s mean and the grand mean. Perform a significance test on the difference & interpret the results. The above steps can be interpreted as follows. Source of variation

SSC - Sum of squares SSR - Sum of squares of rows. E SS - Error sum of squares.

By taking degree of freedom and taking into consideration the above variation, the variance is calculated and the F-ratio is got from the mentioned variants. ANOVA at last is accepted by comparing the calculated and tabulated value.

ANOVA is accepted when the calculated value is less than the tabulated value and rejected vice versa. ANOVA is efficient for analyzing data using relatively few observation s and can be used with categorical variables.

16

1.10 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The following are the objectives of the study – 1.

To develop my understanding of the subject.O Performance Appraisal System implemented in various Organizationsvaries according to the need and suitability. Through my research, I havetried to study the kind of Appraisal used in the Organization and thevarious pros and cons of this type of system.

2. To conduct a study on social behavior.O Social behavior is a very unpredictable aspect of human life but socialresearch is an attempt to acquire knowledge and to use the same for socialdevelopment. 2.

To enhance the welfare of employees.O The Appraisal system is conceived by the Management but mostly doesnot take into consideration the opinion of the employees. This can lead toadverse problems in the Organization. Therefore by this study I haveattempted to put forth the opinion of the employee with respect to theacceptability of the Performance Appraisal System.

4. To exercise social control and predict changes in behavior.O The ultimate object of my research is to make it possible to predict the behavior of individuals by studying the factors that govern and guidethem. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

• To study performance appraisal system• To understand and evaluate performance appraisal mechanism in operation.• To evaluate the effectiveness and satisfaction level of the employees towards performance appraisal system in HAMUL

17

CHAPTER-2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Cummings (1973) in an article titled, “A Field Experimental Study of the Effects of Two Performance Appraisal Systems”, reported the results of a field experiment designed to test the effects of manipulating several elements of an operative level performance appraisal system. First, the multipurposive nature of appraisal in formal organizations is discussed. This is followed by a brief overview of the literature on performance appraisal. The design and results of the study at hand are then discussed. Patton (1973) in his paper on “Does performance appraisal work?” states that performance appraisal can be a powerful force for performance improvement at both the individual and the corporate level, but few companies in the US and even fewer in Europe have learned to tap its full potential. Examining the differences between European and US performance appraisal practices, the author finds that some European companies have more than caught up with their American counterparts. He offers guidelines to overcome some difficulties prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic.

Randell (1973) in his paper titled ““Performance appraisal: purposes, practices and conflicts”, discusses the collection of information from and about people at work. It attempts to structure the field, define key problems, expose sources of conflict and point the way to resolving major difficulties. Taylor and Wilsted (1974) in their article titled “Capturing Judgment Policies: A Field Study of Performance Appraisal” used mathematical models of judgment policy for evaluating 625 performance reports during a single rating cycle. Linear and nonlinear analyses are used to describe the cues most important in determining the overall ratings. In addition, performance rating policy is compared with stated policy for each of the 40 raters. Bedeian (1976) in his paper titled “Rater Characteristics Affecting the Validity of Performance Appraisals” states that the task of developing effective performance appraisal systems is one of the most preferred contemporary problems of personnel administration. An abundance of literature is available detailing the problems and difficulties inherent in subordinate appraisals. Numerous studies have made suggestions for rating format and content changes. Some have even suggested the elimination of appraisal. More recently, an identifiable body of knowledge which seriously casts doubt on the use of supervisor’s judgment in evaluating employee performance has begun to emerge. The purpose of this paper is to explore this emerging body of knowledge and to examine its ramifications for performance appraisal.

18

Allinson (1977) in his paper describes a study of the effects of a training course on performance appraisal interviewing. Managers who had attended the course were asked, by means of a postal questionnaire, to compare their pre-training and post-training interviewing performances. There were three important findings. First, that the trainees had improved on almost every aspect of appraisal interviewing; secondly, it is not just the skill of interviewing which is important, but also an understanding of the role of performance appraisal; and finally, managers in mid-career may have the most to gain from training of this type. Decotiis and Petit (1978) in their article titled, “The Performance Appraisal Process: A Model and Some Testable Propositions”, present a literature-based model of the determinants of the accuracy of performance ratings. The model indicates that the major determinants of accuracy are: (a) rater motivation; (b) rater ability; and (c) availability of appropriate judgmental norms. Several propositions and suggestions for further research are derived from the components of the model. Wilsted and Taylor (1978) in their article titled, “Identifying Criteria for Performance Appraisal Decisions” states that appraising employee performance has long been regarded as an important part of the management function, for purposes of salary administration and recognizing future management potential. More recently performance appraisal has been recognized for its value as one of the several tools available to organizations for employee motivation. Central to such programmes as 'Management by Objectives,' for example, is the motivational value of participatively developed goals, clearly communicated and supported with a clear and accurate perception by the subordinates regarding the criteria to be applied in appraising his/her performance against those goals. Indeed, what is perceived by individuals is often more important than 'reality' in influencing behaviour. Selective filtration by superiors and subordinates depends on the trust established, and serves to set expectations for performance in the work environment. Individuals function on the basis of perceptions. Accurate perceptions of the performance appraisal criteria by those being evaluated is essential to the motivational objectives of appraisal. Yet, even in the most formal rating programmes, the ratee's perception of appraisal criteria often varies widely from that actually employed.

Kleiman and Durham (1981) in their article titled, “Performance Appraisal, Promotion and the Courts: A Critical Review”, reviewed twenty-three Title VII court cases in order to determine the standards set by the courts in their assessment of performance appraisal systems when used as the basis for promotion decisions. The topics covered were adverse impact determination, the courts' adjudication strategy, and the evidence needed to justify the performance appraisal procedures. Among the major findings were the courts': (1) failure to adhere to the “applicant flow technique” of adverse impact determination, (2) interest in assessing performance appraisal systems regardless of their adverse impact. Cederblom (1982) in his article titled, “The performance appraisal interview: a review, implications and suggestions” reviewed the research on performance appraisal interview in the context of recent performance appraisal models. Three factors seem consistently useful for producing effective interviews: superior's knowledge of the subordinate's job and performance, superior's support of the subordinate, and welcoming the subordinate's participation. The appropriate function, frequency, and format of the interview, as well as goal setting and actual subordinate participation, depend on the characteristics of the employee and job.

19

Davis and Mount (1984) in their study evaluated the effectiveness of performance appraisal training in an organizational setting. Four hundred and two middle level managers were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: no training, computer assisted instruction only (CAI), or CAI training plus a behavior modeling workshop (CAIW). Training effectiveness was assessed on two categories of dependent variables, managerial learning and managerial job performance. As predicted trained managers were found to be more knowledgeable of performance appraisal than untrained managers. Also as predicted, managers in the CAIW group conducted appraisal discussions which were perceived by employees as more satisfying than employees of managers in the no training group. Only partial support was obtained for the hypothesis that trained managers would be more effective in completing performance appraisal forms. Lee (1985) in his article titled, “Increasing Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: Matching Task Types, Appraisal Process, and Rater Training” states that the search for one best performance appraisal format ignores differences among jobs. A performance appraisal system tailored to fit ratee task characteristics is proposed. This approach, which involves systems designed to deal with tasks where both availability of reliable and valid performance measures and knowledge of the transformation process may be either high or low, is expected to increase the relationship between observational accuracy and accuracy in rating performance, as well as to improve ratees' future performance. Ilgen and Favero (1985) in their article titled, “Limits in Generalization from Psychological Research to Performance Appraisal Processes” states that most attempts to understand the performance appraisal process have been borrowed from social psychology. It is argued here that the experimental methods of social psychological research may not be well suited to the study of particular issues in performance appraisal. Several of the methods used in the basic literature are outlined, and the relevance of these methods in the study of performance appraisal is discussed. Kerr (1985) in his article examines how a company’s diversification strategy affects the problem of management control and the design of its management appraisal and reward systems. These systems have always been critical control mechanisms through which superiors have communicated expectations and given feedback to subordinates. The author argues that it is the extent and rate of strategic change that determines the control relationship between corporate and division managers. As the extent and pace of diversification increase, corporate managers can no longer exert knowledge-based control on divisional subordinates. The nature of this control relationship is then inevitably expressed in the way performance is evaluated and rewarded. Smith (1986) in his article titled, “Training Programs for Performance Appraisal: A Review”, used twenty-four studies to review the effects of rater training on the psychometric quality of performance ratings. For comparison, training methods are categorized by (a) content of training; and (b) method used to present training. The results suggest that the most widely used rater training approach is inappropriate for improving rating accuracy. These findings are discussed in terms of Borman's Model of Performance Appraisal (Borman, 1978). Training programs that improve rating accuracy are identified. Dorfman and Loveland (1986) in their study examined supervisor perceptions and subordinate reactions to formal performance-appraisal reviews. The performance-appraisal behaviors of supervisors and the reactions of their subordinates were studied in a sample of

20

university employees. A factor analysis revealed that there were three dimensions of formal performance appraisals: two developmental dimensions (being supportive; emphasizing performance improvement) and one administrative dimension (discussing pay and advancement). Regression analyses suggested that supervisors supported highly rated individuals and stressed improvement efforts on poor performers. After controlling for the level of previous performance ratings, results indicated that support in the appraisal review was associated with higher levels of employee motivation, while pay and advancement was associated with higher levels of employee satisfaction. Unfortunately, improvement efforts by the supervisors did not influence job performance one year later. Muczyk and Myron (1987) in their article titled “Managing sales performance through a comprehensive performance appraisal system” state that to date, no single performance appraisal technique lends itself to all the purposes to which performance appraisals should be applied, is impervious to the errors that confound appraisals, is legally defensible, and readily accepted by subordinates. Since the various performance appraisals possess different strengths and weaknesses, the authors, by combining Management by Objectives, Behavioral Observation Scales, and Forced Choice Ratings, have proposed an evaluation system that meets the abovementioned criteria. Waldman, Bass and Einstein (1987) in their article titled “Leadership and the outcomes of performance appraisal processes” discuss the extent to which transactional and transformational leadership practices are related to the attitudinal and rated performance outcomes of a performance appraisal process. This study involves 256 managers in a large business organization. Results indicated that only aspects of transformational leadership were related to performance appraisal scores. However, the contingent reward factors of transactional leadership, as well as all factors of transformational leadership, were related to satisfaction with performance appraisal processes. Management-by-exception was associated with lower satisfaction. Conclusions were drawn regarding the need for active transactional and transformational leadership in the performance appraisal process. Miner (1988) in his article titled, “Development and application of the rated ranking technique in performance appraisal” states that a performance appraisal procedure called rated ranking is described in which alternate rankings are followed by a rating of the individuals ranked within the limits imposed by the initial rank orders. This procedure was used by 21 foremen in evaluating 185 semi-skilled mine and plant employees of a single company. The results of this application were used to investigate the value of the rated ranking procedure including reliability, nature of the distributions, differences between groups and individuals, halo, construct validity and potential bias in the evaluations. The results provide an encouraging picture of ranking procedures when the rated ranking process is incorporated. The approach has demonstrated value for the purpose of validating selection procedures. Gabris and Mitchell (1989) in their article titled “The impact of merit raise scores on employee attitudes; the Matthew effect of performance appraisal” attempt to demonstrate that the score an employee receives on his or her performance appraisal can influence attitudes toward general management, organizational change, and fairness of evaluation instruments. Employees who score will tend to be positive toward management and supportive of the evaluation process, whereas those with average to low scores are more cynical towards management and feel that the evaluation process in unfair. Thus, performance appraisal scores can alternate exactly those

21

employees who most need to improve, instead of trying harder, those with average to low scores rationalize why they are right and the raters wrong. This hardens their attitude towards the organization and can lead to lower performance. Hence, good employees tend to continue doing well and average to poor employees can become worse. For this reason, performance appraisal, even though it is handled objectively, can lead to a Mathew Effect. In general, employees don’t like hearing bad news, even if it is correct.

Herbert and Doverspike (1990) in their article titled, “Performance Appraisal in the Training Needs Analysis Process: A Review and Critique” state that a literature review leads to a model for using performance appraisal information in the process of analyzing training needs. The model identifies performance discrepancies, determines causes, and chooses interventions based on internal (employee) and external (work environment) factors. (SK) Miller, Kaspin and Schuster (1990) in their article titled “The impact of performance appraisal methods on age discrimination in employment act cases” investigated the impact of personal and organizational factors and performance appraisal methods on Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) federal court cases. Discriminant analysis suggested that the employer was most likely to be the successful party when the employee was younger, particularly between 40-49 years old. Appraisal system characteristics which in previous studies were found to be significantly related to case outcome, were not reported in these case decisions. Traditional legal case analysis was used to explore the relationship of performance appraisal methods and the personnel action giving rise to the complaint. Williams and Hummert (1990) in their article titled, “Evaluating Performance Appraisal Instrument Dimensions Using Construct Analysis” state that performance appraisal evaluation has focused on psychometric refinements. This paper proposes an alternative method of evaluation by concentrating on the dimensions of the appraisal instrument. These dimensions are compared with organization members' constructs for productive behavior. To the extent that the constructs and the dimensions are similar, the system will be more effective in evaluating productive behavior. Implications for the evaluation of performance appraisal systems are discussed. Meyer (1991) in his paper titled “A solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma” states that it is hard to dispute the value of the ubiquitous formal performance appraisal programs used in almost all large organizations. In theory, these programs should serve important organizational objectives. Each employee should be evaluated at least annually and be given feedback to communicate how he or she is performing. In practice, however, most managers find these feedback interviews distasteful. Unless constrained by some sort of administrative pressure, like a subordinate sign-off requirement, managers are likely to ignore the responsibility. The traditional manager-to-subordinate performance appraisal feedback interview is becoming anachronistic in our culture. The appraisal feedback interview is a very authoritarian a parent-child type of exchange. Most modern organizations are moving away from authoritarian management toward an involvement-oriented working environment. A performance review discussion based on the subordinate's self review fits an involvement-oriented climate much better than the traditional top-down performance review discussion. It also has the advantage of forcing the manager into a counseling mode, rather than serving as a judge.

22

Research has shown that performance review discussions based on self-review prove to be more productive and satisfying than traditional manager-initiated appraisal discussions. Bretz, Milkovich and Read (1992) in their article titled, “The Current State of Performance Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications” state that on the surface, it is not readily apparent how some performance appraisal research issues inform performance appraisal practice. Because performance appraisal is an applied topic, it is useful to periodically consider the current state of performance research and its relation to performance appraisal practice. This review examines the performance appraisal literature published in both academic and practitioner outlets between 1985 and 1990, briefly discusses the current state of performance appraisal practice, highlights the juxtaposition of research and practice, and suggests directions for further research. Maroney and Buckley (1992) in their article titled, “Does research in performance appraisal influence the practice of performance appraisal: regretfully not!” state that thousands of studies on performance appraisal (PA) exist in both the academic and practitioner literatures. The intended purpose of many of these works is to somehow link PA to performance; i.e., to utilize the process as a performance-enhancing instrument. Employee perceptions of PA are vital to the acceptance of PA validity, and must be examined prior to any further extension of the process; yet few studies have shown credence to this premise. This paper examines employee perceptions and their implicit consequences, following such aspects of PA as perceived accuracy, feedback, participation, rater training, rewards, and others. The working market's utilization of many proven PA components is dismal; we discuss rater training and diary-keeping as two plausible factors for improving PA accuracy, fairness, and the perceptions of same are discussed. Further, it is suggested that practitioners must fully sponsor the results of the vast PA research efforts to improve the process as a prerequisite to improving performance. Kenett, Waldman and Graves (1994) state that recent efforts toward achieving total quality in organizations may be incompatible with human resource management practices. This paper focuses on the problems and issues associated with performance appraisal in a total quality environment. Pilot study findings are presented suggesting that traditional performance appraisal may not be conducive to total quality efforts. Elements of a new performance appraisal paradigm are suggested. Woehr and Huffcutt (1994) in their article titled, “Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review” state that a substantial amount of research in the performance appraisal literature has focused on rater training as a means of improving performance ratings. Unfortunately the value of this research is somewhat equivocated by a lack of organization and integration. The present study provides an integration and a quantitative review of the rater training literature. A general framework for the evaluation of rater training is presented in terms of four rating training strategies (rater error training, performance dimension training, frame-ofreference training, and behavioural observation training) and four dependent measures (halo, leniency, rating accuracy and observational accuracy). Finally, a meta analytic review is presented to assess the effectiveness of the rater training strategies across the four dependent measures. Harris and Smith (1995) in their article titled, “A field study of performance appraisal purpose: research- versus administrative- based ratings” state that many researchers have discussed the theoretical and practical importance of rating purpose. Nevertheless, the body of

23

empirical studies, the majority of which were conducted in a laboratory setting, focus on leniency. There has been little research on other effects of rating purpose. The present study examines 223 ratees in a field setting for whom there were both administrative-based performance appraisal ratings (which were actually used for personnel decisions) and research-based performance appraisal ratings (obtained for a validation study). Two of the hypotheses were supported; administrative ratings were more lenient than researchbased ratings. The administrative-based ratings demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with ratee seniority, while the research-based ratings did not. There was mixed support for a third hypothesis: Research ratings were significantly correlated with a predictor, while the administrative ratings were not. The difference between the validity coefficients, however, was not significant. Contrary to the hypothesis, the rank order between administrativebased and research-based ratings was relatively high (r= 33). Shah and Murphy (1995) in their article titled “Performance Appraisals for Improved Productivity” state that employee performance appraisal is a dynamic and evolving process for many civil engineering firms. As a tool to advance the interests of the civil engineering industry, a survey was conducted in 1981 to find out how various civil engineering firms manage their employee-appraisal programs. This paper summarizes the results of a follow-up survey recently conducted to track new trends in the performance-appraisal process. The findings of the survey were interesting in that many firms felt the employee-appraisal process helped enhance the performance of both the employee and the organization. The survey found that more firms today have formal employee-appraisal programs in place, and the majority of respondents believe appraisals help increase productivity and motivation if handled properly. The survey identified areas of the appraisal process that need to be improved: consistency in the process and timing; improved training; good follow-up; firm commitment from the top management; and more open, sincere discussions. Wanguri (1995) in his article entitled “A Review, an Integration, and a Critique of Cross-disciplinary Research on Performance Appraisals, Evaluations, and Feedback: 1980-1990” reviewed one hundred and thirteen empirical studies on performance appraisals, published between 1980 and 1990 in business, communication, and psychology journals. Results of this synthesis include the following: organizations use collaborative and traditional instruments to evaluate employees, training of raters is essential, multiple raters are more effective than single raters, inter-rater agreement is strong between peer and supervisory ratings, and performance feedback is positively correlated with ratee job satisfaction. By imposing Bolman and Deal's four-part organizational framework on performance-appraisal literature, it is possible to make recommendations for future research that are human-resource and political-symbolic oriented. Recommendations call for more studies that investigate counter rational dimensions in performance appraisal, interaction effects between rater and ratee characteristics, preferences of raters and ratees towards components in performance appraisal, and communication transactions within the framework of the performance appraisal. Conway (1996) in his article titled “Analysis and Design of Multitrait-Multirater Performance Appraisal Studies” states that Becker and Cote (1994) found that the correlated uniqueness model outperformed the confirmatory factor analysis and direct product models for multitrait-multimethod data. The present study analyzed 20 multitrait-multirater performance appraisal matrices. The correlated uniqueness model was appropriate significantly more often than in Becker and Cote study and the other two models performed poorly. The proportions of

24

trait and method variance in ratings were related to several rating system characteristics such as opportunity for raters to observe ratees and basing rating dimensions on a job analysis. Performance of all the three models was better with larger proportions of trait variance and smaller proportions of method variance. Longenecker and Nykodym (1996) in their article titled “Public sector performance appraisal effectiveness: a case study” felt that performance appraisal usage is expanding in public sector organizations across the US. Organizations employ the formal appraisal process with the belief that it provides them with a host of potential human resource benefits. In this study, 254 members of a large public sector organization were surveyed to assess the degree to which the organization’s formal performance appraisal system was perceived as being effective in serving functions typicall associated with the appraisal process Fletcher (2001) in his article titled, “Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda” expresses that performance appraisal has widened as a concept and as a set of practices and in the form of performance management has become part of a more strategic approach to integrating HR activities and business policies. As a result of this, the research on the subject has moved beyond the limited confines of measurement issues and accuracy of performance ratings and has begun to focus more of social and motivational aspects of appraisal. This article identifies and discusses a number of themes and trends that together make up the developing research agenda for this field. It breaks these down in terms of the nature of appraisal and the context in which it operates. The former is considered in terms of contemporary thinking on the content of appraisal (contextual performance, goal orientation and self awareness) and the process of appraisal (appraiser–appraisee interaction, and multi-source feedback). The discussion of the context of appraisal concentrates on cultural differences and the impact of new technology. In reviewing these emerging areas of research, the article seeks to explore some of the implications for appraisal practice at both organizational and individual levels. Shibata (2002) in her article titled “Wage and Performance Appraisal Systems in Flux: A Japan-United States Comparison”, states that unionized Japanese and American firms made changes in their wage and performance appraisal systems during the 1990s that were inspired by features of each others' traditional employment systems. Although Japanese firms made greater changes in the wage-setting process compared to American firms, outcomes in Japan changed little. Even with these changes, the wage and performance appraisal systems in the two countries retain distinctive characteristics. In the American firms' "segregation" between white- and bluecollar employees and high- and low-performers remains a feature of wage and performance appraisal systems; the Japanese system maintained its characteristic "integrated" form, but underwent moderate modifications. Stathakopoulos (1997) revealed that performance appraisal characteristics in performance appraisal systems for marketing managers have a direct effect on the managers' performance. Managers find performance appraisals helpful when the system incorporates appraisal forms, performance feedback, and evaluation in terms of output, and they generally respond to criticisms from superiors by reducing their dysfunctional behaviour. The performance feedback is a vital element in managers' response to appraisal. Marketing managers expect performance feedback. It clarifies expectations and signifies constant evaluation.

25

Longenecker and Fink (1999) in their article entitled “Creating Effective Performance Appraisals”, indicate that performance appraisals can be a good way for organizations to boost employees' motivation and hone their competitive edge. But creating useful performance appraisals -- and making sure they are used effectively throughout an organization -- isn't easy. The 10 lessons here can help a company move closer to appraisals that help staff perform their best. Pettijohn, Pettijohn and Taylor (2000) in their article titled “An Exploratory Analysis of Salesperson Perceptions of the Criteria Used in Performance Appraisals: Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment” state that in some sales organizations the performance appraisal is treated as a bureaucratic exercise required by some "higher-up" executive. As such, sales managers may essentially conduct appraisals in an arbitrary and perfunctory manner. This behavior could be the result of the manager's perception that conducting performance appraisals requires considerable amounts of time and effort, which provides few rewards, but adds considerably to the manager's level of conflict and stress.

The purpose of this research is to examine the relationships existing between one aspect of performance appraisals, salesperson perceptions of the appropriateness of the criteria used, and two other variables, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. A survey of retail salespeople provided the data required to evaluate the relationship between satisfaction, commitment, and the perceived appropriateness of the criteria used. The findings indicate that salesperson satisfaction levels are significantly correlated with the level of the perceived inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria used. However, the findings also indicate that the perceptions of the inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria are not significantly related to the salesperson's level

26

CHAPTER – 3 PROFILE AND PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY PROFILE OF THE INDUSTRY HI TECH ARAI PVT, LTD MADURAI The Indian auto ancillary industry is one of India's sunrise industries with tremendous growth prospects. The automotive industry is an important segment of the economy in any country as it links many industries and services. The Indian auto industry has the potential to emerge as one of the largest in the world.

Presently, India is: The largest two-wheeler manufacturer in the world. The largest three-wheeler market in the world. The second-largest two-wheeler market in the world. The fourth –largest commercial vehicle market in the world.

The fortunes of the automotive components segment are linked to the performance of the auto industry. The auto ancillary industry gives support to sectors such as metals that includes steel, aluminum, copper and also to many other machine tools, plastics, rubbers, polymers, glass, surface transport. As per Indian Suppliers‟ report, The automotive sector in India contributes to 5% of the nation‟s GDP and 17% of the indirect taxes as a result of which the government last year charted a 10-year blueprint for the sector‟s growth. This envisages the automotive sector “output reaching a level of $145 billion accounting for more than 10% of the GDP” by 2016.Indian auto industry has evolved around three major clusters: Mumbai-Pune-Nasik-Aurangabad (west); Chennai-Bangalore-Hosur (south); and Delhi-Gurgaon-Faridabad (north).Export-oriented companies have formed base in the west/ south regions, due to proximity to port

27

PROSPECTS Looking forward, the industry displays tremendous potential in generating employment and boosting entrepreneurship in the country. The spate of new investment plans announced by global and domestic automobile manufacturers promises the emergence of India as a global hub for auto components. The industry is transforming, and the boost in demand will see the emergence of several new players in the industry. The vast market for auto components, and the diverse products and technology involved ensures a place and role for many. At the same time, the entry of several global automobile manufacturers will bring in more regulation into the industry and see a pruning of the spurious market. Among the smaller players in the unorganized segment, this implies moving away from being standalone companies, to entering into either contract manufacturing or being ancillary units. The newly defined rules are specialization, development and delivery that hold the key to success in the auto component industry. ASSOCIATION The Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA) is the nodal agency for the Indian Auto Component Industry. It's active involvement in trade promotion, technology up-gradation, quality enhancement and collection and dissemination of information has made it a vital catalyst for this industry's development. Its other activities include participation in international trade fairs, sending trade delegations overseas and bringing out publications on various subjects related to the automotive industry. ACMA is represented on a number of panels, committees and councils of the Government of India through which it helps in the formulation of policies pertaining to the Indian automotive industry. ACMA represents over 600 Companies, whose production forms a majority of the total auto component output in the organized sector. In the domestic market, they supply components to vehicle manufacturers, Tier-1 Suppliers, to state transport undertakings, defense establishments, and railways and even to the replacement market. A variety of components are being exported to OEMs and aftermarket worldwide.

Quality The industry has been making rapid strides towards achievement of world-class Quality Systems by imbibing ISO 9000/ISO14001/QS 9000/TS16949 Quality Systems. Till now 562 companies in ACMA membership have been certified to ISO 9000, 208 companies awarded to ISO14001, 445 companies have been certified with TS16949, 99 companies have been certified with OHSAS18001, 15 Companies have won TPM Award, 11 Companies won the Deming prize 1company won Japan Quality Medal, 1company won Shingo Silver Medallion and 3 companies

28

PROFILE OF HI-TECH ARAI PVT LTD MADURAI Hi-Tech Arai Ltd is a Madurai based oil seals and automobile components manufacturing company. Having joint venture with Arai Seisakusho co Ltd Japan and Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan. The company previously called as Hi-Tech ancillaries‟ ltd after joint venture with Arai Seisakusho co ltd, the company name has changed to Hi-tech Arai ltd. The company was established to produce rubber components and oil seals for the world famous companies‟ likeMaruti Suzuki, Bajaj, TVS, Honda, Yamaha, Toyota, etc. The company was founded by Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan, with the capital of Rs.4.5 lakhs and with the manpower of 75 as a family owned concern. Mr. B.T.Bangera and Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan both were the exemployees of Fenner (India) ltd. Their good relationship made them to form this great venture in 1985. Later the company entered into technical collaborations with m/s Mitsubishi Japan and with Arai Seisakusho. Japan for manufacture of oil seals, O-rings, reed valves, molded rubber product, valves stem seals etc in1987. The percentage of collaboration is 88.84% for Arai Seisakusho Ltd and14.29% for Mitsubishi Corporation. Growing and achieving excellence through people is the motive of the organization. The core belief is that it is possible to achieve zero defects and achieve leadership in the market. The company also owns 23 wind mills each with the capacity of producing 11 MW power. Hi-Tech Arai is the only manufacturer of reed valves in India. I-Tech Arai is controlled by 9 boards of directors. Among them

29

MISSION: 

To produce high quality products

o

At competitive prices

o Combined with on-time delivery o Strictly adopting environmental friendly processes. VISION:

 1993: Market leader in the country in 5 years

  

1997: One of the top 3 in the world and in the field of Oil Seals 2007: To become the preferred supplier of all customers 2010: Aims to touch 400 crore turn over by overtaking the past one of 294 crore.

QUALITY & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Strive for continual improvement of our quality performance by meeting the changing requirements of our customers and our environmental performance by prevention of pollution and maintenance of wastes. Manufactures high quality products at competitive prices by adhering to the system, processes and procedures and continually improving the same. Promote energy savings and conservation of resources. Comply with all applicable legislative, regulation and other requirements including those that apply to environmental aspects governing our activities. Achieve the above by creating awareness among our employees through proper training and providing conductive work environment.

30

MILESTONES: 1985: Hi-Tech Ancillaries was registered. 1986: First unit in Tanakkankulam was started. 1987: Technical collaboration with Arai Seisakusho Company Ltd,Japan. 1990: Totally professionalized. 1991: Second unit in Trichy was started. 1991: Awarded best SSI unit in the District. 1992: Awarded best SSI unit in the State. 1993: Third unit in K Pudur was started. 1994: Joint venture with Arai Seisakusho & Mitsubishi

Corporation, Japan

1994: Hi-Tech Ancillaries changed to Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. 1995: New compounding unit in Kappalur. 1995: Fourth unit in K Pudur. 1997: Fifth unit in K Pudur (dedicated to MUL) 1999: Most modern factory at K Pudur. 2000: Won 1stprize on quality circle convention at state level & regional Level. 2000: Madurai jasmine quality circle (National level) 2000: Initiation of Environment Management System certification Program &obtained the certification in July 2001: White rose quality control won1st prize in state level & national Level. 2001: Quality award from Lucas TVS Ltd. 2002: Award from Keihin Lie Ltd Pune for cost optimization. 2003: Awarded best SSI unit in the State Level. 2003: The Company was accredited ISO 9001:2000 Certification

31

2005: CII & APAC awarded ³Best Industry practicing the HIV/AIDS Prevention´ for its Aids prevention and control project. 2006: First Export order from China. 2008: Received ISO TS-16949:2002. 2010: Himalaya quality circle of Hi-Tech Arai ltd won the ³Par Excellence Award´ in the national convention on quality concepts-2010held at Visakhapatnam.

Company products: Oil seal “O‟ Rings

Reed valve Assembly

Joint carburetor

Moulded Rubber Products PROFILE OF PRODUCTS a) Oil Seal:

-

Oil seal is a micro precision product.

-

Oil seals are especially meant for preventing oil leakage particularly in two wheelers & four wheelers like wheel hubs, front fork, transmission, and gear shift arm etc.,

32

-

Failure of oil seal in engine parts may lead to a serious damage to the vehicle.

b) O Rings:

-

c)

Circular products having round cross-section or any customers Join carburetor:

•

It is a device that blends air and fuel for an internal combustion engine

•

The carburetor works on Bernoulli's principle: the faster air moves, the lower its static pressure, and the higher its dynamic pressure.

33

d) Moulded Rubber Products:

Moulded rubber products are the products developed to suit the specifications and design of customers, so as to meet the exact working conditions of particular model of vehicles. - Usually the moulded rubber products reduce the noise, stroke vibrations and protect certain other components from dust, water, oil etc. -

The company is the single source of supply for moulded products throughout the country.

34

COMPETITORS OF HI-TECH ARAI:

Fenner India C.R. Seals Sigma Freudenburg NOK Seals. HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT The HR department is headed by Mr. N. Sankaravelayudham, DGMHR, controls and monitors the processes involving the human resource related activities throughout the organization. HR activities include:

Recruitment and training for new employees. Allocation of employees for various departments and units. Process any employee related problem. Employee performance management. Culture Building. Formulating Organizational Strategy. Library maintenance.

Man Power Planning: There are two types of man power involved in the Company they are, Company Staff Contract Labor

In both the cases the man power request is made by the concerned UNIT HEAD and the HRD HEAD would sanction the same with the approval of the Managing Director. For contract labour the interview is made by the unit persons but for the company staff in addition to unit persons the head office persons will also conduct interview. One important aspect is that the company would give preference to the people who are approaching with the reference of the existing employees. The company started its operations with manpower of around 75 and now it has manpower of around 1000.

35

Training Measures: The first and the fore most of the Training measures are to identify the training needs of the employees in systematic manner and provide relevant training. The same is done in the following method. Training requirements are identified with performance appraisal form. Training need of the operators is identifies by the supervisors. List of required training is received by the HRD from various sources. Training Budget is made by HRD and is approved by the MD. Then Training Schedule is prepared. List of Internal & External faculties is maintained by the HRD and is approved by the MD.

2.Culture Building: Transparency. Change in attitude toward the self & work to unfold the inner potentials. Committed work force. More emphasis on team work to get maximum outputs. Own the whole family. 3. Welfare Measures: Twice Coffee or Tea is provided to their workers in each shift but in summer additionally buttermilk is provided. Two uniforms per year for each confirmed workers. In case of family planning operation Rs 500 is provided. Two soaps to be provide for workers Accident compensation is provided. Conducting sports & games program once in a year.

36

Forming quality circles for their workers & providing counseling to their familymembers. Sudden visit by the MD to the production units to know the workers grievances.

In case a particular employee is not able to attend the given schedule of training an alternate schedule would be given.

On completion of the training program Training Feed Back Questionnaire is circulated to arrive at various decisions regarding the next training program.

Training evaluation questionnaire is made to assess the impact on the employees and it is filed in the employees‟ personal file and is maintained till their presence in the organization.

HRD measures:

1. HRD Practices:

Team Building.

Transparency in decision making

Developing Leadership.

Facilitating Team Work.

37

4. Quality Circle:

Its main function is to facilitate Process Control, Mutual & Self Development of Employees, Improvement of their Workplace & Productivity by full participation of allmembers. QC is conducted regularly once in a week and they will conduct this meeting. To contribute to the improvement and development of the organization. To respect humanity and to build worthwhile lives and cheerful work areas. To give fullest recognition to human capabilities and to draw out each individual‟s finite potential.

SWOT Analysis:

2. Weakness: In case of shell manufacturing around 50 to 60 percent of the input (steel) wasted.

In case of moulding the company wastes around 30 to 40

percent of the rubber compound which is an imported one.

3.Opportunities: The company can become the World Market Leader in the near future.

The rubber waste can be converted into a motor belt with slight modifications in the mould design.

38

CHAPTER – 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Meaning of Research: “Research means a search for knowledge”. Sometimes, it may refer to scientific and systematic search pertinent information on a specific topic. Intact researcher is an art of scientific investigation. Redman and Moray define researcher as a “systematic efforts to gain new knowledge”. Some consider researcher is a movement from the known to the unknown. It is actually a voyage of discovery. According to Clifford woody, researcher compromise,” define and redefining problem, formulating hypothesis or suggested solution; collecting ,organizing and evaluating data; making deduction and reaching conclusion; and at last carefully testing the conclusion to determine whether they fit the formulating hypothesis”. Researcher is thus an original contribution to the existing stock of knowledge making for its advancement. It is the pursuit of truth with the help of study, observation, comparison and experiment. In short, the study of knowledge through objective and systematic method consisting of enunciating the problem, formulating the hypothesis collecting the facts or data, analyzing the facts and researching certain conclusion either in the form of solution towards the concerned problem or in certain generalist for some theoretical formulations.

SAMPLING UNIT: The area, which is taken for study is madurai.

SAMPLE SIZE: DESIGNATION

SAMPLE SIZE

Employees TOTAL

50 50

The sample size taken for the project is 50.

39

SAMPLING PROCEDURE Convenience sampling has been used to collect the data from the respondents. Convenience sampling technique is followed.Convenience sampling as the name implies is based on the convenience of the researcher who is to select the sample. This type of sampling is also called accidental sampling as the respondents in the sampling are included in it merely on account of that being available on the spot where the survey is in process. Thus the researcher may stand at a certain prominent point and interview all those or selected people who pass through that place.

DATA ANALYSIS

Appraisee Survey 1. Expectations from Appraisal System : Respondents were asked to rank the various options according to their preference. (Rank 1 being most preferred and rank 6 being least preferred). Then scoring was given on the basis of ranks. 1 mark was allotted to rank 1, 2 marks for rank 2 and so on. Particular Salary Administration and Benefits Determination of promotion or transfer Assistance in goal Guideline for training plan An insight into your strengths and weakness Decision to layoff

Score 87 109 228 254 312 354

Overall Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6

From the above table it can be seen that employees expect “Salary Administration and Benefits” to be the main reason for conducting a Performance Appraisal. “Decision to layoff” is of least importance as per the appraisee.

40

2. Awareness about Responsibilities :

No 14%

Awareness about Responsibilities

Yes 86%

From the graph it can be seen that majority of employees are aware about their responsibilities, which implies that the appraisers have efficiently communicated to the appraisees all the parameters that will be taken into account during appraisal. 3. Satisfaction Level among appraise regarding Appraisal System :

Satisfaction Level 5% 2% 28%

23%

Fully Dissatisfied Partially Dissatisfied

Satisfied Partially satisfied

42%

Fully satisfied

From graph it can be seen that majority of the respondents are satisfied with the appraisal system. Only a meager 30% were dissatisfied with the Performance Appraisal programs.

41

4. Awareness about performance ratings :

Awarness about Performance Rating Yes 34%

No 66%

This clearly shows that majority of the employees are not aware about the performance ratings that are taken into account while conducting a performance appraisal. 5. Alowing Self ratings :

No 8%

Self Rating Should be allowed

Yes 92%

From graph it can be seen that majority of respondents want self rating to be a method of conducting the appraisals

42

6. Chance to rate your own performance

Rate your own performance Yes 23% No 77%

From the graph we can see that majority of the employees are not given a chance to rate their own performance in the organization.

7. Timing of Appraisals

Timing of Appraisal 2% 3%

11% Monthly Quaterly Half Yearly

84%

Annual

This shows that most of the organisations conduct their Performance Appraisal programs annually. A very small percentage of the organisations conduct Performance Appraisals on a half yearly basis. The share of the quarterly and monthly appraisals are extremely minimal.

43

8.Credibility of Appraiser

Credibility of Appraiser 37% Yes

63%

No

This shows that according to the employees/appraisees the credibility of the appraiser is extremely important and it has an effect on the overall Performance appraisal program.

10.Complaint channel for employees

Complaint Channel for employees 27% Yes 73%

No

This shows that there is no proper complaint channel existing in the organisations for the employees who are dissatisfied with the performance appraisal system.

44

11.Standards communicated to employees

Standards Communicated to Employees 36% Yes

64%

No

12.Performance Appraisal

Performance Appraisal 0%

0% 9% 0%

Immediate Supervisor Peer appraisal 91%

Rating committee

Self Rating

Almost all the Performance Appraisals are carried our by the Immediate Supervisor in these organisations. In very few organisations, Rating committees carry out the performance appraisals. None of the organisations use Peer Appraisals, Appraisals by subordinates and Self rating as a method of Performance Appraisal.

45

13.Clear understanding of Appraisee’s job

Clear understanding of Appraisee's Job 23%

Yes 77%

No

This shows that the performance Appraisal programs are successful in giving a clear understanding of the appraisee’s job to both appraiser and appraisee.

14.Objectives of Appraisal System

Objective of Appraisal System

50%

50%

Yes No

From the figure we can derive that the objective for conducting the Appraisal system is clear only to half of the employees. The remaining half are not clear about the objective for which the Performance Appraisal is carried out.

46

15.Good communication between top management and business goals

Good communication between Top management and Business goal 22% Yes 78%

No

This shows that the appraisal systems do not provide a good communication flow of the top-management plans and business goals to the staff below. 16.Comments and suggestions to be considered

Comments and suggestion to be considered 2%

Yes 98%

No

Almost all the employees expect that their comments and suggestions should be taken into consideration while conducting the Performance Appraisal.

47

17.Post Appraisal interview

Post Appraisal Interview 30% Yes 70%

No

As per the response from the employees we can see that there is no interview conducted after the appraisal program for majority of the employees.

Appraiser Survey 1. Purpose of Appraisal

Purpose of Appraisal System Score An insight into your strengths and weakness

81

Guideline for training Plan

69

Assistance in goal

72

Decision on layoff

42

Determination of promotion or transfer

24

Salary Administration and Benefits

27

Respondents were asked to rank the various options according to their preference. (Rank 1 being most preferred and rank 6 being least preferred). Then scoring was done on basis

48

of these ranks. 1 mark was allotted to rank 1, 2 marks for rank 2 and so on. Then the total score for each purpose was calculated and overall ranking was given. Particular

Score

Overall Rank

Determination of promotion or transfer

24

1

Salary Administration and Benefits

27

2

Decision to layoff

42

3

Guideline for training plan

69

4

Assistance in goal

72

5

An insight into your strengths and weakness

81

6

From table it can be seen that appraiser considers “Determination of promotion or transfer” & “Salary administration and Benefits” as two important factors for conducting an Appraisal.

2. Appraisal System

Appraisal System 0% 0% 13%

27%

1 2 3

60%

4 5

In this question appraiser was asked to rate how helpful the appraisal system is, from the graph it can be seen that majority of appraisers have rated 5,4 & 3 which implies that Performance Appraisal system is very helpful in Planning their work. Also most of the appraisers are satisfied with the appraisal system.

49

3. Support from subordinate

Support from Subordinate 0%

Yes No 100%

This question was asked to find out how helpful appraisal system is in communicating the support that apprasier needs from appraisee. From results it is seen that the performance appraisal system is very helpful in communicating the support and help needed by the appraiser from the appraisee. 4. Type of Appraisal System

Type of Appraisal System 0%

Assessment centre

0% 14% 13%

73%

MBO BARS 360 degree feedback

From results its clear that majority of companies prefer to use “360 degree feedback” system for Performance Appraisal. As 360 degree feedback gives feedback of appraisee from everyone interacting with him, it is more reliable and hence most preferred.

50

5. Performance Appraisal criteria

Performance Appraisal criteria 20%

Quantitative outcome criteria

20%

Qualitative process criteria

60%

Quantitative process criteria

From results we can see that Qualitative Process is considered as the most important criteria for which the Performance appraisal programs are carried out, which shows that companies consider Qualitiy of product & service and Customer satisfaction as most important factors. 6. Timing of Appraisals

Timing of Appraisal 0% 0% 0% 13%

Annual Quaterly Half Yearly 87%

Monthly Anytime

From graphs we can see that most of companies conduct appraisals on annual basis. Some companies conduct quaterly also.

51

7. Effect of poor Appraisal System

Effect of Poor Appraisal System De-motivation

27% 0%

Retention 73% Ineffective teamwork

It can be seen from results that most of the employees get De-motivated because of a poorly conducted appraisal. To some extent employees dont coordinate with their team members. Thus resulting in reduction of output.

8. Communication between top management and staff

Good Communication between Top Management and Staff 0% Yes 100%

No

All appraisers totally agree that performance appraisal helps in communicating the top management plans and business goals to staff at lower level.

52

9. Insight to Apprasiee’s strength and weakness

Insight into Appraisee's Strength and weakness 33% Yes 67%

No

It is evident from the results that performance appraisal system doesn’t help the appraiser in understanding strength and weakness of apraisee.

10.Appraisee’s comment and suggestion

Appraisee's comment & suggestion 13%

Yes No

87%

From the results it can be seen that appraisee’s comments and suggestion are not taken into consideration before Performance Appraisal. Performance Appraisal system is designed by appraiser without consulting appraisee.

11.Performance Appraisal

53

Performance Appraisal 0% 0%

Immediate supervisor Peer appraisal Rating committees

100%

Self-rating

It is evident from the results that performance appraisal is conducted by the Immediate Supervisor in all the companies.

12.Understanding of Apprasiee’s Job

Understanding of Appraisee's Job 0%

Yes

100%

No

From this it is clearly seen that according to appraiser there is a clear and joint understanding of the appraisee’s job.

54

13.Standards for Performance Appraisal

Standards for Performance Appraisal 13%

Yes 87%

No

From results it is evident that Performance appraisal standards are very well communicated to Appraisee before the Appraisal is carried out.

14.

Self rating in Performance Appraisal

Self Rating in Performance Appraisal 0%

Yes 100%

55

No

CHAPTER – 6 Findings , suggestion and conclusion 

………….has

separate appraisal system for each level of employees. These appraisal systems differ on the factors on which a person is rated and the nature of duties handled by him.

 …………it is seen that the employees are not satisfied with the way they are appraised or they haven’t been appraised properly. For this matter, almost all the companies have interview and discussion.  The frequency of appraisal in all organisations is yearly. Where appraisal is based on Key Result Areas, a mid-term review is also undertaken. This data is then compiled and the final appraisal is conducted at the end of the year.  In most of the cases the immediate supervisors is the appraiser but sometimes it is also the HR department or the HOD.  All organizations have goal setting as part of appraisal. The performance is evaluated against these targets.  On an average 85% of the employees in an organization are motivated by performance appraisal.  …………….use the data that is maintained for every employee to compare the performance over a period of time. Some companies also use this data for making decision regarding job rotation, succession planning. Very few companies make use of this data for retrenchment as proof of poor performance.

 A good deal of respondents felt that appraisal is likely to be more successful when it is linked with financial and semi-financial incentives like promotion, bonus, increments. This increases the commitment from the parties concerned the appraisal and the appraisee.  360o degree feedback system is not very popular in the Indian companies. Among the companies under study, this system has been implemented in ………….. This system can be adopted and is successful only in the presence of an open organisational climate.

56

 Most of the companies have a separate appraisal system for the new employees, who are on probation. This basically to confirm them.  ………….. is satisfied with the current performance appraisal system and do not require any changes…………they would like to provide more training to appraisers, weightage to few traits of employee need to be rewarded, if possible appraisal form should be standardised.  In most of the organizations training is provided for the appraisal system one to two weeks before the appraisal and also when new or revised Performance appraisal system is introduced.  Performance appraisal is surly a good indicator (about 80%) for the training and developmental need of the employees.  No monitoring is done to find out any loop holes in the performance appraisal system and if it exists, it is on informal basis (feedback every year).

Conclusions and Suggestions  Performance appraisal should not be perceived just as a regular activity but its importance should be recognized and communicated down the line to all the employees.  There should be a review of job analysis, job design and work environment based on the performance appraisal.  It should bring more clarity to the goal and vision of the organisation.  It should provide more empowerment to the employees.  New methods of appraisal should be adopted so that both appraiser and the appraisee take interest in the appraisal process.  The employees who have excellent performance should be used as a mentor for other employees which would motivate others to perform better.  Employees should be given feedback regarding their appraisal. This will help them to improve on their weak areas.  Financial and non-financial incentives should be linked to the annual appraisal system so that employees would be motivated to perform better.

57

 New mechanisms should be evolved to educe the time factor involved in the procedure of appraisal. Introducing online-appraisal can do this.  The frequency of training program for the appraiser should be increased and these sessions should be made interactive.  The awareness sessions for the employees/appraisees should be made more interactive and the views and opinion of the appraisees regarding appraisal should be given due consideration.  Assistance should be sought from specialists for framing a proper appraisal system that suits the organisation climate. Constant monitoring of the appraisal system should be done through discussions, suggestions, interactions.  Combining the different methods of appraisal can minimize the element of biasness in an appraisal. Like the Rating method combined with assessment center method would give an evidence of poor/unfavorable or outstanding behaviour of the appraisee, if any.  Use of modern appraisal techniques like 360o appraisal, assessment centers which are more effective.  More transparency should be brought about in the appraisal system.  The appraisal system should cover all employees in the organisation both white collar and blue-collar jobs.  Recognizing the good performers i.e., appraisees who have accomplished the targets for the year can help in getting more commitment from the employees.  Information regarding the performance of the employees should be kept in proper manner.  Some of the performance appraisals should be conducted by the top management so that they can understand the employees and their needs, behaviour better and to find out the loopholes.

58

Questions for Appraisel Name: ___________________________ Contact No:__________________________ 1. What do you expect from a Performance appraisal :

(Rank the options from 1 to 6; 1 being most preferred & 6 being least preferred) Rank

Detail Salary Administration and Benefits Determination of promotion or transfer Decision on layoff Assistance in goal Guideline for training Plan An insight into your strengths and weakness

2. Do you know what exactly is expected from you at work?

a. Yes

b. No

3. Are you satisfied with the appraisal system?

1 2 3 4 5 (1 = Least satisfied; 5 = Most satisfied) 4. Are you aware of performance ratings?

a. Yes

b. No

5. Do you think you should be given an opportunity to rate your own performance?

a. Yes

b. No

6. Are you given a chance to rate your own performance?

a. Yes

b. No

59

7. Timing of Appraisals

a. b. c. d. e.

Monthly Quarterly Half Yearly Annual Anytime

8. Does the credibility of Appraiser affect the Performance Appraisal System?

a. Yes

b. No

9. Is there a complaint channel for the employees who are dissatisfied with the performance

appraisal system? a. Yes

b. No

10. Are the standards on the basis of which the performance appraisal is carried out

communicated to the employees before hand? a. Yes b. No 11. Who conducts the performance appraisal”?

a. b. c. d. e.

Immediate supervisor Peer appraisal Rating committees Self-rating Appraisal by subordinates

12. Is the performance Appraisal successful in giving a clear understanding of the appraisee’s

job to both appraiser and appraise? a. Yes b. No 13. Are the objectives of appraisal system clear to you?

a. Yes

b. No

14. Does the appraisal system provide a good communication between the top-management

plans and business goals to staff below? a. Yes b. No 15. Do you want your comments and suggestions to be taken into consideration during

appraisal? a. Yes

b. No

16. Is there a post appraisal interview conducted?

a. Yes

b. No

60

Questions for Appraiser Name: ___________________________ Contact No: __________________________ 1. Purpose of Performance appraisal :

(Rank the options from 1 to 6; 1 being main purpose & 6 being last purpose) Rank

Detail Salary Administration and Benefits Retain performing employees Determination of promotion or transfer Decision on layoff Assistance in goal Guideline for training Plan 2. Is the Performance Appraisal helping you to plan your work well?

1 2 3 4 5 (1 = Least helpful; 5 = Most helpful) 3. Does the system provide you a chance to communicate the support you need from your

subordinate to perform the job well. a. Yes

b. No

4. Which appraisal system is being employed in the company?

a. Assessment centre b. MBO c. BARS d. 360 degree feedback e. Balance scorecard 5. Performance Appraisal criteria a. Quantitative outcome criteria (Sales volume, Sales price, Productivity, Goal accomplishment rate) b. Qualitative process criteria (Quality of product or service, Customer satisfaction) c. Quantitative process criteria (Efficiency, Cost/expenses, Attendance) d. Qualitative process criteria (Judgment, Work attitude, Leadership, Conduct /Trait)

61

6. Timing of Appraisals

a. b. c. d. e.

Monthly Quarterly Half Yearly Annual Anytime

7. What do you think is the effect of a poor appraisal system

a. b. c.

De-motivation Retention Ineffective teamwork

8. Does the appraisal system provide a good communication between the top-management

plans and business goals to staff below? a. Yes b. No 9. Does it give insight to appraisee regarding his strength or weakness?

a. Yes

b. No

10. Are employee’s comments and suggestions taken into consideration before the appraisal?

a. Yes

b. No

11. Who conducts the performance appraisal”

a. b. c. d. e.

Immediate supervisor Peer appraisal Rating committees Self-rating Appraisal by subordinates

12. Is the performance Appraisal successful in giving a clear understanding of the appraisee’s

job to both appraiser and appraise? b. Yes b. No 13. Are the standards on the basis of which the performance appraisal is carried out

communicated to the employees before hand? a. Yes b. No 14. Do you give an opportunity to the appraisee to rate his own performance?

a. Yes b. No 15. Do you act upon the results of your performance appraisal? a. Yes b. No 16. If yes, then mention the remedial measures taken?

62

Bibliography BOOKS  Donald L. Kirkpatrick, 2006, Improving Employee Performance through Appraisaland Coaching.  Richard Rudman, 2003, Performance Planning and Review.  Roger E. Herman, 1997, The Process of excelling, oak Hill press.  P. Subba Rao, 2006, Essentials of Human Resource Management and IndustrialRelations, Himalaya Publishing House

Journals:  Gitam Journal of Management.  Journal of Occupational and Environmental medicine.  Indian Journal of Social Work.  Indian Journal of Human Resource.

63