UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

PROJECT

ON

“PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL”

SUBMITTED BY:

POOJA PARIHAR.

TYBMS.

PROJECT GUIDANCE:

PROF.MRUNALI APHALE.

DECLARATION

I, Pooja Parihar, studying in TYBMS of ICLES’ Motilal Jhunjhunwala college of

arts,science and commerce,vashi, hereby declare that I have completed this project on

“PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL” in the academic year 2006-2007 as per the

requirement of the Mumbai university as a part of BACHELOR MANAGEMENT

STUDIES(BMS) programme.The information presented through this project is true and

original to the best of my knowelge.

Pooja Parihar

TYBMS,ICLES’,VASHI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all those people

who have in their own sweet ways helped me to complete this project.this project would

just not have been complete without the valuable contribution from various people whom

I have interested with in the course of its completion .i begin by thanking our principal

shriddhar shetty and bms coordinator of ICLES (vashi) college and project guide mrunali

aphale without whose inspiration , encouragement ,help and suggestion I could not have

completed thyis report.my parents who have always stood by me as solid as a rock,it is

their faith in me that has been me complete this project on time my brother’s who helped

me in whatever small ways possible.the list goes on ……………………. .

I wish to thank all those people who have sent me a helping hand in finishing this

project, whose names are too numerous to be mentioned here.

CONTENTS

SR.NO TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

2. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

3. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL.

i. -INTRODUCTION.

ii. -IMPORTANCE.

iii. -STEPS.

iv. -OBJECTIVES.

v. -METHODS.

4. MASTEK COMPANY.

i. -CULTURE.

ii. -PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

iii. -ATTRIBUTES

iv. -RECOGNITION.

5. CONCLUSION.

6. BIBILOGRAPHY.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this project we have covered all the aspects of performance appraisal i.e.

Key objectives of performance appraisals include

(1) validating selection and other management or cultural practices;

(2) helping employees understand and take responsibility for their performance; and

(3) making decisions about pay or promotions.

Important steps to obtaining useful traditional appraisals include determining the type of

data to be collected as well as who will conduct the appraisal, establishing a rating

philosophy, overcoming typical rating deficiencies, creating a rating instrument, and

engaging the employee in making decisions on future performance changes.

An effective negotiated performance appraisal helps the employee take additional

ownership for both continuing effective performance and improving weak areas.

Employee goals set through performance appraisals should be difficult but achievable, as

goals that are overly ambitious are doomed for failure. Some employees tend to boycott

their own progress by setting impossible goals to achieve. Finally, employees want to

know what you think of their work. Letting workers know that you have noticed their

efforts goes a long way towards having a more motivated workforce. If pay increases are

warranted for other reasons, it is unlikely that they require a performance appraisal

system to administer. Bonuses or other special increases can and should be tied to very

specific, very visible, very measurable results, and this doesn’t require a performance

appraisal system. Profit sharing is another case in point.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Human resource management deals with human resource employed in a business unit.it is

an approach to the management of the people in an organization.organisation are made up

of ele and function through people.it is the human resource which brings success and

prosperity to a business enterprise. Human resource management are also called

personnel management.it deals with various problems relating to manpower

employed.such problem include personnel planning, recruitment and selection, induction,

performance appraisal, employee traning and development, promotions and transfer of

employees, compensation payment, career planning and partcipative management.the

person who look after personnel function is called human resource manager. Human

resource management is relatively a new term for what was earlier called as personnel

management.the term Human resource management got popularity in the USA by

1970’s.it is now used liberally in India and also in th other countries in place of the term

personnel management which deals with the management of employees working in an

organization. Human resource management can be treated as advance form of personnel

management itself.it is an advancementover, the traditional personnel management as its

scope is much wider in contents and significance. Human resource management is a

management function which helps managers to plan, recruit, select, train, develop,

renumerate and maintain members for an organization. Human resource management is

the latest nomenclature used to personnel matters are called personnel

policies.progressive personnel policies also create cordial labour management relation

and bring huan resource development.in the final analysis, well-trained, efficient and

cooperative manpower brings success, stability andprosperity to a business unit.

According to Edwin flippo “Human resource management is the planning, organizing,

directing, and controlling of the procurement, development, compensation, integration,

maintenance, and separation of human resources to the end that individual, organizational

and societal objectives are accomplished”.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

INTRODUCTION

Performance appraisal is not a single event. It is a continuous, year-round program of

exchanging information with employees that begins and ends with the annual

performance review. This section of information serves three (3) purposes:

To help employees work closer to their potential. This is done through communicating

expectations, giving continuous feedback throughout the year, rewarding

accomplishments, coaching to improve performance, and encouraging employees to “test

their limits” and achieve their goals.

To help supervisors help employees be more effective and to evaluate an employee’s

performance factually and objectively.

To help Staff Development and Human Resources establish rationale for compensation

and personnel actions such as promotions, transfers, and terminations.

Employees at all levels are entitled to regular performance appraisals that are fair,

accurate, and objective. We require that Civil Service employees be evaluated at the end

of their 2nd, 4th, and 5th months during probation, student employees be evaluated at the

end of their 6th month on the job, and that all employees (including Academic

Professional) receive formal performance appraisals on an annual basis thereafter. All

performance appraisals should also be documented using the appropriate evaluation form,

which may be found by going to: Network Neighborhood, Julius, public, Staff

Development & Human Resources, Performance Appraisal, and then the appropriate sub-

folder, as needed (double clicking on each). This is the same place you will find process

information, ratings definitions, etc

according to scott, clothier and sprigal, “Performance appraisal is a process of evaluating

an employee’s performance of a job in terms of its requirement”.

The history of performance appraisal is quite brief. Its roots in the early 20th century can

be traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies. But this is not very helpful, for

the same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resources

management.

As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of work

performance, appraisal really dates from the time of the Second World War - not more

than 60 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

naturally, informally and arbitrarily.

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

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

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

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

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

was justified.

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

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

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

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

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

employee to either improve or continue to perform well.

Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but more

often than not, it failed.

For example, early motivational researchers were aware that different people with

roughly equal work abilities could be paid the same amount of money and yet have quite

different levels of motivation and performance.

These observations were confirmed in empirical studies. Pay rates were important, yes;

but they were not the only element that had an impact on employee performance. It was

found that other issues, such as morale and self-esteem, could also have a major

influence.

As a result, the traditional emphasis on reward outcomes was progressively rejected. In

the 1950s in the United States, the potential usefulness of appraisal as tool for motivation

and development was gradually recognized. The general model of performance appraisal:

 

 

A Basic Performance Appraisal System

 

The general form of a basic performance appraisal system is depicted in Figure 1. A

discussion follows.

Based on his or her perceptions, a manager prepares an appraisal of another employee.

Appraisals typically have two components: text, and a number. The number is usually the

basis for determining the employee’s merit increase (i.e., the size of the pay raise for the

subsequent year). This is often quite modest and amounts to little more than a cost-of-

living increase, an offset against inflation. Moreover, differences between the maximum

and minimum increases are also quite modest. The merit carrot is not a very big one.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the structure depicted in Figure 1 is that the

appraisal has as its primary input the perceptions of the manager. Technically speaking,

they are the only input. Given this model, it is obvious that if the system is to work

effectively the manager’s perceptions must be objective, accurate, comprehensive, and

free from any significant bias, distortion or undue influence; otherwise, the system is

patently flawed. This leads to the following assertion:

The structure of the typical performance appraisal system makes managers who prepare

appraisals the targets of efforts aimed at influencing, shaping, and just plain manipulating

their perceptions and the appraisals based on these perceptions.

Several people have an interest in influencing a manager’s appraisal of a given

employee’s performance. The most obvious is the employee. But there are others. These

include other employees who are being appraised by the same manager, and anyone with

a vested interest in having a given employee receive a good or a bad appraisal; for

example, clients, customers, mentors, co-workers, and other managers whose own

subordinates must compete for a finite pool of merit increase monies, plum assignments,

and increasingly limited promotion opportunities. In a word, the politics of performance

appraisal can be fierce. The preceding assertion may be elaborated upon as follows:

Many efforts to influence the perceptions of the managers who prepare appraisals, and

the appraisals they prepare, are independent of and often have no relation to the

performance of the person being appraised.

People and politics are not the only forces tending to negate the positive potential of

performance appraisal systems. There are also important systemic or structural factors at

work.

An appraisal leads to a merit increase. The size of the merit pool is limited and the

distribution of these monies is typically according to some formula. Thus, in a

performance appraisal system that allocates merit increase percentage on a five-point

scale, not everyone can receive a five because there isn’t enough money available to

support such an outcome. This is a restraint, a "can’t do." By the same token, the numbers

assigned must fit within the limits of the available pool of merit monies. This is a

constraint, a "must do." Restraints and constraints can also include EEO and affirmative

action considerations. Because merit rating numbers must be adjusted to meet various

restraints and constraints, the language and tone of the appraisals must in turn be adjusted

so as to be consistent with the numbers. From this follows an inescapable conclusion: the

honest, fair, valid, and objective assessment of all employees is literally impossible. The

structure, restraints, and constraints of the system do not permit it.

The preceding discussion looks at performance appraisal systems mainly from a

managerial perspective. But how does it look to employees, and what are its effects on

them? People responding to the Internet queries provided the following answers to these

questions.

Reductions in Productivity

Several people cited temporary reductions in productivity in the aftermath of the

appraisal review sessions. One person estimated this period of reduced contribution lasts

for about three months. An employee of the federal government said this period lasts at

least six months. Even if it is assumed that such periods last no more than a few days or

weeks, and that they represent a decrease in productivity of no more than 10 percent, the

costs are still astronomical.

Erosion of Performance

Tauo Jokinen, a product development manager with Nokia, conjectured that performance

appraisal systems actually erode performance over time as a result of people endeavoring

to set goals that are achievable, thus ensuring themselves a decent appraisal. This might

be viewed as a form of structural deflation regarding performance, and it is quite

reminiscent of the late Kenneth Berrien’s view that management might control the lower

limits of productivity but employees are clearly in control of the upper limits. [ Berrien’s

comments were made in the context of a discussion about the balance of control between

a supra system and its subsystems, and can be found in Chapter VII of General and Social

Systems (Rutgers University Press: 1968).]

Creation of Emotional Anguish:

Also cited were negative emotional states: worrying, depression, stress, and anguish (on

the part of those giving as well as those receiving appraisals). After first acknowledging

the "hard" costs of performance appraisals, Harry Heflin, an engineer with Intersys who

is also chairman of the IEEE Engineering Management Society in Boston, wrote, "But I

think the real cost is the emotional anguish as everyone anticipates, prepares for, and

works the process."

Damaging to Morale & Motivation:

Closely related to the emotional factors cited above are the penalties paid in the form of

decreased morale and motivation. These are deemed especially severe when the

performance appraisal system is seen as "bad" or unfair. An element of unfairness cited

by Charles Ladd, a TQM consultant, is the use of performance appraisal systems to

reward or punish people for what are really natural variations in system or process

performance. This means that people are praised and rewarded or cursed and punished for

factors beyond their power to influence let alone control.

Emphasizing Individual vs. Team and Task vs. Process:

One factor the author was sure would be cited, but wasn’t, is that the classic performance

appraisal system emphasizes individual or task-level performance instead of team or

process performance. Appraising individual performance can be a divisive factor in an

environment where genuine teamwork is required. Consequently, in times of change,

retaining an appraisal system that focuses on individual task performance sends at best a

mixed message when management calls for teams or wants to focus on business process

performance instead of individual task performance.

Fostering A Short-term View

Another factor the author thought would be cited and wasn’t is the short-term view that is

inherent in annual performance appraisal systems. Essentially, annual performance

appraisal systems ask of employees, "What have you done for us this year?" Employee

contributions over time — past or future — do not enter into the equation. Little wonder,

then, that Mike Hammer, the famed reengineering guru, could be heard lamenting the

lack of a long-term view in one of his recent seminars. [ Mike could be heard uttering this

lament in Boston, on December 4, 1995, during the first offering of his new seminar,

"The Process-Centered Organization." Mike was lambasting the media and the

educational establishment for churning out young people with a short-term, self-

interested view.]

Institutionalizing Existing Values & Biases:

A military officer with a Ph.D., who is stationed at the Pentagon and who wishes to

remain anonymous, observed that performance appraisal systems serve to institutionalize

the values and prejudices of those in power — and to protect these values and prejudices

from challenge. Consultant Charles Ladd made this same observation independently of

the officer. Both argued that this aspect of performance appraisal systems forms a

structural impediment to cultural change, that it acts to maintain the status quo.

Fostering Fear and Lack of Trust:

Directly related to the factors cited above is the degree of fear associated with the

appraisal system. This ties to a lack of trust in one’s boss, and management in general,

and leads to a phenomenon known as "malicious compliance," that is, a passive-

aggressive stance of "tell me what you want me to do and I’ll do it" on the part of an

employee. As one might expect, Deming’s dictum to drive fear out of the workplace was

frequently cited in this context.

A Carrot-and-Stick Management System:

The source of the fear cited above owes to the fact that the carrot-and-stick nature of

appraisal systems is mostly stick. Performance appraisals become a permanent part of the

employees’ personnel folders. There, many people have access to them including

prospective employers elsewhere within the company, the human resources department

(HR), and other executives and senior managers. Past appraisals exert a significant

influence over status and standing, future assignments, and promotions. Thus, although

performance appraisal systems do not distribute much in the way of rewards, they can

inflict great damage. Control of appraisals is largely in the hands of the employee’s

supervisor. Savvy employees know that success hinges in large part on "psyching out the

boss." They also know that when senior executives call for change, the marching orders,

if any, will come from their supervisors.

Redesigning Performance Appraisal Systems Is A Sisyphean Task:

In short, for political, structural, and systemic reasons, performance appraisal systems

cannot function as intended. Worse, they seem to have an almost exclusively negative

impact on the very employees they are meant to help. This view of performance

appraisals squarely contradicts the mythology of performance appraisal systems. Further,

the reasons performance appraisal systems fail to provide the benefits claimed for them

seem firmly rooted in the nature of organizations and the behavior of people. Trying to

change these factors so that performance appraisal systems will work the way they are

intended is truly a modern-day version of Sisyphus’s legendary task.

Traditional Performance Appraisal

Here are some key steps you can take toward achieving effective performance

appraisals--ones that can be used to validate the selection process as well as to make

decisions about pay or promotions:

(1) Select what performance data to collect

(2) Determine who conducts the appraisal

(3) Decide on a rating philosophy

(4) Overcome rating deficiencies

(5) Create a rating instrument

(6) Deliver useful information to employees

Select what performance data to collect

One way to classify on-the-job worker behavior is by considering the three "P’s"--

productivity (what was done), personal traits (how it was done, conduct) and proficiency

(skill).

Productivity can be measured in terms of specific performance accomplishments.

Examples include reducing calf mortality, increasing yield of the alfalfa crop, or

diminishing bruises in the cherry harvest.

Personal traits such as motivation, willingness to take criticism, cooperation, initiative,

dependability, and appearance (dress and grooming) may be considered. Personal trait

ratings are useful, even though they sometimes say more about how supervisors get along

with an employee than how well the employee performs on the job. Farmers are unlikely

to want to reward performance—no matter how excellent it is—if a worker only performs

grudgingly and after repeated admonitions.

When personal traits are considered as part of a performance appraisal, specific

characteristics should be related to the job. Often, a personal trait issue can be translated

into an achievement. Instead of talking about worker dependability (personal trait), for

instance, one may want to address how well an employee reports on assignment

completions (productivity).

Proficiency—skill, knowledge, and ability—plays an important role in worker

performance. When appraisals address worker proficiency factors (e.g., AI skills for a

herdsman), they help assure worker interest in overcoming deficiencies that may be

blocking future performance or growth. A farm personnel manager may be appraised in

terms of understanding labor management principles, knowledge of applicable labor

laws, skill in conducting interviews, or ability to counsel employees, for instance.

In evaluations, farmers need to strike the right balance between productivity and personal

traits. Jobs vary in the importance that can be attached to such factors. An equipment

operator who spends hours preparing land, furthermore, has less need for teamwork than

two milkers who work side by side. Over-emphasis on personal traits may increase

compliance at the expense of both creativity and performance. Stressing achievement

over personal traits may lead to a philosophy where the end justifies the means—no

matter how dysfunctional or unethical the behavior.

Determine who conducts the appraisal

Input into the appraisal of worker performance may come from many sources including

the employee, co-workers, supervisors, subordinates, or even persons outside the

organization. Ratings from multiple sources usually yield more reliable performance

appraisals.

Employee. Usually, but not always, the employee has a good understanding of his daily

performance and how it can be improved. Employees can be the most important persons

in the evaluation process, as we saw in the negotiated performance appraisal approach.

Nevertheless, employees have a vested interest in making positive comments about their

own performance, and no matter how motivated they are, can usually benefit from

outside evaluation.

Co-workers. At times co-workers have a better grasp for a colleague’s performance than

the supervisor, but co-worker evaluations have a tendency to be lenient. Sometimes co-

workers hope management will read between the lines and praise irrelevant or

insignificant factors. At times a co-worker may be particularly hard on a disliked worker.

Peer review is usually anonymous and several peers are involved in the evaluation. This

anonymity, while often needed, can also lend itself to abuses.

Supervisor. Performance appraisal data obtained from the immediate supervisor is the

most common rating source. Supervisors are often in the best position to give workers an

honest evaluation. The danger in supervisory evaluations is the substantial amount of

power and influence wielded, often by the hand of a single rater.

Subordinate. Formal evaluation by subordinates is unusual, although from time to time

subordinates may be asked for input into the evaluation of their supervisor. When

subordinates have an input into their supervisor’s evaluation, supervisors have been

known to improve their interpersonal relations and reduce management by intimidation.

Issues of anonymity and adequate sampling of subordinates may be important in

traditional appraisals.

Outside the organization. Evaluations by outside clientele may be useful in instances

when there is much personal contact with outsiders or when the person being evaluated

knows more about aspects of the job than the farmer or supervisor.

Decide on a ratingPerformance appraisal data can also be classified according to whether

employees are compared against others or are rated against a standard.

Comparison against others. Normally, when comparing employees against each other, a

few employees end up at the top and a few at the bottom in what is known as a normal

distribution curve (also known as "grading by the curve," see Figure 6-1). The majority

end up somewhere in the middle. Where the employee is ranked depends on how a

person performs in comparison to others.

The principal advantage of the comparison method is preventing raters from placing all

employees in one category (for example, all superior). Two disadvantages—especially

when very few workers are involved—include assuming (1) employees fall in a normal

distribution (there may be four excellent performers in a group of five, or none in a group

of three), and (2) there are similar differences in performance between two adjacent

employees, for instance, between those ranked 1 and 2 and those ranked 4 and 5.

Worker Performance

Rating against a standard permits a supervisor to classify employee performance

independently from that of other employees. Both supervisor and employee have a

reference point for accurately looking at an employee’s long-term performance growth.

Ratings against a standard do not preclude comparisons. While employees may typically

compare themselves to others, there is little to be gained by having the organization

promote such comparisons. They are likely to create envy, vanity and dysfunctional

competition. In a healthy organization, one employee’s success need not mean another’s

failure. If all can succeed, much the better.

Farmers who choose to use a standardized approach must next decide whether to judge

all workers on an absolute standard or whether to consider an employee’s time on the job.

Those who prefer an absolute standard tend to give lower scores to employees, as they

fear new workers who receive high marks will not feel the need for further improvement.

In contrast, raters who feel a worker has done superior work considering his time in the

position, may rate him as such. An evaluation six months or a year later yielding a

superior mark would require a corresponding improvement on the part of the worker. I

prefer the latter approach, because it seems more positive.

Overcome rating deficiencies

Supervisory evaluations often suffer from numerous rating deficiencies:5

One particularly good or poor trait may contaminate other performance areas considered

in the evaluation.

Once a worker is classified as a poor performer, it may take a long time for a supervisor

to notice the worker has improved.

Supervisors tend to remember events more recent to the evaluation. Workers, realizing

this, may strive to improve performance as time for appraisals near.

Supervisors may tend to rate workers as average, especially when rating forms require a

written justification for a high or low rating. Others may tend toward being either overly

strict or lenient. Lenient raters may later appear to contradict themselves (e.g., when a

worker is disciplined or does not get a raise).

As with olives, where a small olive may be graded "large" and the largest "super" or

"colossal," the worst rating many companies give their employees on appraisals is

"good." Thus, the employer might be in the position of arguing that "good" actually

means "bad."6

Raters may also be influenced by an employee’s personal attributes such as national

origin, level of education, union membership, philosophy, age, race, gender, or even

attractiveness (Sidebar 6-2).

Sidebar 6-2: Physical attractiveness

Studies show attractive people are often judged to be more intelligent and have other

positive qualities.7 In one study, for instance, men gave attractive women higher scores

on the quality of writing. Photographs of the supposed authors were attached to the

essays.8 First impression attractiveness can have an even more serious impact on

employee selection. This is particularly true where candidate impressions are formed

solely on an interview and not moderated with data obtained from practical and written

tests.

Create a rating instrument

You can choose from several data collection and evaluation techniques, or rating scales.

Whatever instrument is used, it should provide meaningful information to both

employees and management.

There are a number of ways of classifying performance appraisal instruments. Data can

be presented in terms of critical incidents, narratives, or predetermined anchors. A

combination of approaches is often necessary to end up with a useful performance

appraisal. Appraisal instruments require substantial rater training if results are to be

meaningful.

Critical incidents. This technique involves noting instances where workers reacted

particularly well or poorly. To be effective and accurate, critical incidents need to be

jotted down as they take place and are still fresh in the supervisor’s mind.

Examples of negative critical incidents include not observing elevated milk tank

temperatures, or milking cows with antibiotics into the tank. Examples of noteworthy

positive incidents are milkers who constantly provide accurate information on sick cows,

or cows in heat; an employee who volunteers a money saving idea; or a worker who

averted an upcoming disaster outside normal responsibility areas.

The strength of the process is in the concreteness of the examples provided. If care is not

taken, though, the critical incident is susceptible to emphasizing negative worker

behavior. When used alone, employees may have difficulty translating critical incident

reports into improved day-to-day performance. Further, long periods of time may not

yield any particularly good or poor behavior.

The critical incident approach can be used to come up with data and ideas to develop

more complex rating scales.9

Narratives. As compared to the critical incident, narratives provide a broader outlook on

worker performance. Narratives work best when raters have the skills and take the time to

provide a thorough, analytical report while maintaining a positive tone.

Predetermined anchors. Appraisals where raters simply check or circle the most

appropriate answer can potentially make for more standardized evaluations than either

the narrative or critical incidents and are less time consuming for the supervisor (see

Figure 6-3). Their ease in use may be deceiving, and raters may give the appraisal less

thought than it deserves. Anchor-based appraisals include rating factors with a numerical

scale (e.g., 0 to 3), or an adjective-descriptive scale (e.g., superior, good, below

average).10

Numerical rating scale for milkers

Performance Area 0 1 2 3

Follows proper procedures to improve milk quality K

Provides proper parlor environment for milking J

Recognizes & records cows in heat or sick K

Keeps milk from fresh cows separate (cholostrum milk) J

Makes efficient use of time as cows are milked or washed J

Takes safety precautions with cows that kick L

Cleans milking parlor for next milking J

3 = superior .....1 = below average

2 = good........... 0 = not performed

The most useful method is a combination approach that includes either a numerical or

descriptive anchor, as well as critical incidents and a narrative performance description.

Deliver useful information to employees

This brings us back to sharing information with the employee (see Negotiated

Performance Appraisal). Evaluations work best when workers know the evaluation

criteria in advance. Such areas of evaluation can form the basis for an intelligent

conversation about performance between supervisor and employee. In one farm operation

a manager was able to not only discuss a foreman's performance within his present job,

but also the types of skills that were needed if the foreman was interested in a potential

promotion to assistant manager.

Despite the importance of formal appraisals, an effective manager does not wait for

formal performance appraisal interviews to communicate with employees. Sharing

information about performance should be done frequently and in a positive manner.

There should not be too many surprises for the employee when both discuss the

evaluation. The negotiated performance appraisal, to a great extent, accomplishes the task

of removing possible surprises at a much deeper level, as it encourages candid

conversation between the individual being appraised and the supervisor.

Regardless of the approach taken, it helps to involve the worker in making plans and

taking responsibility for improvement. Allowing the worker to take a major role in the

performance appraisal interview does not guarantee the interview will be fun, but it can

do much to reduce its unpleasantness

Modern Appraisal

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

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

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

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

for improvement and skills development.

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

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

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

pay increases, bonuses, and promotions.

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

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

pay. (Organizations need to be aware of laws in their country that might restrict their

capacity to dismiss employees or decrease pay.)

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

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

IMPORTANCE.

So employee knows if he/she is doing something wrong (to improve future performance).

It’s a formal opportunity to speak with your employee.

How would you feel if…

…your boss didn’t give you a performance appraisal or it was delivered very late?

…your boss didn’t give you specific examples?

…your boss didn’t make any comments on the appraisal?

…your performance appraisal contained only criticism?

…your supervisor’s performance appraisal were radically different from your self-

appraisal?

…you received a very high performance rating? Would you expect a promotion? How

would you

feel if you weren’t promoted?

…your boss felt you were not ready for a promotion? Would you want to know

specifically what

you needed to do to be promoted?

Returns On Your Investment Of Time:

You will be able to identify and resolve performance problems early while there is still

time to make changes. You will be better able to identify strong performers who have the

desire and ability to advance.

You will strengthen communication with employees. Through this process, you will open

communication channels that have been blocked by misunderstandings or conflicts. You

will know how employees view their work situations and what you can do to help them

reach their potentials.

You may get feedback about your style of managing and how it encourages or inhibits

the success of others.

You should have no surprises at review time. By working closely with an employee

throughout the year, you both will have a pretty good idea of what’s going to be said

during the review ahead of time. This will reduce much of the anxiety associated with

performance reviews.

STEPS

1. Plan For Good Performance.

If you want the employee to do something, you must tell him/her exactly what you want:

what jobs or tasks are most important, what skills and behaviors are required and

acceptable, what goals should be accomplished, and what result you expect. There are

two (2) primary ways to accomplish this: providing the employee with a job description

and setting goals and performance expectations.

Goals should be SMART:

Specific.

Measurable.

Attainable.

Realistic.

Time-limited.

Remember: initiating and maintaining positive communication about work expectations

and work performance is management’s responsibility!

2. Have Employees Evaluate Their Own Performance.

The employee’s self-evaluation is one of the tools you will use to write your own

evaluation:

You want to see how much insight the employee has into his/her own performance

strengths and weaknesses. FYI: industrial psychologists have found that most employees

rate themselves the same or lower than their manager would.

You also want to gauge whether he/she clearly understands your expectations and

standards of performance.

This is an important measure of your supervisory skills. If the employee’s evaluation is

vastly different from yours, you failed to communicate clearly your expectations and

standards. Surprises mean something is wrong with your system!

Encourage the employee to think about past performance goals, accomplishments, and

areas needing improvement and development..

OBJECTIVES

Objectives for performance appraisal policy can best be understood in terms of potential

benefits. Mohrman, Resnick-West and Lawler (1989) identify the following:

Increase motivation to perform effectively

Increase staff self-esteem

Gain new insight into staff and supervisors

Better clarify and define job functions and responsibilities

Develop valuable communication among appraisal participants

Encourage increased self-understanding among staff as well as insight into the kind of

development activities that are of value

Distribute rewards on a fair and credible basis

Clarify organizational goals so they can be more readily accepted

Improve institutional/departmental manpower planning, test validation, and development

of training programs

Effective performance appraisal systems contain two basic systems operating in

conjunction: an evaluation system and a feedback system.

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

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

organization as acceptable.

The main aim of the feedback system is to inform the employee about the quality of his

or her performance. (However, the information flow is not exclusively one way. The

appraisers also receives feedback from the employee about job problems, etc.)

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

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

organization.

Employee Viewpoint

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

(1) Tell me what you want me to do

(2) Tell me how well I have done it

(3) Help me improve my performance

(4) Reward me for doing well.

Organizational Viewpoint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roles.

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

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

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

completely. Organizational failure is the only possible outcome.

In cases where the non-alignment is not so severe, the organization may continue to

function, albeit inefficiently. Like a poorly made or badly tuned engine, the non-aligned

organization may run, but it will be sluggish, costly and unreliable. One of the principal

aims of performance appraisal is to make people accountable. The objective is to align

responsibility and accountability at every organizational level.

METHODS

In a landmark study, Locher & Teel (1977) found that the three most common appraisal

methods in general use are rating scales (56%), essay methods (25%) and results-

oriented or MBO methods (13%). For a description of each, follow the button links on

the left.

Certain techniques in performance appraisal have been thoroughly investigated, and some

have been found to yield better results than others.

Encourage Discussion

Research studies show that employees are likely to feel more satisfied with their appraisal

result if they have the chance to talk freely and discuss their performance. It is also more

likely that such employees will be better able to meet future performance goals. (e.g.,

Nemeroff & Wexley, 1979).

Employees are also more likely to feel that the appraisal process is fair if they are given a

chance to talk about their performance. This especially so when they are permitted to

challenge and appeal against their evaluation. (Greenberg, 1986).

Constructive Intention

It is very important that employees recognize that negative appraisal feedback is provided

with a constructive intention, i.e., to help them overcome present difficulties and to

improve their future performance. Employees will be less anxious about criticism, and

more likely to find it useful, when the believe that the appraiser's intentions are helpful

and constructive. (Fedor et al., 1989)

In contrast, other studies (e.g., Baron, 1988) have reported that "destructive criticism" -

which is vague, ill-informed, unfair or harshly presented - will lead to problems such as

anger, resentment, tension and workplace conflict, as well as increased resistance to

improvement, denial of problems, and poorer performance.

Set Performance Goals

It has been shown in numerous studies that goal-setting is an important element in

employee motivation. Goals can stimulate employee effort, focus attention, increase

persistence, and encourage employees to find new and better ways to work. (e.g.,

Locke,et al., 1981)

The useful of goals as a stimulus to human motivation is one of the best supported

theories in management. It is also quite clear that goals which are "...specific, difficult

and accepted by employees will lead to higher levels of performance than easy, vague

goals (such as do your best) or no goals at all." (Harris & DiSimone, 1994)

Appraiser Credibility

It is important that the appraiser (usually the employee's supervisor) be well-informed

and credible. Appraisers should feel comfortable with the techniques of appraisal, and

should be knowledgeable about the employee's job and performance.

When these conditions exist, employees are more likely to view the appraisal process as

accurate and fair. They also express more acceptance of the appraiser's feedback and a

greater willingness to change. (Bannister, 1986)

Rating Scales

The rating scale method offers a high degree of structure for appraisals. Each employee

trait or characteristic is rated on a bipolar scale that usually has several points ranging

from "poor" to "excellent" (or some similar arrangement).

The traits assessed on these scales include employee attributes such as cooperation,

communications ability, initiative, punctuality and technical (work skills) competence.

The nature and scope of the traits selected for inclusion is limited only by the imagination

of the scale's designer, or by the organization's need to know.

The one major provision in selecting traits is that they should be in some way relevant to

the appraisee's job. The traits selected by some organizations have been unwise and have

resulted in legal action on the grounds of discrimination.

 Advantages

The greatest advantage of rating scales is that they are structured and standardised. This

allows ratings to be easily compared and contrasted - even for entire workforces.

Each employee is subjected to the same basic appraisal process and rating criteria, with

the same range of responses. This encourages equality in treatment for all appraisees and

imposes standard measures of performance across all parts of the organization.

Rating scale methods are easy to use and understand. The concept of the rating scale

makes obvious sense; both appraisers and appraisees have an intuitive appreciation for

the simple and efficient logic of the bipolar scale. The result is widespread acceptance

and popularity for this approach.

  Disadvantages

Trait Relevance

Are the selected rating-scale traits clearly relevant to the jobs of all the appraisees? It is

inevitable that with a standardised and fixed system of appraisal that certain traits will

have a greater relevance in some jobs than in others.

For example, the trait "initiative" might not be very important in a job that is tightly

defined and rigidly structured. In such cases, a low appraisal rating for initiative may not

mean that an employee lacks initiative. Rather, it may reflect that fact that an employee

has few opportunities to use and display that particular trait. The relevance of rating

scales is therefore said to be context-sensitive. Job and workplace circumstances must be

taken into account.

Systemic Disadvantage

Rating scales, and the traits they purport to measure, generally attempt to encapsulate all

the relevant indicators of employee performance. There is an assumption that all the true

and best indicators of performance are included, and all false and irrelevant indicators are

excluded.

This is an assumption very difficult to prove in practice. It is possible that an employee's

performance may depend on factors that have not been included in the selected traits.

Such employees may end up with ratings that do not truly or fairly reflect their effort or

value to the organization. Employees in this class are systemically disadvantaged by the

rating scale method.

Perceptual Errors

This includes various well-known problems of selective perception (such as the horns and

halos effect) as well as problems of perceived meaning.

Selective perception is the human tendency to make private and highly subjective

assessments of what a person is "really like", and then seek evidence to support that view

(while ignoring or downplaying evidence that might contradict it).

This is a common and normal psychological phenomenon. All human beings are affected

by it. In other words, we see in others what we want to see in them.

An example is the supervisor who believes that an employee is inherently good (halo

effect) and so ignores evidence that might suggest otherwise. Instead of correcting the

slackening employee, the supervisor covers for them and may even offer excuses for their

declining performance.

On the other hand, a supervisor may have formed the impression that an employee is bad

(horns effect). The supervisor becomes unreasonably harsh in their assessment of the

employee, and always ready to criticize and undermine them.

The horns and halo effect is rarely seen in its extreme and obvious forms. But in its more

subtle manifestations, it can be a significant threat to the effectiveness and credibility of

performance appraisal.

Perceived Meaning

Problems of perceived meaning occur when appraisers do not share the same opinion

about the meaning of the selected traits and the language used on the rating scales.

For example, to one appraiser, an employee may demonstrate the trait of initiative by

reporting work problems to a supervisor. To another appraiser, this might suggest an

excessive dependence on supervisory assistance - and thus a lack of initiative.

As well, the language and terms used to construct a scale - such as "Performance exceeds

expectations" or "Below average skill" - may mean different things to different

appraisers.

Rating Errors

The problem here is not so much errors in perception as errors in appraiser judgement

and motive. Unlike perceptual errors, these errors may be (at times) deliberate.

The most common rating error is central tendency. Busy appraisers, or those wary of

confrontations and repercussions, may be tempted to dole out too many passive, middle-

of-the-road ratings (e.g., "satisfactory" or "adequate"), regardless of the actual

performance of a subordinate. Thus the spread of ratings tends to clump excessively

around the middle of the scale.

This problem is worsened in organizations where the appraisal process does not enjoy

strong management support, or where the appraisers do not feel confident with the task of

appraisal.

Essay Method

In the essay method approach, the appraiser prepares a written statement about the

employee being appraised.

The statement usually concentrates on describing specific strengths and weaknesses in

job performance. It also suggests courses of action to remedy the identified problem

areas.

The statement may be written and edited by the appraiser alone, or it be composed in

collaboration with the appraisee.

Advantages 

The essay method is far less structured and confining than the rating scale method. It

permits the appraiser to examine almost any relevant issue or attribute of performance.

This contrasts sharply with methods where the appraisal criteria are rigidly defined.

Appraisers may place whatever degree of emphasis on issues or attributes that they feel

appropriate. Thus the process is open-ended and very flexible. The appraiser is not locked

into an appraisal system the limits expression or assumes that employee traits can be

neatly dissected and scaled.

  Disadvantages 

Essay methods are time-consuming and difficult to administer. Appraisers often find the

essay technique more demanding than methods such as rating scales.

The techniques greatest advantage - freedom of expression - is also its greatest handicap.

The varying writing skills of appraisers can upset and distort the whole process. The

process is subjective and, in consequence, it is difficult to compare and contrast the

results of individuals or to draw any broad conclusions about organizational needs.

Results Method

(MBO Method)

The use of management objectives was first widely advocated in the 1950s by the noted

management theorist Peter Drucker.

MBO (management by objectives) methods of performance appraisal are results-oriented.

That is, they seek to measure employee performance by examining the extent to which

predetermined work objectives have been met.

Usually the objectives are established jointly by the supervisor and subordinate. An

example of an objective for a sales manager might be: Increase the gross monthly sales

volume to $250,000 by 30 June.

Once an objective is agreed, the employee is usually expected to self-audit; that is, to

identify the skills needed to achieve the objective. Typically they do not rely on others to

locate and specify their strengths and weaknesses. They are expected to monitor their

own development and progress.

  Advantages

The MBO approach overcomes some of the problems that arise as a result of assuming

that the employee traits needed for job success can be reliably identified and measured.

Instead of assuming traits, the MBO method concentrates on actual outcomes.

If the employee meets or exceeds the set objectives, then he or she has demonstrated an

acceptable level of job performance. Employees are judged according to real outcomes,

and not on their potential for success, or on someone's subjective opinion of their

abilities.

The guiding principle of the MBO approach is that direct results can be observed,

whereas the traits and attributes of employees (which may or may not contribute to

performance) must be guessed at or inferred.

The MBO method recognizes the fact that it is difficult to neatly dissect all the complex

and varied elements that go to make up employee performance.

MBO advocates claim that the performance of employees cannot be broken up into so

many constituent parts - as one might take apart an engine to study it. But put all the parts

together and the performance may be directly observed and measured.

Disadvantages

MBO methods of performance appraisal can give employees a satisfying sense of

autonomy and achievement. But on the downside, they can lead to unrealistic

expectations about what can and cannot be reasonably accomplished.

Supervisors and subordinates must have very good "reality checking" skills to use MBO

appraisal methods. They will need these skills during the initial stage of objective setting,

and for the purposes of self-auditing and self-monitoring.

Unfortunately, research studies have shown repeatedly that human beings tend to lack the

skills needed to do their own "reality checking". Nor are these skills easily conveyed by

training. Reality itself is an intensely personal experience, prone to all forms of

perceptual bias.

One of the strengths of the MBO method is the clarity of purpose that flows from a set of

well-articulated objectives. But this can be a source of weakness also. It has become very

apparent that the modern organization must be flexible to survive. Objectives, by their

very nature, tend to impose a certain rigidity.

Of course, the obvious answer is to make the objectives more fluid and yielding. But the

penalty for fluidity is loss of clarity. Variable objectives may cause employee confusion.

It is also possible that fluid objectives may be distorted to disguise or justify failures in

performance.

Conflict and Confrontation 

Invariably the needs arises during a performance appraisal to provide an employee with

less than flattering feedback.

The skill and sensitivity used to handle these often difficult sessions is critical. If the

appraisee accepts the negative feedback and resolves to improve, all is well. But if the

result is an angry or hurt employee, then the process of correction has failed. The

performance of an employee in such cases is unlikely to improve and may deteriorate

even further.

Self-Auditing

According to Krein (1990), appraisers should not confront employees directly with

criticism. Rather, they should aim to let the evidence of poor performance emerge

"naturally" during the course of the appraisal interview. This is done by way of open-

ended questioning techniques that encourage the employee to identify their own

performance problems.

Instead of blunt statements or accusations, the appraisers should encourage an employee

to talk freely about their own impressions of their performance. For example, consider

the case of employee who has had too many absent days. The appraiser, in accusatory

mode, might say:

Your attendance record is unacceptable. You'll have to improve it.

A better way to handle this might be to say:

Your attendance record shows that you had 7 days off work in 6 months. What can you

tell me about this?

The technique is to calmly present the evidence (resisting the temptation to label it as

good or bad) and then invite the employee to comment. In many cases, with just a gentle

nudge from the appraiser here and there, an employee with problems will admit that

weaknesses do exist.

This is much more likely when an employee does not feel accused of anything, nor forced

to make admissions that they do not wish to make.

If an appraiser can get an employee to the stage of voluntary admission, half the battle is

won. The technique described by Krein is a type of self-auditing, since it encourages the

employee to confront themselves with their own work and performance issues.

The technique is useful because it is more likely to promote discussion and agreement on

the need for change. Confrontation techniques that rely on "charge and counter-charge"

tend to promote adversarialism - and that leads to denial and resentment.

  Ownership of Problems

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of the self- auditing process is that employees are more

willing generally to accept personal "ownership" of problems that have been self-

identified. This sense of ownership provides an effective basis for stimulating change and

development. (Some would argue that it provides the only basis.)

Nevertheless there are individuals who will not admit to anything that appears to reflect

poorly on them. With ego defenses on full-alert, they will resist the process of self-

auditing very strongly. In such cases, appraisers may have no choice but to confront the

poor performer directly and firmly with the evidence they have.

Sometimes the shock of direct confrontation will result in the employee admitting that

they do need to make improvements. But sometimes it will just make their denial of the

problem worse.

In providing any feedback - especially negative feedback - appraisers should be willing

and able to support their opinions with specific and clear examples. Vague

generalizations should be avoided.

The focus should be on job-related behaviors and attitudes. If a specific observation

cannot be supported by clear evidence, or touches on issues that are not job-related, it

may be best to exclude all mention of it.

Appraisers must carefully scrutinize their own perceptions, motives and prejudices.

MASTEK

BACKGROUND

Mastek actively collaborates with clients to create something valuable for them. We

strive to make a positive and lasting business impact by going beyond a client-vendor

relationship and becoming an extended part of our customers’ enterprise. No wonder then

that a large percentage of our revenues comes from repeat business.

Mastek offers a full suite of IT solutions and services, including custom application

development, application management outsourcing (AMO), consulting, legacy

modernization and migration, and system integration. We have delivered path-breaking

solutions in key verticals such as insurance, financial services and government.

We currently operate six world-class delivery centers in India and Malaysia. Our IT

development and delivery processes have been certified at ISO 9001:2000 and assessed at

SEI-CMM Level 5 and P-CMM Level 3. Our mature processes and robust methodologies

enable us to deliver projects on time, within budget and to the highest levels of quality.

Mastek is a US $156 million, publicly held company with more than 2800 employees and

7200 man-years of experience. It has implemented more than 1000 projects worldwide.

MASTEK Ltd has posted a net

profit of Rs 10.2 crore for its first

quarter ended September 30, 2002 compared to Rs 1.62 crore during the corresponding

period in the previous year.

Total income has increased from Rs 19.81 crore during the quarter ended September 30,

2001 to Rs 34.16 crore in the quarter ended September 30, 2002.

Meanwhile, Mastek Group has posted a net profit of Rs 15.25 crore for the quarter

compared to Rs 4.11 crore during the same period last year. The

group's total income stood at Rs 91.63 crore against Rs 63.95 crore in the previous year

period.

A segment-wise break up of revenues shows that the company's UK operations clocked

revenues of Rs 51.11 crore (Rs 31.64 crore) , while US operations contributed Rs 23.84

crore (Rs 20.10 crore) .

Commenting on the performance, Mr Ashank Desai, Chairman and Managing Director,

Mastek, said, ``Due to our focussed efforts as well as growing interest in Indian offshore

market, we continue to be successful and on target as regards acquisition of strategic

clients. The challenge, however, is to grow these accounts, particularly in the light of

sluggishness in their IT budget increases. In spite of this, we are confident of achieving

our annual goals.''

During the quarter, Mastek has billed 16 additional customers while its repeat business

stood at 96 per cent, said a company release. The company has acquired nine new

customers during the quarter in the airline, insurance and retail space.

Also, the Mastek and Deloitte Consulting joint venture (DCOTG) has reported revenues

of Rs 9.92 crore for the quarter ended September 30, 2002. At present, the US contributes

26 per cent of the group's revenues while the European market contributes 60 per cent to

total revenues, according to the

The company has also inaugurated its new software development centre at the

Millennium Park, Mahape, Mumbai. The centre has a total capacity of 1,100 people,

though in the first phase — by June 2003 — it will accommodate 600 to 700 people.

Mastek Way

Twenty-three years ago, we decided to focus our energies on enterprise applications and

ground-up development. This focus ensured that our growth came mostly from doing

mission critical and complex applications.

Clients’ looking for solutions to complex problems, is the challenge we seek; and the

opportunity to adopt new technologies.

Collaborating with our clients to find solutions and teaming to create something valuable

for our client's customers and the community at large - is what drives us.

We believe that technology on its own has no meaning; it has to make a positive impact

on the world and the people who inhabit it. The cornerstones of the Mastek Way are:

Engagement Excellence

Mastek has repeatedly executed several large-scale, mission-critical projects successfully.

At the heart of this success lies Mastek's ability to structure engagements around

customer outcomes, unlike typical IT engagements that are structured to meet service

level agreements or to deliver to customer specifications.

The depth of our relationships helps us capture a customer's business requirements rather

than just their technology needs. This, in turn, enables us to articulate the benefits of an

engagement more accurately, leading to better management of expectations.

Mastek has a lineage of building complex solutions and products. This provides us with a

360-degree perspective of the lifecycle of any engagement. As a result, Mastek is able to

work with customers on innovative price value models and structure win-win contracts.

Customer Relationships

Mastek has built strong relationships with its customers. Several of our relationships are

long-standing, and in many of them our role has grown from that of a provider of

technology services to a provider of more critical business solutions.

In many of our relationships, with every passing year, we are able to increase our reach in

different parts of a customer organisation, increase levels of trust allowing us to engage

customers at more strategic levels, and increase the number of touch points at all levels of

the two partners' organisations.

Mastek has been able to build and sustain deep relationships because of its commitment

to a customer's success, its willingness to listen to a customer and its drive to make a

valuable difference.

Long and deeper relationships benefit all stakeholders. Mastek is able to understand the

customer's business better and become more proactive to the customer's needs. As a

result, it can provide greater value through its solutions. Customers avoid costs of

transferring context and mitigate the risk of failure because they deal with a single partner

over many engagements.

For Mastek, long customer relationships bring stability and continuity.

Our ability to build strong relationships is underscored by the fact that a large percentage

over 90% of our overall revenue comes from repeat business.

Network of Partnerships

Mastek has executed some of its biggest projects such as London Congestion Charging

and NHS Spine by partnering with global system integrators as part of a consortium.

Partnering with established system integrators helps Mastek penetrate newer markets and

create new revenue channels. For the customer, a consortium brings twin advantages:

specialisation of each partner in the consortium as well as end-to-end, holistic solutions.

Mastek's success in consortium-led projects comes from its culture of playing as a team

and its ability to co-create solutions. Mastek's adaptability is also a big strength in the

dynamic environment of consortium-driven projects.

Unlike many IT providers, Mastek engages with partners right from pre-sales. This shows

our commitment to and our willingness to invest in a partnership.

On the supply side, Mastek's network of partnerships provides it access to highly skilled

domain expertise and key program management skills to complement its own strengths

and capabilities.

In fact, Mastek is already executing an engagement as a full-fledged system integrator.

Domain Knowledge

Over the years, Mastek has acquired in-depth understanding and knowledge across

several domains, particularly insurance. We have been able to translate this domain

knowledge into practice lines and intellectual property (for eg: Elixir). This domain

knowledge makes it easier for customers to work with us since we already understand

their business context. Less time is spent in transferring knowledge, thereby providing

customers a jump-start and reducing time-to-market. In addition, Mastek is able to

provide better quality of solutions because of greater clarity.

Understanding a customer's business and domain enables Mastek to scale the value chain

and play a strategic and consulting role.

We are constantly enriching our domain expertise with the diversity and number of

projects we do. Mastek's versatility helps it cross apply learnings from one domain to

another domain and even to greenfield engagements.

Technological Capabilities

Mastek has a long history of technological leadership. As a company, it has a strong

product background and has always played a pioneering role in adopting new technology.

As a result, Mastek has developed capabilities in a wide range of technologies and

platforms. This enables us to integrate multiple technologies in a meaningful way to

create powerful solutions.

Our increasing focus on creating a solutioning culture within the company has resulted in

more and more partners viewing us as providers of business solutions rather than just

technology services.

Mastek has created two specialised groups, the Solutions and Strategy Group and the

Technology Cell, to ensure that we stay ahead of the technology curve and create

valuable solutions for our customers.

The Solutions and Strategy group strives for excellence in software engineering, adopts

best practices in solution-building and creates ground-up solutions that meet customer

visions.

The Technology Cell continuously tracks new and emerging technology and ensures that

Mastek and its customers stay on the cutting edge of technology by absorbing relevant

new technology. For instance, Mastek was ready with a complete DotNet Solution even

before the DotNet was officially launched.

That is the speed at which Mastek is able to adopt new technology.

Systems and Processes

Mastek is a process-driven company. Our ability to 'processise' and institutionalise our

learnings and experience enabled us to become the first company to be assessed at both

SEI CMM Level 5 and P-CMM Level 3. But that is not all. We are constantly improving

our systems and processes. Today, our delivery processes are IS0 9001:2000 certified.

Our engineering processes also draw best practices from established models like Rational

Unified Process (RUP), Zachman and so on.

Process excellence enables us to make successes repeatable and bring predictability to

our deliveries in terms of timelines, cost and quality.

Mastek also enables customers to inculcate best practices and create a process-oriented

culture within their organisations.

In addition, we have developed tools such as ePMO to improve project management

efficiency and implemented integrated decision support and management information

systems.

At the project level, these tools provide for granularity of planning. At the management

level they provide a single-view of the organisation, and also serve as early warning

systems and a dashboard of performance.

Security and business continuity are matters of concern for all our customers. We have

robust information security systems and fault-redundant business continuity processes.

Many of our information security processes are already BS 7799 certified.

Mastek has created a specialised Organisational Process Group (OPG) that is responsible

for continuous adoption and correct execution of these processes.

Mastek Culture

A successful organization is more than just the sum total of its systems, processes and

people. At Mastek, we believe we are more than the software we create, more than the

people we nurture, more than the revenues we generate. We define ourselves by the

values we keep, the culture we have built.

As an organization, we are shaped by our Seven Values. These have been our guiding

lights on our path to success. Values we have never deviated from.

The Seven Values are:

1. Open atmosphere

2. Outstanding teamwork

3. Respect for the individual

4. Pride in work

5. Long-term relationship

6. Customer intimacy

7. Commitment to results

You won’t find these Seven Values displayed on walls. But you will find them being

practised in every corner of the organization.

The Mastek Culture is a blend of the values we follow, the challenging work we do, and

the fun we have. Not surprisingly, we work together as a Team, and have fun together as

a Family.

How do we do this?

For us, the team is more important than the individual. Yet, we pay a lot of attention to

our building blocks: the individuals. We do not just shape careers. We mould character

too. We ensure that each of our people have the opportunity to rise to their potential.

Being a Mastekeer is more than just being a successful professional. It means constantly

growing to become an Inspired Leader. To go beyond the call of duty. To take on more

than you are called for. And to make a difference in every relationship.

‘Once a Mastekeer, always a Mastekeer’. This is what our alumni say, sometimes even

years after they’ve been away from us. It is this goodwill that we cherish most of all.

Goodwill that makes us proud of our culture, the Mastek Culture.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF MASTEK

Rationale for Policy on Performance Appraisal

Performance appraisal can be viewed as the process of assessing and recording staff

performance for the purpose of making judgments about staff that lead to decisions.

Performance appraisal should also be viewed as a system of highly interactive processes

which involve personnel at all levels in differing degrees in determining job expectations,

writing job descriptions, selecting relevant appraisal criteria, developing assessment tools

and procedures, and collecting interpreting, and reporting results.

Objectives for performance appraisal policy can best be understood in terms of potential

benefits. Mohrman, Resnick-West and Lawler (1989) identify the following:

Increase motivation to perform effectively

Increase staff self-esteem

Gain new insight into staff and supervisors

Better clarify and define job functions and responsibilities

Develop valuable communication among appraisal participants

Encourage increased self-understanding among staff as well as insight into the kind of

development activities that are of value

Distribute rewards on a fair and credible basis

Clarify organizational goals so they can be more readily accepted

Improve institutional/departmental manpower planning, test validation, and development

of training programs

Using The Staffing Model in Performance Appraisal

Performance appraisal should be viewed as a process, and not simply as the creation of

ubiquitous standards.

The overriding purpose of performance appraisal is to help staff to improve and, thus, to

improve organizational effectiveness. Performance appraisal therefore addresses

institutional needs as well as staff member needs, abilities, motivation, and expectancies.

The integrated staffing model suggests two integrated functions toward this purpose: the

evaluation of staff relative to job requirements and the development of staff for improved

performance. Thus, performance appraisal and staff development are closely related and

should operate in concert with one another.

The integrated staffing model also suggests that staffing practices occur within a larger

context of institutional culture. Thus, judgments about performance appraisal, as well as

the design and implementation of appraisal systems, should be considered contextually.

Effective appraisal systems should address clarity, openness, and fairness; recognize

productivity through rewards; and be cognizant of appraiser leadership qualities.

ATTRIBUTES

Clarity, Openness, and Fairness

The performance appraisal system must possess the attributes of clarity, openness, and

fairness. These attributes are related to the historic values of the student affairs

profession. While specific implementation of these attributes may vary, the following

should be represented in effective performance appraisal:

Ongoing Review of Position and Performance - Effective performance appraisal systems

conduct ongoing evaluations of both the position and the staff member occupying it. With

ongoing position analysis and performance appraisal, there are few surprises, and

changes in the environment are quickly incorporated into the official appraisal system.

Job Descriptions - Job descriptions should be reliable, valid, understandable, and specific

enough to provide direction for staff behavior. Job descriptions should focus on what the

staff member does (e.g. advises the student government association) and what outcomes

are expected. These outcomes should be clearly linked to departmental and institutional

objectives and needs.

Job descriptions should use action words such "plans" or "supervises" rather than

"demonstrates initiative" or "is likable." Job descriptions should provide guidelines for

staff so they know the specific behaviors expected to perform. The responsibilities of the

staff member should be listed in order of importance and weighted relative to importance,

if possible.

Participatory and Interactive Appraisal

Appraisal system processes should be designed in concert with all stakeholders and open

to constant interaction with them. Plans made jointly by staff and administrators have a

better chance of working than plans made independently by either party.

Workable Formats that Avoid Systemic Bias - Effective performance appraisal systems

must include workable formats that avoid systematic biases. Checklists of performance

criteria completed at the same time every year should be avoided. This type of approach

simply fails to produce any useful information for individual or organizational

improvement.

Other biases include giving preferential treatment to some but not all staff, rating all staff

the same, being overly lenient or overly harsh toward some or all staff, and practicing

conscious or unconscious racial or gender prejudice.

Adopting a format that includes the standards of clarity, openness, and fairness and that

involves more than one appraiser may help to control some of these biases.

Productivity and Rewards

Appraisal systems are related to institutional productivity requirements. Appraisal

systems are expected to reveal under-productive units and to serve as a response system

to focus attention on problem areas. Appraisal systems should also function to reward

productive units and staff.

One of the most crucial response systems is the institution's reward structure.

Hypothetically, performance appraisal is used to reward productive staff through upward

salary adjustments. While salary adjustment may be fixed, especially in state institutions,

alternative reward structures may be initiated by departments to recognize productive

staff. Concerns with under-productive staff may be addressed through targeted staff

development activities or through other means as appropriate.

Appraiser Leadership Attributes

Supervisor or appraiser behavior may be more important than the format used in the

performance appraisal system. Appraisers who act like leaders in their organization are

more likely to experience successful results from the appraisal system than will

appraisers who behave as non-leaders.

Leaders can model desired behavior and prescribe behavior sought from staff. This

modeling carries the advantage of organizational prestige and power associated with the

position.

Designing an Appraisal System

With the above discussion in mind, appraisers and supervisors should design appraisal

systems that are congruent with individual departmental and institutional contexts. Brown

(1989) offers that the following questions be addressed when designing an appraisal

system:

Is the chief student affairs officer committed to performance appraisal?

Are staff members involved in determining the appraisal criteria and standards?

Are the organizational goals of student affairs and subunits integrated into the appraisal

plan?

Are staff members involved in planning and implementation of the appraisal process?

Is the appraisal process congruent with the organizational climate and the management

style of the administrators?

Have adequate job descriptions based on job analysis been written?

Have weights or priorities been assigned to job expectations?

Is available expertise being employed for consultation?

Is the purpose of the performance appraisal system clearly articulated and congruent with

the staff and management needs and expectations?

Has a process been worked out to monitor and evaluate the system?

Practical Approaches to Performance Appraisal

Creamer and Janosik (in press) note that performance appraisal is not about a single

event, such as completing a standard review form, but rather a process that is ongoing.

Appraisal activities, as an ongoing process, should connect the process to organizational

functioning and have as their focus staff improvement, not simply salary adjustment

and/or disciplinary action. Davis (2001) proposed a model of performance appraisal for

use in student affairs that includes three phases: Getting started/renewal, Achievement,

and Evaluation. The model includes detailed suggestions for conducting an appraisal

interview.

Creamer and Janosik outline several approaches to performance appraisal, including

behavior based approaches, results-focused approaches, and appraisals of team

performance.

Behavior-Based Approaches

These approaches tend to use specific performance factors to evaluate staff. Measures of

performance can be either quantitative or qualitative.

One approach is the conventional rating scale. These scales use words or phrases to

describe the degree to which certain behaviors or characteristics are displayed. Categories

for behaviorally anchored scales can be created from job descriptions. If there are no

appropriate behaviors or characteristics within job descriptions, supervisors should work

with staff to determine what behaviors and characteristics would be most useful in an

appraisal setting.

Another way of approaching this type of appraisal is the behaviorally anchored scale. In

this approach, broad categories of practice are identified, ideally through collaborations

between supervisors and staff. Specific job behaviors are then linked to the categories.

Measures of staff member behavior are rated on a scale in relation to specific behavior

items, such as "understands department functions."

Henderson (1980) notes that job-dimensions usually yield similar broad categories, such

as planning, setting priorities, and responsiveness to supervision. Categories such as these

may be useful in framing evaluation criteria in this approach to appraisal.

Another means of approaching behavior-based appraisal is the is the behavioral

frequency scale. Here, desired behaviors are described and the staff member is evaluated

on how often those behaviors occur.

The weighted checklist is another way of approaching behavior-based appraisal. This

method provides a list of performance related statements that are weighted. Staff

members are judged on a scale indicating the degree to which the statement accurately

describes performance.

A final approach to behavior-based appraisal is the forced-choice method. Here, a list of

performance related statements about job performance are evaluated on how well they

discriminate among staff and how important they are to unit or institutional performance.

Discrimination and desirability statements are placed on a grid in clusters that differ on

discrimination but are closely related in desirability. Discrimination and desirability are

multiplied to yield a total scale score.

Results-Focused Approaches –

Creamer and Janosik (in press) note that there are both advantages and disadvantages to

results-based performance appraisal approaches. On the positive side, they produce short

and long-term results in the context of original performance and organizational

objectives, are generally perceived as fair, tend to generate high levels of commitment to

the organization, and they encourage a high level of participation and are thus defensible.

On the negative side, they can be overly results oriented - especially in educational

organizations, and they may be inflexible.

If supervisors determine that the advantages outweigh disadvantages, results-focused

approaches may be incorporated. There are two general techniques of enacting results-

focused approaches: Management by Objectives (MBO) and Accountabilities and

Measures (Grote, 1996).

MBO emphasizes participation by all organization members. Grote identifies the

following core elements in MBO:

Formation of trusting and open communication throughout the organization

Mutual problem solving and negotiations in the establishment of objectives

Creation of win-win relationships

Organizational rewards and punishments based on job-related performance and

achievement

Minimal uses of political games, forces, and fear

Development of a positive, proactive, and challenging organizational climate

Additionally, Grote defines eight steps in the MBO Process:

Formulate long-range goals and strategic plans

Develop overall organizational objectives

Establish derivative objectives for major operating units

Set realistic and challenging objectives and standards of performance for members of the

organization

Formulate action plans for achieving the stated objectives

Implement the action plans and take corrective action when required to ensure the

attainment of objectives

Periodically review performance against established goals and objectives

Appraise overall performance, reinforce behavior, and strengthen motivation. Begin the

cycle again

Supervisors need to ensure that appraisal processes are congruent with objectives and

goals. An MBO rating form needs to provide space to list staff member objectives in

order of importance, as well as space for the evaluator to describe staff member

performance using a mutually agreed upon scale. Categories of performance can include:

distinguished performance, competent performance, provisional performance, and

inadequate performance.

Accountabilities and Measures approaches involve the supervisor and staff member

agreeing on accountability and performance factors and including them in the job

description. Performance is then forecast for each factor to enable quantifiable measures

for each factor. An Accountabilities and Measures form can be created, with performance

factor categories.

Appraisals of Team Performance

Creamer and Janosik (in press) acknowledge that much of today's work is done in

collaborative arrangements. The successful performance of such teams can be critical to

achieving organizational objectives and goals. Thus, appraisal of team and team member

performance should be integrated into team-based activities.

Appraising teams and team members can, however, be problematic. Creamer and Janosik

suggest a team appraisal matrix in which team members are listed on a vertical

dimension, and specific tasks on the horizontal. Such an arrangement reelects individual

performance, and collectively reflects the overall team performance.

Team appraisal approaches assume, of course, that specific team performance objectives

have been agreed upon, as well as individual expectations within the team. Ideally, the

process of team performance evaluation will identify not only team performance, but

individual deficiencies and paths of corrective action

Communicating With Employees

Part 1: Listening, Commenting, and Questioning

Listening:

This is the building block for successful communication, yet most of us are rather poor

listeners. Instead of listening, we start thinking of whether or not we agree with what the

other person has said, or we being thinking of our own response. Thankfully, listening is

a skill that can be learned and developed.

Some pointers include:

Don’t interrupt unless to seek clarification.

Don’t continually glance at your watch or the clock.

Don’t judge or criticize.

Do make eye contact and stay interested in what the employee is saying.

Do watch the employee’s facial expressions and body movements for hidden messages.

Do summarize by saying what you think the employee is feeling (empathy is the key to

good listening).

Commenting:

This is a necessary part of all discussions because is sustains a comfortable, related flow

of conversations. Several effective types of comments include:

Restatement (of what the employee said).

Refocus from the negative to the positive.

Reflect feelings (demonstrates empathy).

Redirect a stalled conversation.

Rethink a situation (e.g., when an employee tries to “pass the buck”).

Questioning:

This is the best way to get information from an employee. Different types of questions

will yield different responses. Some examples of techniques include:

Restrictive or closed-ended questions.

Open-ended questions.

Hypothetical or open-ended problem questions.

Compare and contrast questions.

Questions that involve a choice in/of responses.

Part 2: Praising and Criticizing Performance

Praising Performance:

Giving praise frequently, confidently, and constructively is a skill you can learn.

Complimenting good performance is as important as constructively criticizing poor

performance. Compliments give employees “positive reinforcement” which encourages

them to repeat the action that earned praise. When giving praise, remember to:

Be specific.

Be direct.

Do it often.

Say if first (not in response to their praise of you).

Give it publicly whenever possible.

Praise the behavior rather than the person.

Criticizing Performance:

Be constructive, not destructive. When giving constructive criticism, remember to:

Be specific.

Offer suggestions about what to do instead.

Encourage the employee. Be willing to work with the employee to improve the situation.

Give your support, but remain firm.

Avoid name-calling and inflammatory language.

Base any review of unsatisfactory performance on facts, not opinions or 3rd party input.

Part 3: Handling Defensiveness

While a certain amount of defensiveness is inevitable, much of it can be avoided by

bearing a few things in mind:

Attack the problem, not the employee (use examples of behavior exhibited in the

workplace, rather than attacking a personality trait or the like).

Choose your words carefully (use positive words like “development opportunity” and

“growth opportunity,” rather than such negative words as “failure” or “inadequacy”).

Keep your cool and avoid any form of “counterattack.” Redirect the conversation, if

possible.

Two Legally Ambiguous Words to Avoid at Appraisal Time

“Attitude” Bad: Ryan has a bad attitude.

Better: Ryan’s negative comments are unproductive.

Best: Ryan’s negative comments during departmental meetings are

unprofessional and this behavior results in an unproductive environment in which the rest

of the team must then work. We have discussed this previously, but Ryan has made

limited attempts to redirect his frustration into more productive behavior.

“Personality” Bad: Lori’s personality is not suited for work in our department.

Better: Lori’s negative comments make everyone feel that she just doesn’t

“fit in” with our work group.

Best: Lori’s caustic comments during co-worker interactions have

resulted in her alienating most of her department members. As a result, Lori has had great

difficulty integrating herself into our team. Further, despite repeated discussions about

her abrasive comments, Lori has made few, if any, strides in improving her behavior or

mending relationships with her co-workers.

RECOGNITION

Mastek capabilities and performance have earned it several accolades, direct and indirect,

among which are:

Mastek has been awarded the prestigious

Jamanalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business

Practices in 2005

The award, instituted in 1988 recognizes and

applauds efforts of business houses and business

associations with an exemplary record of

practising and promoting fair business practices

Among top 20 Indian IT companies as per

NASSCOM survey 2004

Mastek has been assigned a composite rating of

5A2 by D&B in 2004

Overall, 5A2 indicates a Financially sound and

Low risk trading record

Awarded the ‘Best Solution developed on .NET

by an Indian SI’ in 2003

Mastek has continuously ranked among

technology companies in a CLSA study on

corporate governance, in the last 4 consecutive

years i.e. 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004 among 25

emerging markets including Asia, Eastern

Europe, Latin America & South Africa

CONCLUSION

Performance-related discussions between bosses and subordinates do not require a

formal, full-blown performance appraisal system. Indeed, it can be argued that the real

coaching and counseling sessions that shape and improve employee performance occur

informally, outside such systems. The same can be said of goal setting and feedback. It is

also questionable if much of what passes for feedback in formal performance appraisal

sessions is deserving of the term.

Moreover, keeping book on poor performers does not require an elaborate, formal

performance appraisal system. Worse, the books kept on those who are not poor

performers can backfire in court. As Craig Brooks wrote, "The typical, traditional

performance appraisal is worthless and, in fact, lawyers have told me the appraisal itself

quite often is management’s worst enemy in disciplinary grievances and court

challenges." Brooks is not alone. Several people pointed out that performance appraisal

systems might increase, not decrease the costs of appeals, grievances, and lawsuits. The

legal protection provided by performance appraisal systems seems questionable.

Perhaps the greatest cost of all is that performance appraisal systems silently mock senior

executives who call for change. This is embarrassingly apparent when initiative after

initiative pleads to have the performance appraisal system changed to support its aims.

Such pleas offer compelling testimony that performance appraisal systems are seen as a

basic device for getting individuals to comply with the aims of management. This

emphasis on compliance is the status quo that such systems maintain, no matter how

much they are redesigned. This emphasis is out of place in a world where the ability to

elicit contributions from employees matters more than the ability to ensure compliance.

As a purely practical matter, given the time lag between changes in the aims of

management and changes to performance appraisal systems to support those new aims, it

seems unlikely that changes to performance appraisal systems can keep pace.

Hence, performance appraisal systems could be eliminated with no harm done and with

great economic and emotional benefit. Consequently, change-minded executives should

not listen to pleas to redesign their company’s performance appraisal system but should

instead give serious thought to scrapping it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

www.google.com.

www.yahoo.com

www.rediff.com.

www.hindu.com.

www.indexmundi.com.

www.hindustan times.com.

************************************************************************