A Project Report OnPerformance Appraisal Technique A Comparative StudyS!"#TT$% !&'yoti &adavRoll (o) **#( PART#A+ ,+,#++"$(T O, R$-#R$"$(T ,OR T.$ A/AR% O,POST 0RA%AT$ %#P+O"A #( !S#($SS "A(A0$"$(T 12332423356(%$R T.$ 0#%A(C$O,"r7 SA('A& S#(0.($/ %$+.# #(ST#TT$ O, "A(A0$"$(T8 T0.+A9A!A%($/ %$+.# 4 :2CERTIFICATE This is to hereby certify that this work ofproject studyonPerformance Appraisal Technique AComparative Study!is an originak work done byJyoti Yadav,Roll No. 55, student of !"#$rogra%%eat the"e# $elhi Institute of %ana&ement. Thisdissertationis inpartial ful&ll%ent of there'uire%entfor the award of !"#$as per the guidelines of theNew "elhi (nstitute of $anage%ent and )(*T+',ignature of ,tudent ,ignature of roject !uide( %r' San)ay Sin&h *2CONTENTS Acknowledgement Executive SummaryI. Introductiona. Theory on Performance AppraisalII. Research ethodologya. Pro!lem!. Rational of Pro!lemc. "aria!led. #!$ective e. Scope of Surveyf. Research %esigng. Area of Informationh. Psychological Tooli. Sample Si&e$. Precautions3III. 'ompany ProfileI". Results and %iscussions ". 'onclusion( )imitations and Implications References Annexurea. Sample *uestionnaire!. Ta!ulation4AKNOWLEDGEMENTSincere gratitude to my internalguideMr.Sanjay Singh( forguiding me throughout the course of the pro$ect.I would also like to thank Dr. M Adhikary, Director New Dehi!n"tit#te o$ Manage%ent( for giving me this opportunity to do my+inal pro$ect.)ast !ut not the least I would like to thank my friends( and allthose who have helped me to complete this pro$ect. &'yoti (ada)*5E+EC,T!-E S,MMA.(This report is !ased on the pro$ect/0er$or%ance A11rai"aTechni2#e3A Co%1arati)e St#dy4.The main o!$ective of this pro$ect is to determine whether theperformance appraisal systemused in ,')( E-) and Polaris areeffective. This is done !y undertaking a survey on the satisfaction ofthe employees on their appraisal techni.ue.The research is conducted on a sample si&e of /0 employees from ,')(E-) and Polaris. The pro$ect is done !ased on three dimensionsnamely( company performance appraisal system( supervision( andclarity of role of the employee. The techni.ues used in theseorgani&ationsarestudiedandanaly&edandcomparedwiththat ofPolaris. The Research %esign adopted is an exploratory one. Primary data iscollected using a feed!ack form( annual reports and online resourceshave !een used as secondary data( and these data has !een analy&edand interpreted !y using statistical and graphical representations. 6After analy&ing the results we see that the appraisal techni.ue that areused in ,') and E-) are not on par with the system that is used inPolaris. 7C5A0TE. !!NT.OD,CT!ON80E.6O.MANCE A00.AS!AL A performance appraisalhas !een defined as any personneldecisionthat affects the status of employee regarding their retention(termination( promotion( transfer( salary increase or decrease( oradmission into a training program. Performance appraisal is a systematic evaluation of present andpotential capa!ilities of personnel and employees !y their superiors( ora professional from outside. It is a process of estimating or $udging thevalue( excellent .ualitiesor statusof apersonor athing. It isaprocessof collecting( analy&ing( andevaluatingdatarelatedto$o!!ehavior and results of individuals. The appraisal system is organi&edon the principle of goals and management !y o!$ectives. anagementdecisions on performance utili&e severalintegrated inputs1 goals andplans( $o! evaluation( performance evaluation( and individual history.Performance appraisal can !e either formal or informal. +ormal systemis used for schedule regular sessions in which an employee2sperformanceisdiscussed. Informal appraisalsareunplanned( often$ust chance statements made in passing a!out an employee2sperformance. ost organi&ations use a formal appraisal system. Someorgani&ation use more than one appraisal system for different types ofemployees or for different appraisalpurposes. #rgani&ations need to9measure employees performance to determine whether accepta!lestandards of performance are !eing maintained. The six primarycriteriaonwhichthevalueof performancemay!eassessedare1.uality( .uantity( timeliness( cost effectiveness( need for supervision(and interpersonalimpact. The trendnowadays is in the directionofattempting to measure what the man does rather than what he is3 tomeasure what is the output rather than what is the input. Theo!servations and understanding of the performance appraisal processhelped reduce a monumental task into something much moremanagea!le. !%1ortance o$ 0er$or%ance A11rai"a3To estimate the overall effectiveness of employees in performing their$o!s(3To identify strengths and weakness in $o! knowledge and skills(3To determine whether a su!ordinate2s responsi!ilities can !eexpended(3To identify future training and development needs(3To review progress toward goals and o!$ectives(3To determine readiness for promotion(3To motivate and guide growth and development.O7jecti)e" O$ 1er$or%ance A11rai"a10Performance appraisalplans are designed to meetthe needs of theorgani&ation and the individual. It is increasingly viewed as central togood human resource management. The !road o!$ectives ofperformances appraisal are14. To help the employee to over come his weaknesses and improvehis strengths so as to ena!le himto achieve the desiredperformance.5. To generate ade.uate feed!ack and guidance form theimmediate superior to an employee working under him.6. Tocontri!utetothegrowthanddevelopment of anemployeethrough helping him in realistic goal setting.7. To provide inputs to systemof rewards 8comprising salaryincrement( transfer( promotions( demotions or terminations9 andsalary administration.0. Tohelp in creating a desira!le culture and tradition in theorgani&ation./. To help the origination to identify employee for the purpose ofmotivating( training:. Togenerate significant( relevant( free( and valid informationa!out employees.11 In !rief( the main purposes of performance appraisal are1 3To review past performance;3To assess training needs;3To help develop individuals;3To audit the skills with in organi&ation;3To set targets for future performance;3To identify potential for promotion.

In short( the performance appraisal of an organi&ationprovides systematic $udgments to !ackup wage and salaryadministration; suggests needed changes in one2s !ehavior(attitudes( skills( or $o! knowledge; and uses it as a !ase forcoaching and counseling the individual!y his superior. Appraisingemployee performance is useful for compensation( placement( anddevelopment purposes.12Ty1e" o$ 0er$or%anceA11rai"a3 There are two types ofperformance appraisal systems which are commonly used inorgani&ations1 4. 'lose ended appraisal system( and 5. #pen ended appraisal system.8. Co"e ended a11rai"a "y"te%9 This system commonly used in( ontraitsand=or!ehavior such as intelligence( neatness( and .uantity of workaccomplished. Thetermusedtodefinetheoldest andmostwidely used performance appraisal method. The evaluators are given a graph and asked to rate the employees on each of the characteristics. The num!er of characteristics can vary from one to one hundred. The rating can !e a matrix of !oxes for the14evaluator tocheckoff or a!ar graphwheretheevaluatorchecked off a location relative to the evaluators rating. ;. Si%1e ranking %ethod9 the oldest and simplest method ofperformance appraisal is to compare one man with all other manandplacehim ina simple rankorder.Inthiswayorderingisdone from the !est to worst on their perceived performances.The termranking has !een used to descri!e an alternativemethod of performance appraisal where the supervisor has !eenaskedto orderhisorheremployeesinterms ofperformancefrom highest to lowest. The method is !oth simple and natural!ut its disadvantages are14. It is highly su!$ective(5. 'omparison of the various components of a person2sperformance is not done. People are compared as a whole(6. Themagnitudeof differences ina!ility!etweenranks isnote.ual anddifferent position. +or instance( the differences ina!ility !etween the fifth and sixth individual may !e muchgreater in a!solute terms then the differences !etween the sixth15and seventh. In terms of ranks( however( the differences!etween these individual is the same.7. Its use is difficult in large groups when the rater cannot compareseveral people simultaneously. As an answer to this pro!lem thepaired comparison method of ranking has !een evolved. In thismethod the rater compares each man in his groups with everyother man( with the final ranking of each worker determine !ythe num!er of times he was $udged !etter then the other. Thenum!er of comparisons involvedinthismethodisthusvarylarge and can !e determined !y the following formula1?um!er of comparison@ ? 8?349 =5( where ? stands for the no.of man to !e rated.C.6orcedchoice%ethod9This methodcom!ines ratingwithscoring systemand re.uires the evaluator to choose amongdescriptions of employee !ehavior3scored according to a key. Thisappraisal method has !een developed to prevent evaluators fromrating employees to high. Asing this method( the evaluator has toselect fromaset of descriptivestatements that applytotheemployee. The statements have !een weighted and summed toat( effectiveness index. In this manner !ias is removed from theappraisal process. In a research study( it was found that the use16offorced3choiced scaleeffectively eliminatedtheleniencyerrorwhile the use of a graphic scale format ena!led !ias to !eintroduced. There are certain disadvantage of the forced3choicescaling( and !ecause of these disadvantages( its use is notwidespread.D.Weighted Checki"t %ethod9This term used to descri!e aperformanceappraisal methodwheresupervisors or personnelspecialists familiar with the $o!s !eing evaluated prepared a largelist of descriptive statements a!out effective and ineffective!ehavior on $o!s.The method hasthe advantages of re.uiringonly a reporting of facts from the rater. Since the values assignedto different statements do not appear on the list( the rater doesnot knowhowhighly he has rated a giving individual. Theo!$ections to this method are1 It is difficult to construct a good check3list( A separate check3list is needed for each $o! !ecausestatements used in one check3list to evaluate one category ofworkers cannot !e used inanother check3list to evaluateother category of workers.17 Sincetheraterdoesnotknowthevaluegiventodifferentstatements( he may resent the system as a whole and maynot give it his whole3hearted support.E. Critica incident"9This techni.ue of performance appraisalwasdeveloped!y+lanaganandBurns. Ander thisprocedureraters identify critical positive and negative employee2sperformance 8Behaviorally anchored rating scales can !e derivedfrom these9. The term used to descri!e a method of performanceappraisal that made lists of statements of very effective and veryineffective !ehavior for employees. The lists have !een com!inedinto categories( which vary with the $o!. #nce the categories had!een developed and statements of effective and ineffective!ehaviorhad!eenprovided( theevaluatorpreparedalogforeach employee. %uring the evaluation period( the evaluatorrecorded examples of critical !ehaviors in each of the categories(and the log has !een use to evaluate the employee at the end ofthe evaluation period. 6. 6orced Di"tri7#tion9 The term used to descri!e an appraisalsystem similar to grading on a curve.The evaluator had !eenasked to rate employees in some fixed distri!ution of categories.#ne way to do this has !een to type the name of each employee18onacardandasktheevaluatorstosortthecardsintopilescorresponding to rating. G. 0aired Co%1ari"on9The term used to descri!e an appraisalmethod for ranking employees. +irst( the names of theemployees to !e evaluated have !een placed on separate sheetsin a pre3determined order( so that each person has !eencompared with all other employees to !e evaluated. Theevaluator then checks the person he or she felt had !een the!etter of the two on the criterion for each comparison. Typicallythe criterion has !een the employees over alla!ility to do thepresent $o!. The num!er of times a person has !een preferred istallied( andthetallydevelopedisanindexof thenum!er ofpreferences compared to the num!er !eing evaluated. 5. 6ied .e)iew9 Chen there is reason to suspect rater !ias orwhensomeratersappear to!eusinghigher standardsthanothers( graphicratingsareoftencom!inedwithasystematicreview process. The field review is one of several techni.ues fordoingthis.The personnel officer meetssmallgroups of ratersfrom each supervisory unit and goes over each employee2s ratingwith them to 8a9 identify areas of inter3rater disagreement( 8!9helpthegrouparriveataconsensus( and8c9determinethateach rater conceives of the standards similarly.19This method is not widely used !ecause supervisors generallywhat theyconsider thestaff interference. Theprocessisalsovery time3consuming.!. Narrati)e or E""ay E)a#ation9The techni.ue is verycommon for appraising individuals for professional positions. Inthese method employees performances are descri!ed in essays.This appraisal method asked the evaluator to descri!e strengthsand weaknesses of an employeeDs !ehavior. The !iggestdraw!ack of this techni.ue is the varia!ility of account( in lengthand content. ,ence it is difficult to compare two of account essayappraisals. Somecompanies still usethis methodexclusively(whereas inothers( themethodhas !eencom!inedwiththegraphic rating scale.:. .e"#t9Oriented A11rai"aThe result3oriented appraisals are !ased on the concreteperformance targets which are usually esta!lished !y superiorandsu!ordinates$ointly.Thisprocedurehas!eenknownasanagement !y #!$ectives8B#9.20A* Manage%ent 7y O7jecti)e" &M;O*3 According to the %r.3degree evaluation is a common toolin human resourcemanagement. Simplyput( it is amechanismfor evaluatingsomeoneDs performance !ased on feed!ack from everyone withwhom the individual comes in contactFsupervisors( coworkers(partners( su!ordinates( the generalpu!lic. It isa method ofcollecting input from many sources in an employeeDsenvironment. This can !e a powerful tool. Each of wants to know how weDredoing in our work. This method of collecting evaluative input is26anexcellent sourceof motivationfor employees !ecauseitprovides a truly honest assessment of how the employee andher performance are viewed !y a variety of constituents. The 6/>3degree method uses confidential input frommanypeople who can truly respond to how an employee performs onthe $o!. The supervisor and employee meet to discuss thefeed!ack received. This type of feed!ack helps employees see themselves as otherssee them and allows them to seriously examine their !ehavior. Itcan reveal areas in which employees are performing particularlywell and those areas in which there is room for improvement. Itprovides informationof which neither the employee nor thesupervisor may!eaware. Specificinput allowsemployeestoad$ust their performance.The most challenging aspect of the 6/>3degree evaluation is theevaluatorsD concern a!out confidentiality. Chen implementingthis type of evaluation( itDs !est to assure other employees thatwhat they share will remain strictly confidential. )ikewise(explaintoeachemployeethat hewill !eevaluated!ymanypeople( including those who know his work !est. 27Thisreviewprocessisalsohelpful forthesupervisor.It canprovide a more accurate assessment of an employeeDsperformance and help eliminate accusations of favoritism. The6/>3degree process provides greater o!$ectivity. And !ecausethe feed!ack is su!mitted anonymously( it provides asupervisor withthemost un!iasedandaccurateinformationfrom which to draw performance conclusions.ost people are not a!le to see clearly how their performanceis either enhancing the work situation for others or detractingfrom it.This performance evaluation method can help revealthese areas and allow us to improve the way we do our $o!(there!y creating greater harmony and !etter productivity in theworkplace. The 6/>3degree evaluation will help employeesidentify their strengths so they can !uild on them at the sametime it addresses their skill gaps. It is a process that leads tocontinuous learning( team!uilding( growing self3confidenceand improved productivity.Sounds like a winning system( rightG It can !e( !ut yourorgani&ationmust !ereadytoaccept thechangefromthetraditional methodof employeeevaluation. Hour formal andinformal leaders must !uy in to this idea and see the value of28its adoption. Some .uestions you should ask yourself includethe following19Degree $eed7ack1 Increases self3knowledge Encourages continuous learning Stimulates individuals to enhance their strengths Identifies areas that need development Provides guidance for positive change Supports coaching and mentoring initiatives;ene$it"ay improve service to customers if they are a!le to offer feed!acktotheemployee. 6/>%egree+eed!ackoffersamorecompletepicture of the employeeDs performance. This feed!ack can provideguidance on skills that an employee may need to develop. 5ow it i" cond#cted38.De)eo12#e"tionnaireA.uestionnaireusedfor 6/>%egree+eed!ack typically contains items that are rated on a 0 point scale.These items may !e developed to measure different dimensions of29$o! performance 8e.g.( communication( teamwork( leadership(initiative( $udgment ...9:.En"#re con$identiaity o$ 1artici1ant" Steps must !e taken toensure the confidentiality of the feed!ack results. Theconfidentiality helps ensure that the results are genuine.

%egree +eed!ack is and why it is !eing implemented at yourorgani&ation.A.Ad%ini"ter the $eed7ack 2#e"tionnaire%istri!ute.uestionnaire forms with instructions. B.AnayCe the data Basic data analysis would include averages ofratings. ore complicated analyses may include item3analysisand=or factor3analysis.30=.De)eo1andDi"tri7#te.e"#t"+eed!ackresultsshould!esharedwiththeemployee. It shouldnot !emandatorythat theemployee share the results with their supervisor.Error" in 0er$or%ance A11rai"a%ifferences in perceptions and value system influenceevaluations. Individualrater !ias can seriously compromise thecredi!ility of an appraisal. Some of the common syndromes are14. 5ao E$$ect3 This is a tendency to let the assessment of asingle trait influence the evaluation of the individual on othertraits too. +or example( anemployeedemonstrates highdegree dependa!ility and from this !ehavior( a compara!lehigh degree integrity is inferred.5. 5orn" E$$ect3 This is a tendency to allow one negative traitof employee to colour the entire appraisal. This result in anoverall lower rating then may !e warranted.6. Leniency or Con"tant Error3 %epending upon theappraiser2s on value system which acts as performance ofthe employees. Some appraisers constantly assign highvalues to all employees( regardless of merit. This is a)eniencyError.Thestrictnesstendencyreversesituation(31where all individuals are rated too severely and performanceis understated.7. Centra Tendency3 This is the most common error thatoccurs when a rater assigns mainly a middle range scores orvalues to all individuals under appraisal. Extremely high orextremely low evaluations are avoided !y assigning Iaveragerating2 to all.0. S1i9o)er E$$ect3 This refers to allowing past performanceto influence the evaluation of present performance./. 0er"ona ;ia"3 Perhaps themost important error of allarisesfromthefact theveryfewpeoplearecapa!leofo!$ective $udgment entirely independent of values andpre$udices. A11roache" to 0er$or%ance A11rai"a"9There have !een twoprevalent approaches to performance appraisal1Traditiona a11roach9Thisapproachhasalso!eenknownastheorgani&ational or overall approach. The traditional approach has!een primarily concerned with the overallorgani&ation and has!een involved with past performance. 0#r1o"e" o$ Traditiona 0er$or%ance A11rai"a" 32Performance appraisal for evaluation using the traditional approach hasserved the following purposes14. Promotion( separation( and transfer decisions 5. +eed!ack to the employee regarding how the organi&ationviewed the employeeDs performance 6. Evaluations of relativecontri!utions made!yindividuals andentire departments in achieving higher level organi&ation goals 7. 'riteria for evaluating the effectiveness of selection andplacement decisions( including the relevance of the informationused in the decisions within the organi&ation 0. Reward decisions( includingmerit increases( promotions( andother rewards /. Ascertaining and diagnosing training and development decisions :. 'riteria for evaluating the success of training and developmentdecisions J. Information upon which work scheduling plans( !udgeting( andhuman resources planning can !e used Two serious flaws in the traditional approach to performance appraisalexist. The flaws are1 33 #rgani&ational performance appraisal is typically primarilyconcerned with the past rather than !eing forward lookingthrough the use of setting o!$ectives or goals. Performanceappraisal isusuallytiedtotheemployeesD salaryreview. %ealing with salary generally overwhelmed and !lockedcreative( meaningful( or comprehensive consideration ofperformance goals.De)eo1%enta a11roach9Thisapproachviewedtheemployeesasindividuals and has !een forward looking through the use of goalsetting. De)eo1%enta 0er$or%ance A11rai"a 0#r1o"e" The developmental approach to performance appraisal has !eenrelated to employees as individuals. This approach has !een concernedwith the use of performance appraisalas a contri!utor to employeemotivation( development( and human resources planning. Thedevelopment approach contained all of the traditional overallorgani&ational performance appraisal purposes and the followingadditional purposes1 344. Provided employees the opportunity to formally indicate thedirection and level of the employeeDs am!ition 5. Show organi&ational interest in employee development( which wascited to help the enterprise retain am!itious( capa!le employeesinstead of losing the employees to competitors 6.Provided a structure for communications !etween employees andmanagement to help clarify expectations of the employee !ymanagement and the employee 7. Provide satisfaction and encouragement to the employee who has!een trying to perform well.The 0er$or%ance A11rai"a 0roce"" Theperformanceappraisal process typicallyconsists of four inter3related steps as follows14. Esta!lish a common understanding !etween the manager8evaluator9 and employee 8evaluate9 regarding workexpectations; mainly( the work to !e accomplished and how thatwork is to !e evaluated. 5. #ngoingassessment of performanceandtheprogressagainstworkexpectation. Provisions should!emadefor theregularfeed!ack of informationtoclarify andmodify thegoals and35expectations( to correct unaccepta!le performance !efore it wastoo late( and to reward superior performance with proper praiseand recognition. 6. +ormal documentation of performance through the completion ofaperformance anddevelopmentappraisalformappropriatetothe $o! family. 7. The formalperformance and development appraisaldiscussion(!ased on the completed appraisal formand ending in theconstruction of a %evelopment Plan. ED1ectation" o$ a Manager in doing a 0er$or%ance A11rai"a Thefollowingis typically expectedfromcompanymanagers whendoing performance appraisals1 4. Translate organi&ational goals into individual $o! o!$ective. 5. 'ommunicatemanagementDs expectations regardingemployeeperformance. 6. Provide feed!ack to the employee a!out $o! performance in lightof managementDs o!$ectives. 7. 'oach the employee on how to achieve $o!o!$ectives=re.uirements. 360. %iagnose the employeeDs strengths and weaknesses. /. %eterminewhatkindof development activitiesmighthelptheemployee !etter utili&e his or her skills improve performance onthe current $o!.Why 0er$or%ance A11rai"a o$ten $ai" anagers often resist 8passively or actively9 ay havelimitedcontact withsu!ordinate; may!epoor atgiving feed!ack Su!ordinates poor at receiving feed!ack anagers often view it as wasted paperwork( especially ifnothing comes of their efforts Interfere with their KcoachingK function they prefer anagers fear the emotions that can !e unleashed; may fear not!eing a!le to defend ratings To !e very legally defensi!le a system would have these components1 Employee participation in esta!lishing performance standards Standards !ased on critical elements of $o!( clearly recorded inwriting 37 Employee advised of critical re.uirements !efore the appraisal System should not !e !ased on interpersonal comparisons 8eg.curve9 Performance appraisal done in writing at least annually Results tied to personnel decisions Employees allowed to respond to charge orally and in writing Appraisers must !e provided training Performance appraisal system evaluated and refined asnecessary The actual experience with Performance appraisal is not encouraging Employees are often less certain a!out where they stand afterthe interview Employees evaluated supervisors less favora!ly after theinterview than !efore it 38 +ew constructive actions or significant improvements result frominterviews Typical managers have limited contact with su!ordinates anagers often resist conducting PA program !%1ro)ing the De"ign o$ the A11rai"a Sy"te%3 ,nco#1e E)a#ation and De)eo1%ent3any appraisalsystems inadvertently force the mixing of the roles of $udge andhelper. The open pro!lem3solving dialogue re.uired for !uilding arelationship and developing su!ordinates should !e scheduled ata different time than the meeting in which the supervisor informsthe su!ordinate a!out his=her overall evaluation and itsimplications for important rewards. Choo"e A11ro1riate 0er$or%ance Data3The !ehavior ratingscale( the critical3incident methods( and various B# techni.uesusefully guide the appraisal discussion toward reviewing specifictask!ehaviorsor accomplishments33 feed!ackwhichis!othless threatening and more helpfulto the person who wants toimprove performance. A comprehensive performancemanagement system might include B# and !ehavioral ratings33which are( respectively( a means of managing what and how ofemployee task3related !ehaviors. 39 Se1arate E)a#ation" o$ 0er$or%ance and 0otentia3'urrent performance( as measured !y the attainment of results(is not necessarily correlated with potential for promotion.Separation of assessments of performance and potentialmilitates against thesuperiorDs averaginghis=her unconsciousassessment of these .ualities and increases the likelihood of aconstructive( non3defensive dialogue. .ecogniCe !ndi)id#a Di$$erence" in Sy"te% De"ign3Persons differ intheir needs for performanceevaluationanddevelopment( e.g.( personshighinKnAchK mayre.uiremorefre.uent performance feed!ack. Cithin permissi!le !ounds(appraisal policies should permit managers to use differentmethods depending on the particular employee !eing appraised. ,1ward A11rai"a3#ne way to mitigate the inhi!itions of thesuperior3su!ordinate power im!alance is to ask su!ordinates toappraise their supervisor; this allows influencing theirenvironment( and may increases motivation to enter theappraisal process openly; provides the supervisor an opportunityto KmodelK the non3defensive !ehavior essential to a realdialogue. 40 Se$9A11rai"a3 Experiences with self3appraisal suggests that itoftenresultsinlower ratingsthanthesupervisorwouldhavegiven. ,ence( the inclusion of self3appraisal !efore their coachingor evaluation interview is likely to result in a more realistic ratingand a greater acceptance of the finalrating !y !oth ratee andrater. Way" to en"#re "%ooth 0er$or%ance A11rai"a"Good Co%%#nication9 At the core of performance appraisals liesthe need for healthy communication !etween managers andemployees. So spending time to dissolve performance3relatedpro!lemsthanevaluatingperformanceattheendof theyear iswhat works well at the time of appraisals. So when performance ofsu!ordinates is good through a year and it is communicatedproperly to the team leaders during the year( the appraisal is easyto do and comforta!le for everyone concerned. A11rai"a"a"0artner"hi19It isnot possi!lefor managerstoconstantly monitor what team mem!ers are doing and to do a fair41performance appraisal( it has to !e treated as a two3way flow ofinformation !etween su!ordinates and superiors. Co%1aringE%1oyee"9anymanagers usetheclassic tool ofpitting team mem!ers against each other. This is done to ensureevery!ody tries to deliver his or her maximum output. But this canprove to !ea negativetechni.ue( as thefocus has to !e onfostering strong team spirits to enhance collective performance.6oc#" on 0o"iti)ity, Not 6aw"9Everyone is interested inimprovements. So appraisals have to revolve around parameters forimprovements in performance. anagers need to desist frompicking out flaws in individuals. To get the !est out of people( teamleaders need to ensure that su!ordinates trust them and there is ahigh level of motivation that drives the collective effort.Linking Saary and 0er$or%ance9Allemployees need to knowhow they fared during a year regardless of whether their salary isaffected !ytheir performanceappraisal or not. It is a healthypractice and it need not !e essentially linked with a salary hike. Soan employee who may have hit a salary ceiling also needs aperformance appraisal to know how he can improve his productivityeven if this does not affect his compensation package anymore.42.atingToo"9All themanagerswhouseratingsystemneed tounderstand that it is a su!$ective mechanism and though it may !eafasterwayof doingperformanceappraisals!utitneedsto!ehandled carefully.Mea"#ring E""entia 6actor"9Evaluating the least importantthings withrespect todoinga$o!is oneof theeasiest errorscommitted !y managers. Chat is difficult to evaluate !ut critical arefactors like overall .uality of service that will get and keepcustomers. So managers need to focus on critical issues and factorsthat affect the role performed !y an individual rather thansuperficial !ehavioral issue.A)oiding A11rai"a"9anagers need to display a sense ofsincerity and commitment to the process of performance appraisalsto ensure su!ordinates feel the same way. 'anceling or postponingappraisals is not in the !est interest of either an individual or thelarger teams.S#r1ri"ingE%1oyee"9Poor communication!etweenmanagersand su!ordinates is a sure way to ensure a disastrous performanceappraisal process. This must !e avoided at all costs.Seeing!ndi)id#a"ETa"k"!nde1endenty9anymanagers!elieve that all su!ordinates and all functions can !e evaluated in43exactly the same way using the same procedures. This can haveadverse results for performance appraisals.Chat needs to !e understood is that each team mem!er and rolere.uires different treatment and is influenced !y different factors.So some su!ordinates may need specific feed!ack while others mayneed higher communication. The !ottom line is simple1performanceappraisalsarenot a!out findingflawsinindividuals!ut communicating expectations of improved performance. Itre.uires a commitment from !oth managers and su!ordinates toidentify and implement such mechanisms and processes that helpachieve high !usiness results for the company as well as maximi&eindividual performance44C5A0TE. !!.ESEA.C5 MET5ODOLOG(45.EASEA.C5 MET5ODOLOG(0ro7e%This study was undertaken to determine the satisfaction levelof theemployees with their Performance AppraisalTechni.ue. The researchliterature says that 6/> degree performance evaluation techni.ue has!eenprovednot to!everyeffective8accordingtoCatsonCyattDs5>>4 ,uman 'apital Index 8,'I99. This research is an attempt to findwhether it has!eeneffectivein,')and,SS( whencomparedtoPolaris which uses a different techni.ue. .ationae o$ 1ro7e%The following are the rationale !ehind the pro!lem. 6/>3degree feed!ack as a performance appraisal techni.ue isfound to !e not very effective. Single performance appraisal systems are found to !eineffective.-aria7eIn this study( the main varia!le was performance appraisal. To knowthe effectiveness of this techni.ue( the present study was designed to46compareandmeasurethesatisfactionlevel of theemployeeswithregards to the Performance AppraisalTechni.ue used !etween thesethree companies.O7jecti)eThemaino!$ectiveof this researchis tostudyandcomparethe0er$or%anceA11rai"a Techni2#eand measure the"ati"$actione)e of the employees with the Performance Appraisal Techni.ue ,SS(and P#)ARIS.Sco1e o$ the S#r)eyThis pro$ect was undertaken to know the extent to which theemployees of5CL, 5SS and0OLA.!S( are satisfied and happy withtheir performance appraisalsystem and environment which exists inthat organi&ation. .e"earch De"ign47A Research design is purely and simply the framework or plan for astudythat guides thecollectionandanalysis of data. Thesurveyresearch was used in this pro$ect( !ecause employees2feed!ack wasnecessary for o!taining the data. Since the pro$ect is !eing conducted in 5CL, 5SS and 0OLA.!S onsatisfaction level( in the hope of new findings( we can conclude thatthis is an IExploratory2 type of research.Area o$ !n$or%ationThestudywasto!edoneoncertainspecificareaof information.These could !e classified into1 OrganiCationa Sy"te% S#1er)i"ion .oe Carity0"ychoogicaToo The following psychological tool used in this study1EmployeesPerformanceAppraisal LSatisfaction)evel *uestionnaire8Investigated 5>>79.Thesurveyresearchwas usedinthis pro$ect( !ecauseemployeesfeed!ack was necessary for o!taining the data. 48The pro!lem areas covered in the .uestionnaire were14. #rgani&ational System L *uestions 86( 0( /( 4>( 44( 45( 46( 47( 40(4:95. Supervision L *uestions 84( 5( E96. Role 'larity L *uestions 8:( J( 4/9#rgani&ational System( Supervision and Role 'larity( of the.uestionnaire are !ased on the I)ikert Scale2 model. Sa%1e SiCe3 Thesurveywasconductedintheorgani&ation( 50respondents from each organi&ation 85CL and 5SS9 and 40respondents from0OLA.!Swere taken in this study. All theserespondents were from the executive level of the organi&ation. The sampling unit is only the employees of the organi&ation. Sampleunit consists of one employee per .uestionnaire. This survey was doneinside the organi&ation. 0reca#tion"3 The sampling used for this study was a Isimple random sampling2method. The .uestionnaire was filled !y directly meeting the employeesof the organi&ations. All the .uestions were answered !y the respondents.49C5A0TE. !!!COM0AN( 0.O6!LE50COM0AN( 0.O6!LE5CL !n$o "y"te%",') Info systems )td. is IndiaDs premier information ena!lingcompany.ProductsMservicesinclude'omputers( )aptops( Servers(Storage( Enterprise ?etworking( 'opiers( and %igital Pro$ectors M'ommunication %evices. This is !acked !y ,')Ds service supportinfrastructure 3 the widest in the country,')hasdevelopedandimplementedsolutionsfor multiplemarketsegments( across a range of technologies in India. Ce have !een inthe forefront in introducing new technologies and solutions.,') philosophy is( Kwhat gets measured( gets reviewed and what getsreviewed( gets improvedN ,') has a Performance Tracking System( adaily to weekly to monthly to .uarterly review system. This is donethrough tracking ena!lers and results. This leads to customersatisfaction 8!oth internal and external9( people satisfaction and!usiness growth.,')Ds!elief forholistic.ualityimprovement isreali&edthroughtheadoption of 6/> %egree +eed!ack. It shares a reciprocalrelationshipwith various processes facilitating continuous improvements in areas51such as selection( career planning( goal setting( reward schemes andculture.Assessments in ,') are not $ust for improvement and development(!ut are also well recogni&ed and rewarded.C#t#re,')!elievesinK)eadership!uilt onTrustK. ,')hasanopenandentrepreneurial environment. ,')ites are synonymous with passion forperformance(high needfor achievement and commitment to $o!. Acore value of high integrity with a ?ever3Say3%ie approach is ingrainedand visi!le in their people( practices and processes.Their philosophy of 'ele!rating 'ompetition and a 'aringanagement( is apparent in our efforts to maintain the .uality of worklife and a !alance of personal = professional life through fun at work.O;'ECT!-ESMANAGEMENT O;'ECT!-ESTo fuel initiative and foster activity !y allowing individuals freedom ofaction and innovation in attaining defined o!$ectives.0EO0LE O;'ECT!-ES52Tohelp people in ,') Infosystems )td. share in the companyDssuccesses( which they make possi!le; to provide $o! security !ased ontheir performance; torecogni&etheir individual achievements; andhelp them gain a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment from theirwork. CO.E -AL,ES uphold the dignity of the individual honor all commitments committed to *uality( Innovation and th %ecem!er 4EE4 with ,ughes ?etwork Systems 8,?S9( aunit of ,ughesElectronics'orporation8,A5. ,?S( a unit of,A>(>>> systemsinstalled in more than J0 countries. Cith the opening of the Indian economy in the early nineties( ,Aprofessionals and was initially focused on developing softwaresolutionsintheareasof "SAT3!asednetworksfor voiceanddata(cellular wireless telephony( packet switching and multi3protocolrouting. Cithinthreeyears( ,SSgrewto57>professionalsandin4EE0( shifted to its present campus at Electronic 'ity( >professionalsworkoncuttingedgetechnologies at six state3of3the3art facilities near ?ew %elhi(Bangalore( IndiaDs Silicon "alley and ?urem!erg( employees( 55 offices in 46 countries( / Softwareengineering 'enters inIndia anda Business 'ontinuity 'enter inSingapore(Polaris is rightsi&ed for providing maximum valueto itscustomersPassion for excellence in people practices is primarily fuelled !y their!elief inthepower of peopleware. PeoplePractices areconstantlygeared towards providing our associates with terrific workenvironment( unlimited scope for personal growth( tremendouslearning opportunities( opportunity to work in cutting edge57technologies( empowerment to charter their own careers( andexcellent rewards.Lak"hya Mo)e%entPolaris prides itself( as a )akshya3driven #rgani&ation. )akshya is oneof the most powerful mechanisms that we have evolved for theorgani&ational goal settingprocess. Themostremarka!lefeatureofthe )akshya process is that all associates of Polaris are involved in thisprocess of organi&ational introspection and collective visioning. Everyyear( fromthepast 0years( teams across theorganisationcometogether for !rainstorming sessions and contri!ute to the refinementof growth strategies)akshyahappens inthreestages1 pre3)akshya( )akshyaandpost3)akshyaPre3)akshya 3 #pen3Space Corkshops with Process +acilitation done !ythe 'E# and Business )eadership Team. %iscussion on challenges andvision for the next 6 to 0 years are held.)akshya3 This is a 63day off3site exercise involving Ponarks and Topanagement participation.)eading anagement 'onsultants too58invited. Pre3)akshya inputs are carried forward to )akshya. The energyand passion unleashed at this event defies description omentous andPath3Breaking Business %ecision taken here.Post3)akshya3 Its all a!out communicatingthe vision!ack to thepeople.It completes the Process of Bottom3Ap self3examination.59C5A0TE. !-.ES,LTS AND D!SC,SS!ON60.ES,LTS AND D!SC,SS!ONSDe"cri1tion o$ the %ea"#re3#rgani&ational System is a standard 4> item measure designedtoassess theextent that inwhichorgani&ation2semployeearesatisfied with their performance appraisal system. Respondentsindicatetheir extent of agreement ona0pointscale 88F"trongy di"agree, BF"trongy agree9( henceevaluation is on a scale of 4> to 0>( with an average of 6>( suchthat a high scoreindicates thatthe employeesaresatisfied withtheir organi&ationalsystem and a lower score indicates that they61are not satisfied. In case( if the .uestion shows negative aspects(then the ranking order will !e reverse. +or example( .uestion num!er 44 and 46 are negative in nature(in which case weightage will !e count on a 03point scale80@strongly disagree( 4@strongly agree9.eanscores of all theemployees is presentedinthefollowinggraph. 8The scale is in the range of 4> to 0>9.+romthea!ovechart( it is evident that themeasureof ,')2sperformance appraisal systemis 64./J which are $ust a!ove8average36>9 the average. ,SS also has a very low score of 60.5J(!ut that of Polaris is 7>.//whichindicates that thecompany2systemis good for employees instead of ,') and ,SS andemployees are satisfied with their system.The Standard De)iation of the means is as follows5CLF :.B:E+L F :.G0oari"F 8.BH62De"cri1tion o$ the %ea"#re3Another dimensionisSupervisionwhichcontainsstandard63item measure designed to assess the extent that in whichorgani&ation2s employee are satisfied with their supervision which isgiven !y manager=supervisor of the organi&ation. Respondentsindicatetheir extent of agreement ona0pointscale 88F"trongy di"agree, BF"trongy agree9( henceevaluation is on a scale of 6 to 40( with an average of E(such that63a high score indicates that the employees are satisfied with theirsupervision and a lower score indicates that they are not satisfied. eanscores of all theemployees is presentedinthefollowinggraph. 8The scale is in the range of 6 to 409.+romthea!ovechart( it is evident that themeasureof ,')2ssupervisionE.>Jwhichare$ust a!ove8average3E9 theaverage.,SS also has a low score of 4>( !ut that of Polaris is 44.// whichindicates that the company2 supervision is very good for employeesinsteadof ,')and,SSandemployees aresatisfiedwiththeirsupervision.The Standard De)iation of the means is as follows5CLF 8.BHE+LF 8.BB0oari"F 8.:3degree feed!ack is widely accepted as an effective performancemanagement tool. But new research shows that 6/>3degree feed!ackprograms may hurt more than they help. Anless everyone participatingin a 6/>3degree program is trained in the art of giving and receivingfeed!ack( the process can lead to uncertainty and conflict among teammem!ers. That doesnDt necessarily mean 6/>3degree feed!ackprograms should !e a!andoned. But it does mean organi&ations shouldtake a second look at their performance management programs to seeif they are accomplishing what they are supposed to.Through the process at which the organi&ation is growing( gives69unsatisfactory results at all levels of the organi&ation.6/>3degreesuffers from various !arriers( we cannot change the wholeorgani&ation2s process androutinetasks( !ut wecanfollowsomestrategies to improve performance appraisal of the employees of theorgani&ation. #n the other side( P#)ARIS is using different kind of techni.uefor evaluating performance of the employee called Q)akshyaN. Chenwe compare 6/>3degree feed!ack to Polaris2s Q)akshyaN then we findthat Q)akshyaN is much !etter then 6/>3degree feed!ack. Q)akshyaN isa com!ined techni.ue of performance appraisal.This research shows that the techni.ue which is used !y this company8P#)ARIS9 isveryeffectivefor theemployeesof thisorgani&ation.Employeesrely on their company2s system and strength to cope withpro!lems( and they feel free to interact or communicating withmanager=supervisor on important issues of the organi&ation.Employees feelsatisfied with company2s system( with their $o!s androles in the organi&ation. L!M!TAT!ONS70Every research has certain limitations and even this pro$ect isnot free from it. Though most of them could !e avoided( some ofthem which inhi!ited this research are listed as follows. Sample Si&e taken was very small. It did not represent thewhole sample universe. +or a very highly effective researchthe sample si&e has to !e very !ig. /0 850 employees oftwo companies and 40 employees of the other9 chosen forthis research would not represent the whole sample. Sometimes employees did not respond truly. They mighthave !een in a hurry or !usy with some other work andhence the feed!ack would have !een given for the sake ofgiving. ,ence data collected cannot !e said to !e precise. Inthissurveytherewasalackof statistical secondarydata( whichhinderedsomeof thecomparativeanalysiswhich would have made this pro$ect more effective. The survey was conducted at the >:SA.MA A. M., JJ0er"ona and 5#%an .e"o#rce Manage%entKK, 5i%aaya 0#7i"hing ho#"e, Ath re)i"ed Edition, :>>