Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The topic of the project report is performance management system and its relationship with employee satisfaction.The research was conducted on employees of Indian Oil, Lodhi road branch.The aim of the project is to derive the satisfaction level from performance management system and sough improvements in the same.
The connection between employee satisfaction and employee performance management is wide and clear, and the connection is obvious in the domain of human resource management while it has a broad impact on all aspects of organizational performance.
Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job. There are a variety of factors that can influence a person’s level of job satisfaction. Some of these factors include the level of pay and benefits, the perceived fairness of the promotion system within a company, the quality of the working conditions, leadership and social relationships, the job itself. Other influences on satisfaction include the management style and culture, employee involvement, empowerment and autonomous workgroups. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently measured by organizations. The most common way of measurement is the use of rating scales where employees report their reactions to their jobs.
From the employees’ point of view performance appraisal is important, because they can modify their work behavior to become a more effective performer, and it increases the likelihood of receiving increase compensation and/or recognition.
Indirect financial and non financial payments employees receive for continuing with good performance as well as the employment with the company are
• Supplemental Pay Benefits
• Insurance Benefits
• Vacations and Holidays
• Sick Leave
• Parental Leave and Family Leave
• Medical Leave
• Retirement Benefits
Performance appraisals are also known as employee appraisal. It is a technique by
which the performance of an employee is measured in terms of cost, quality, time
and quantity. Performance appraisal is considered as part of career improvement
and development.
Performance appraisal are is on going continuous review of company’s employee
performance.
The purpose of these appraisals are as follows:
Give feedback on employee’s performance.
Recognize training needs of employee. Shape criteria for salary increments, promotion etc. Offer the chance for organizational analysis and improvement. Bridge the communication gap between employee and administrator
Document criteria used to allocate organizational rewards. Form a basis for personnel decisions: salary increases, promotions,
disciplinary actions, etc.
Provide the opportunity for organizational diagnosis and development.
Validate selection techniques and human resource policies to meet federal equal Employment Opportunity requirements.
A frequently used technique to evaluate performance is to make use of
numerical or scalar rating method where managers numerically score an
individual against a number of objectives/ attributes.The other method is 360
degree performance appraisal in this the employees are also allowed the
opportunity to assess the person and give feedback about manager.
Mostly used appraisals are:-
360-Degree Performance Appraisal.
General Performance Appraisal.
Technical /Administrative Performance Appraisal.
Manager Performance Appraisal.
Employee Self –Assessment.
Project Evaluation Review.
Sales Performance Appraisal.
PROCESSES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
The process of Performance Appraisal is as shown in the following
tabular form:-
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT IOCL
BRIEF ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN IOCL
With a view to appraising each employee, helping the management in placement,
transfer and promotion, and deciding about his training needs.The following
systems are in practice in IOCL.
(i) e-PMS (Electronic Performance Management System) for officers.
(ii) CRs (Confidential Reports) for non officers.
Assessment period
The assessment period for recording the performance of officers is financial
year (1 April to 31 March).
For staff it is calendar year.
Employees having rendered more than three months service in a
particular year has been separated before end assessment years are
eligible and rated through ePMS System.
PROCESS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM FOR OFFICERS:-
Three persons participate actively in Performance Appraisal System. Who are:
(i) Appraisee: The employee, who is to be evaluated.
(ii) Appraiser: Supervisor, who evaluate the performance of Appraiser.
(iii) Reviewer: Sr. executives, who check the evaluation process.
Apraisee fills a form in the starting of financial year which includes targets to
be achieved by that particular employee. Then Appraiser and Appraisee discuss
them, reach an agreement and put the agreed goals in writing.
Then they plan how to achieve these goals. On the basis of priority they decide
activities to be done to achieve the goals.
At the end of financial year, Appraisee evaluates himself and gives marks out of
5. Then Appraiser evaluates the Appraisee and gives him marks out of 5.
These 3 marks signify:
3- Outstanding2- Average.1- Needs improvement
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
1) To find the satisfaction level of the employees regarding their jobs
2 To identify ways to improve the existing performance appraisal system.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
3) To understand the existing relationship between management and employees.
4) To evaluate the various methods of performance appraisals
SCOPE
The scope of the project report is limited to Lodhi road branch of Indian Oil Corporation.
Chapter-2.LITERATURE REVIEW
It is often said that organisations that perform well are a reflection of the efforts and
successes of their staff. Recognising these efforts and appropriately praising or redirecting them
is imperative for organisational success. This is the basic purpose of performance appraisals.
George and Cole (1992) describe it as, “to discuss performance and plan for the future”.
Wanna et al (1992) define the objective of staff appraisals as “to improve planning and service
delivery at the general level, but also to provide feedback to individual officers”
Kouzes and Posner (1993) stress the importance of “finding people who fit the company
rather than a specific job, this can be extrapolated to include keeping the right people.
It must be recognised that every organisation will be subject to a set of values or culture
and if that culture is not the desired one then the identification of desired attitudes or behaviours
in individuals should be actively considered at times of performance review.
Curtain (1993) highlights the key competencies required are those of leadership, stating
that “public sector managers at all levels need to be able to display leadership values”.
The issue of leadership competencies versus a more traditional managerial skill set is argued by
Curtain in terms of good management being related to order and predictability whilst leadership
through inspiration, motivation and establishment of common values of staff is able to produce
change, “often to a dramatic degree”
Dickenson (1994) argues that “to ignore individuals in the review process is to ignore a major input into the achievement of organisational outcomes”
Performance measurement is a fundamental process of management (Muchiri et al., 2010). It managed the performance of both organizations and individuals. The performance may include the “inputs, outcomes, impacts and relate to economy, efficiency, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, or equity” (Brudan, 2010). The process of performance management is like a cycle, which include plan, act, monitor and review (Armstrong, 2005). “Planning” is to set goals for organizations. It helps to identify the objectives and competence requirements of an organization.
To underpin these discussions, there must be a reliable and accurate method by which to
determine current levels of performance and compare them with predetermined levels of
acceptability. There is therefore an inference of a need for quantifiable standards linked to job
descriptions and expected performance (Wanna et al 1992).
Wood (1989) argues that this leads to two types of appraisal mechanisms, based on either accountabilities or core competencies.
The challenge, is to “find ways to discuss openly what has previously been left unsaid” (Cherry, 1993)
According to (Pulakos, 2003)The ability to conduct performance appraisal relies on the ability to assess an employee’s performance in a fair and accurate manner. Evaluating employee performance is a difficult task. Once the supervisor understands the nature of the job and the source of information, the information needs to be collected in a systematic way, provided as feedback, and integrated into the organization’s performance management process for use in making compensation, job placement and training decisions and assignment.
According to Landy, Zedeck, Cleveland, 1983 performance appraisal, it provides the foundation for behaviorally based employee counseling. In the counseling setting, performance information provides the vehicle for increasingsatisfaction, commitment, and motivation of the employee. Performance measurement allows the organization to tell the employee some thing about their rates of growth, their competencies, and their potentials. There is little disagreement that if well done, performance measurements and feedback can play a valuable role in effecting the organization .
McKirchy, 1998 states that Performance appraisals should focus on three objectives: performance, not personalities; valid, concrete, relevant issues, rather that subjective emotions and feelings;reaching agreement on what the employee is going to improve in his performance and what you are going to do.
According to Barr, 1993A portion of the process should be devoted to an examination of potential opportunities to pursue advancement of acceptance of more complex responsibilities. The employee development goals should be recognized as legitimate, and plans should be made to reach the goals through developmental experiences or education ()
Zedeck, Cleveland, 1983 states that Encouraging development is not only asupervisor’s professional responsibility, but it also motivates an employee to pursue additional commitments. In addition, the pursuit of these objectives will also improve the prospect that current employees will be qualified as candidates when positions become available. This approach not only motivates current performance but also assists the recruitment of current employees as qualified candidates for future positions
Chapter-3.Research Methodology
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:
Explorative Research as well as Descriptive type of Research has been used.
i. Explorative Research: The explorative research has helped to determine the best research
design, data collection and selection of subjects. The reliance of exploratory research on
secondary research, such as qualitative approaches: informal discussions with employees,
management and more formal approaches through in-depth interviews, questionnaire has
given a significant insight into the given situation.
ii. Descriptive research: On the other hand descriptive research has helped to determine how, where,
when and what of the situation. Therefore descriptive research has been used here to get the
maximum amount of the information.
3.2 SAMPLING
SAMPLING METHOD
Probabilistic random sampling was used.
SAMPLE SIZE-
A sample of 100 employees was taken for the purpose of project.
SAMPLING UNIT-
The unit was the employees of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Lodhi Road.
DATA COLLECTION
The data was collected by meeting the respondents. The purpose of this study was explained to
them in brief and then the questionnaire was administered to them. There are two types of data
collection methods:
Primary Data: In research primary data is collected from all respective areas. In my report
the primary data are collected from questionnaire and personal interview of the employee. Other
sources were
Communication with the employees of the department through interviews
Getting information by observations
Secondary Data: In my report the secondary data are collection Internet and journals. Other
sources were
Office manuals of the department.
Magazines, Reports in the company.
Policy documents of various departments
Instrument
Structured questionnaire was used as an instrument to elicit information from the
respondents.
Statistical Package
The statistical package is Microsoft Excel
Statistical Tool
Tables,pie charts and bar diagrams were used as statistical tools.
CHAPTER-4. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 GENDER WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTSTABLE 3.5.1GENDER WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTSGender No. of respondents Percentage (%)Male 89 89Female 11 11Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.1 GENDER WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
No. of respondents Percentage (%)0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
89 89
11 11
MaleFemale
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 89% of the respondents are male and11% of the respondents are female.
4.2 AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTSTABLE 3.5.2 AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTSAge No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)20 – 30 25 2530-40 33 3340-45 12 12Above-45 12 12Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.2 AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
20 – 30 30-40 40-45 Above-450
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
25
33
12 12
25
33
12 12
No. Of RespondentsPercentage (%)
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 33% of the respondents are in the agebetween 30 – 35, 30% of the respondents are in the age between 40 – 45, 25% of therespondents are in the age between 20 – 25 and 12% of the respondents are in the ageabove 45.
4.3 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTSTABLE 4.4 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
Educational Qualification No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Graduate 49 49PG Degree 19 19Engineering 4 4Others(iti) 28 28Total 100 100FIGURE 4.4 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 49% of the respondents are UG degreeholders, 28% of the respondents are some others (iti), 19% of respondents are PG degreeholders and 4% of the respondents are engineering graduates.
4.4 PERIODICITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 4.4 PERIODICITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALPerformance appraisal times No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Once year 100 100Twice a year 0 0No specific time 0 0Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.4 PERIODICITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Once year Twice a year No specific time0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
0 0
100
0 0
No. Of RespondentsPercentage (%)
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents agree thatperformance appraisal is conducting once a year.
4.5 REASON FOR CONDUTING PERFORMANCE APPRISALTABLE 4.5 REASON FOR CONDUTING PERFORMANCE APPRISAL
Performance appraisalconducting
No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)
To identify motivating methods
- -
To decide monetary benefits - -Identifying barriers ofperformance
- -
All of the above 100 100Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.5 REASON FOR CONDUTING PERFORMANCE APPRISAL
conducting
To iden
tify motivati
ng meth
ods
To decide m
onetary
benefi
ts
Identifyi
ng barr
iers o
f
perform
ance
All of th
e above
0102030405060708090
100
0 0 0
100
0 0 0
100
No. Of RespondentsPercentage (%)
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondent’s agree thatthe reason for conducting performance appraisal includes all the factors such as to identifymotivating methods, to decide monetary benefits and identify barriers for performance.4.6 DURATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTEDTABLE 4.6 DURATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTEDTime of Appraisal No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)During working hours 87 87During non-working hours 13 13Total 100 100FIGURE 4.6 DURATION PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTED
During working hours During non-working hours0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9087
13
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that for 87% of the respondents’performance appraisal is conducted during working hours and for 13% respondents’performance appraisal is conducted during non-working hours.FIGURE 4.6 DUR ATION PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTED
4.7 PRIOR INFORMATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
TABLE 4.7 PRIOR INFORMATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Informed reason for conducting Performance appraisal
No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)
Always 20 20Sometimes 77 77Never 7 7Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.7 PRIOR INFORMATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Always Sometimes Never0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20
77
7
20
77
7
No. Of RespondentsPercentage (%)
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 77% of respondents feel thatthe reason for performance appraisal is discussed sometimes, 20% of the respondent’s feelit is discussed always and 3% of respondents say reason is never discussed.
4.8 EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE DISCUSSEDTABLE 4.8 EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE DISCUSSEDMeetings foremployee performance
No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)
Nil - -Once 100 100Twice - -Thrice - -Total 100 100
100
No. Of Respondents
employee performanceNilOnceTwiceThrice
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that for 100% of the respondentsmeeting on performance is conducting once a year.4.9 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROGRAMS RELATED WITHORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
TABLE 4.9 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROGRAMS RELATED WITHORGANIZATIONAL GOALSGoals No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)To a high extent 12 12To some extent 69 69To a low extent 19 19Total 100 100FIGURE 4.9 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROGRAMS RELATETO ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
To a high extent To some extent To a low extent0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
12
69
19
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 69% of the respondents feel theperformance appraisal relates to some extent to organization goals, 19% feel to a lowextent and 12% feel to a high extent it relates.
4.10 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RELEVANCE TO EMPLOYEE JOBTABLE 4.10. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RELEVANCE TO EMPLOYEE JOBS. No Relevance No. Of
RespondentsPercentage (%)
1 Highly relevant 87 872 relevant 13 133 no idea - -4 Irrelevant - -5 highly irrelevant - -Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.10 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RELEVANCE TOEMPLOYEE JOB
87
13
No. Of Respondents
1 Highly relevant2 relevant3 no idea4 Irrelevant5 highly irrelevant
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 87% of the respondents feel thatperformance appraisal is highly relevant to employee job and 13% feel it is relevant.
4.11 OPINION AND SUGGESTIONS SHARED TO MANAGERSTABLE 4.11 OPINION AND SUGGESTIONS SHARED TO MANAGERSOpinion and suggestions No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Mostly 100 100Rarely - -Never - -Total 100 100FIGURE 4.11 OPINION AND SUGGESTIONS SHARED TO MANAGERS
Mostly Rarely Never0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
0 0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents mostly sharetheir opinion and suggestions to their managers.
4.12TRAINING OF FILL UP PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORMTABLE 4.12TRAINING OF FILL UP PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM
Forms No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Yes 100 100No - -Total 100 100FIGURE 4.12TRAINING OF FILL UP PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM
Yes No 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
100
0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents are giventraining to fill the appraisal form.
4.13 FEEDBACK PROVIDED FOR PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENTTABLE 4.13 FEEDBACK PROVIDED FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
Feedback No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Frequently 11 11Occasionally 89 89Never - -Total 100 100
.FIGURE 4.13 FEEDBACK PROVIDED FOR PERFORMANCEIMPROVEMENT
Frequently Occasionally Never0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
11
89
0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 89% of the respondents feel thatfeedback is provided occasionally whereas 11% feel that feedback is provided frequently
4.14 IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALTABLE 3.5.19 IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALImportance No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Highly important 90 90Less important 10 10Not important - -Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.14 IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Highly important Less important Not important0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
90
10
0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 90% of the respondents feelperformance appraisal is highly important and 10% of the respondents feel it is lessimportant.
4.15 PROPER EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALTABLE 3.5.20 PROPER EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALproperly executed in yourorganization
No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)
Yes 78 78No 22 22Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.15 PROPER EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
organization Yes No0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8078
22
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 78% of the respondents feelperformance appraisal is properly executed while 22% feel it is not properly executed.
4.16 SUPPORT OF TOP MANAGEMENT IN PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL
TABLE 4.16 SUPPORT OF TOP MANAGEMENT IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISALSupport No. of Respondents Percentage (%)Highly supportive 64 64Less supportive 36 36Not supportive - -Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.16 SUPPORT OF TOP MANAGEMENT INPERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Highly supportiveLess supportive
Not supportive
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 64
36
0
No. of Respondents
No. of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 64% of the respondents feel topmanagement is highly supportive and 36% feel they are less supportive.
4.17 UPDATING OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
TABLE 4.17 UPDATING OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALReviewed and updated No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Frequently 46 46Occasionally 54 54Never - -Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.17 UPDATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Frequently Occasionally Never0
10
20
30
40
50
60
46
54
0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 54% of the respondents feel theperformance appraisal is reviewed occasionally while 46% of respondents feel they arereviewed frequently.
4.18 POTENTIAL IDENTIFIED BY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
TABLE 4.18POTENTIAL IDENTIFIED BY PERFORMANCE APPRAISALEffectiveness No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Effectively 36 36Less effectively 54 54Neutral 10 10Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.18 POTENTIAL IDENTIFIED BY PERFORMANCEAPPRAISAL
Effectively Less effectively Neutral0
10
20
30
40
50
60
36
54
10
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 54% of the respondents feel thatpotential is identified less effectively, 36% feel effectively, and 10% feel neutral.
4.19 RATE THE TRAINING IMPARTED TO FILL PERFORMANCE GAPTABLE 4.19 RATE THE TRAINING IMPARTED TO FILL PERFORMANCE GAPSatisfaction No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Unsatisfactory 17 17Needs Improvement 51 51Meets Expectations 12 12Outstanding 20 20Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.19 RATE THE TRAINING IMPARTED TO FILL PERFORMANCE GAP
17
51
12
20
No. Of Respondents
UnsatisfactoryNeeds ImprovementMeets ExpectationsOutstanding
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 51% of the respondents feel theperformance appraisal Needs Improvement, 20%of the respondents feel it is Outstanding,17% of the respondents feel it is Unsatisfactory and 12% of the respondents say it MeetsExpectations.
4.20 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ENCOURAGES TO REACHGOAL
TABLE 4.20 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ENCOURAGES TO REACHGOALReaching your goals No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Strongly agree 57 57Agree 21 21Neutral 10 10Disagree 12 12Strongly disagree - -Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.20 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ENCOURAGES TOREACHING GOAL
57
21
10
12
No. Of Respondents
Strongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 57% of the respondents agree thatperformance appraisal encourages to reach goals, 21% agree, 12% disagree and 10% feelneutral.
4.21 APPRAISAL FEED BACKTABLE 4.21 APPRAISAL FEED BACKappraisal feed back No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Frequently 33 33Occasionally 57 57Rarely 10 10Never - -Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.21 APPRAISAL FEED BACK
Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never0
10
20
30
40
50
60
33
57
10
0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 57%of the respondents feel they
are given feedback occasionally, 33% feel frequently and 10% feel rarely.
4.22 POSITIVE & NEGATIVE POINTS DISCUSSED
TABLE 4.22 POSITIVE & NEGATIVE POINTS DISCUSSEDPositive & negative points No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Yes 100 100No - -Total 100 100
Yes No0
102030405060708090
100
100
0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents feel that bothpositive and negative points are discussed.4.23 ATTITUDE WHEN NEGATIVE POINTS ARE DISCUSSEDTABLE 4.23 ATTITUDE WHEN NEGATIVE POINTS ARE DISCUSSEDAttitude when Negative points discussed
No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)
Discouraged46 46
determined to perform better 27 27Ready to learn 10 10Do not want to contribute 17 17Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.23ATTITUDE WHEN NEGATIVE POINTS AREDISCUSSED
46
27
10
17
No. Of Respondents
Discourageddetermined to perform betterReady to learnDo not want to contribute
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 46% of the respondents feeldiscouraged, 27% of the respondents feel determined to perform better, 17% of therespondents feel they do not want to contribute and 10% of the respondents feel they areready to learn.
4.24 RATING APPRAISAL PROGRAMTABLE 4.24 RATING APPRAISAL PROGRAMRate appraisal program No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Reliable 10 10Effective 25 25Accurate 25 25Motivating 35 35Unbiased 5 5Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.24 RATING APPRAISAL PROGRAM
10
25
25
35
5
No. Of Respondents
ReliableEffectiveAccurateMotivatingUnbiased
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it can be inferred that 35% of the respondents feel theperformance appraisal programme is motivating, 25% of respondents feel it is effective,25% of the respondents feel it is accurate, 10% of the respondents are feel it is reliable and5% of the respondents feel it is unbiased.
4.25 COMFORTABILITY IN DISCUSSING PROBLEMSTABLE 4.25 COMFORTABILITY IN DISCUSSING PROBLEMSComfortability No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Highly Comfortable 75 75Comfortable 25 25Neutral - -Uncomfortable - -Highly uncomfortable - -Total 100 100
.
FIGURE 4.25 COMFORTABILITY IN DISCUSSING PROBLEMS
Highly C
omfortable
Comfortable
Neutra
l
Uncomfortable
Highly u
ncomfortable
01020304050607080
75
25
0 0 0
No. Of Respondents
No. Of Respondents
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 75% of the respondents feel they areHighly Comfortable, and 25% of respondents feel they are Comfortable in discussing theirproblems with their superior
4.26 RATING IS GENERALLY BASED ON WHAT FACTORS TABLE 4.26 RATING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCEPerformance rated No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Based on abilities and skills 10 10Based on management reference
25 25
Based on superiority 25 25Based on contribution 40 40Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.26 RATING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
10
25
25
40
No. Of Respondents
Based on abilities and skillsBased on management referenceBased on superiorityBased on contribution
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 40% of the respondents feel rating isbased on contribution, 25% of respondents feel rating is based on management reference.25% of the respondents feel rating is based on superiority and 10% of the respondents feelit is based on abilities and skills.
4.27 CHANGES TAKEN AFTER PERFORMANCE APPRAISALTABLE 4.27 CHANGES TAKEN AFTER PERFORMANCE APPRAISALResult of Performance Appraisal
No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)
Change in motivating strategy
33 33
Re-structuring of organisation orindividual objectives
25 25
Improvement in management-employeerelationship
25 25
Making changes in dissatisfied areas
17 17
No decision taken - -Total 100 100FIGURE 4.27 CHANGES TAKEN AFTER PERFORMANCEAPPRAISAL
33
25
25
17
No. Of Respondents
Change in motivating strategyRe-structuring of organisation orindividual objectivesImprovement in management-employeerelationshipMaking changes in dissatisfied areasNo decision taken
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 33 % of the respondents feel there ischange in motivating strategy, 25% of the respondents feel re-structuring of organisation orindividual objectives, 25% of respondents feel there is improvement in managementemployeerelationship and 17% of the respondents feel on making changes in dissatisfiedareas.
4.28 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IMPROVING OVERALL PERFORMANCETABLE 4.28 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IMPROVING OVER ALLPERFORMANCEEffectiveness No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)Highly effective 34 34Effective 16 16Moderate 15 15In Effective 25 25Highly ineffective 10 10Total 100 100
FIGURE 4.28 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEMIMPROVING OVER ALL PERFORMANCE
34
1615
25
10
No. Of Respondents
Highly effectiveEffectiveModerateIn EffectiveHighly ineffective
INTERPRETATION:From the above table, it can be inferred that 34% of the respondents feelperformance appraisal improve overall performance highly effectively, 25% of therespondents feel it is ineffective, 16% of respondents feel it is effective, 15% of therespondents feel it is moderate and 10% of the respondents are feel it is highly ineffective.
CHAPTER-5 Findings Conclusions and Suggestions
Findings
The workers were fairly satisfied with their role in the firm. This was the result of the firm being a target based company. The senior subordinate doesn’t put too much pressure on the methods that the employees get their job done. i.e. an employee may have zero progress in the first two weeks but as long as by the end of the month, the target gets achieved there is no problems. The employees are given credit for the various milestones that they achieve and the employees are given full freedom of doing their job in or out of the office.
All the employees were unanimously in positive favour for their relations with immediate supervisor. The Branch manager at our firm is of a very friendly yet goal oriented nature. So he has ways of getting the job done without hurting the employees either. Everyone is assisted at the time of doubts or when needed. Even when it comes to achieving certain milestones like trips to foreign countries, in case one or the other employee is lacking by a small margin the full support and resources are given to ensure that the milestone is achieved.
The method of appraisal used is MBO.Appraiser evaluates Appraisee on the basis of following areas:
(i) KRA (Key Result Area) is basic area to evaluate employee’s
performance.
KPI (Key Performance Indicator): On the basis of KRA, Appraiser
gives measurable grades to Appraisee is known as KPI. It may be
in terms of marks or percentage.
On the basis of difficult KRA, Appraiser decide the stretch for
each KPI.
(ii) Competency Skills such as Intelligence, Communicative
Ability, Decisiveness, Human Skills, Teaching Skill, Executive
Skills, Leadership Skills, Negotiation Skills, and Creativity Skills.
(iii) Potential: It shows Employee’s ability to do the work and to take
up higher responsibilities in future.
(iv) Values: It shows how much values of individual match to the
objectives of organization.
5.2 Conclusions
1.The employees are well versed with the performance management system carried out at IOCL. They are aware of the reasons for performance appraisal and his give the fullest of their corporation which also means they are satisfied with the system.
2. It can also be observed that there is some biasness in the evaluation system or the ratings which could contribute to dissatisfaction.
3. The performance management system is not that effective in identifying latent potential of employees and only rates them over their monotonous work schedule. Employees do not feel that comfortable in discussing negative points which acts as a barrier in effective communication and contuous improvement.
4. Management by objectives is used as a measure of performance appraisal as the objectives are set in consultation of employees. And thus they are highly motivated and their suggestions are welcomed.
5. On the whole employees are satisfied with the performance appraisal system of the Corporation.
5.3 SUGGESTIONS
1.The performance appraisal should be conducted more than once in a year.
2.The reasons for conducting appraisal should be clearly spelled out.
3.The entire structure needs to be restructured in such a way that employees so not shy away from discussing negative points and be more transparent so that biasness does not take place.
4.More emphasis should be laid on identifying potential of the employees.
5.Prompt feedback needs to be given from time to time in order to check employees whenever they deviate from the path.
