CHAPTER - 6 PROMOTION POLICY

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CHAPTER - 6 PROMOTION POLICY"

Simon Weaver
6 years ago
Views:

1 12. www. Performance-appraisal.com CHAPTER - 6 PROMOTION POLICY In this chapter meaning and purpose promotion, different bases for promotion and promotion policy have been discussed. Number of promotions received by the respondents; perceptions of the respondents on availability of promotion opportunities in the company, bases for promotion, satisfaction with existing promotion policy in the company; clarity, transparency and fairness in the company s promotion policies have been analyzed on the

2 basis of educational qualification, gender and designation of the respondents. 6.1 Meaning and Purpose To cope with the changing situations an organization makes adjustments in the existing workforce through promotion. Promotion is a change in status upward resulting from assignment to a position assigned a higher salary grade. A promotion is the advancement of an employee s position in an organizational hierarchy. According to Scott and Clothier A promotion is the transfer of an employee to a job which pays more money or one that carries some preferred status. 1 According to Pigors and Charles Promotion is advancement of an employee to a better job - better in terms of greater responsibility, prestige or status, greater skill and especially increased rate of pay or salary. 2 Thus Promotion is an upward reassignment of an individual in an organization s hierarchy, accompanied by increased responsibilities, status and with increased income. The employee being promoted, the promotee s duties and responsibilities usually become qualitatively different from those of his earlier job. Promotion is an employee's reward for good performance or positive appraisal. Before a company promotes an employee to a particular position it ensures that the person is able to handle the added responsibilities by screening the employee with interviews and tests and giving them training or on-the-job experience. A promotion can involve advancement in terms of designation, salary and benefits.

3 purposes. To fill the vacancies in an organization management choose promotion as it serves the following 1. To utilize the employee skill, knowledge at the appropriate level in the organizational hierarchy resulting in organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction. 2. To develop competitive spirit and inculcate the zeal in the employees to acquire the skill, knowledge etc, required by higher level jobs. 3. To develop competent internal source of employees ready to take up jobs at higher levels in the changing environment. 4. To promote employee self-development and make them await their turn of promotions. It reduces labour turnover. 5. To promote a feeling of content with the existing conditions of the company and a sense of belongingness. 6. To promote interest in training, development programmes and in team development areas. 7. To build loyalty and boost morale. 8. To reward committed and loyal employees Bases for Promotion Organizations develop a policy depending on the basis on which promotions are to be made. 1. Merit: denotes an individual employee s skill, knowledge, ability, efficiency and aptitude as measured from educational, training and past employment record. It helps employees to acquire new skill, knowledge. However, lack of reliability in determining merit criteria objectively is the main obstacle to its becoming the sole basis for promotion.

4 2. Seniority: Seniority is based on the length of service of an employee in an organization. 4 It is relatively easy to measure the length of service and judge the seniority. It minimizes the scope for grievances and conflicts regarding promotion. At the same time it results in employee turnover and it kills the zeal and interest to develop among young people. 3. Seniority-cum-Merit: There is a need to strike a balance between merit and seniority. Hence a combination of both seniority and merit can be considered the basis for promotion satisfying the management for organizational effectiveness and employees and trade unions for respecting the length of service. 6.3 Promotion Policy Every organization need to specify clearly its promotion policy based on its corporate policy. The policy should contain clear cut norms and criteria for promoting an employee. The policy should be fair and impartial and should be applied uniformly to all employees without giving scope for nepotism, favoritism etc. Promotion systems necessitate a twofold balance between the choice of the individual most suited to fulfill the job role and thus contribute effectively to the organization s mission, and individual s aspirations for promotional opportunities, which need to be satisfied. Organizations have adopted a variety of promotion policies depending upon their culture, size, and business Promotions In the company the performance of employees are given utmost importance as the promotions of the employees are based on their performance. The company provides ample of opportunities to have successful career in the company for its employees. Till E2 grade employee promotions are based

5 on their performance and experience. From grade E3 promotions are based on the employee performance and requirements of the company. 6.5 Responses of the Respondents to the Statements on Promotion With this background, to collect the opinions on various aspects of the promotion and its policy prevailing in Subex Limited, twelve statements have been given in the questionnaire. Responses have been structured on a five point scale. The responses of the respondents have been analyzed statementwise under three variables namely educational qualifications, gender and designation and presented in the following tables. Responses to some of the questions/statements have been structured on a five point scale and weights have been assigned in the following manner. Responses Weights Fully Satisfied/ Strongly Agree 5 Satisfied/ Agree 4 Undecided 3 Dissatisfied/ Disagree 2 Highly dissatisfied/ Strongly Disagree 1 Weighted Average Score (WAS) Interpretation Very Low Low High

6 Designation Gender Education Very High Table: 6.1 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Number of Promotions Received in the Company Variables No. of the Respondents None Total B.E./ B.Tech. 62 (6.19) 2 (1.94) 8 (7.77) 31 (3.9) 13 M.C.A./M.Tech. 65 (56.52) 26 (22.61) 16 (13.91) 8 (6.96) 115 Male 71 (57.72) 2 (16.26) 15 (12.19) 17 (13.82) 123 Female 56 (58.95) 8 (8.42) 9 (9.47) 22 (23.16) 95 Trainee/ Software Engineer (48.78) (.) (.) (51.22) System Analyst 17 (85.6) (.) (.) 18 (14.4) 125 Project Leader/ Manager 3 (5.77) 25 (48.8) 24 (46.15) (.) 52 Total 127 (58.26) 28 (12.84) 24 (11.1) 39 (17.89) 218 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.

7 Gender Education The table 6.1 depicts the number of promotions received by different employees in the company. As many as per cent of the respondents have got one promotion, per cent of the respondents have got two promotions, 11.1 per cent of the respondents have got three promotions and per cent of the respondents have not got any promotion. All the trainees have not got any promotion and all the software engineers have got one promotion. About one-half of the system analysts have got no promotion and one-half (approximately) have got one promotion. Majority of the project leaders/managers have got more than one promotion. promotions. Generally project leaders/managers are experienced hence they have got more number of Table: 6.2 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Question, Is There Ample Opportunity for Promotion in the Company? Variables No. of the Respondents Yes No Uncertain Total B.E./ B.Tech. 96 (93.2) 6 (5.82) 1 (.97) 13 M.C.A/M.Tech. 12 (88.7) 12 (1.43) 1 (.87) 115 Male 111 (9.24) 1 (8.13) 2 (1.63) 123 Female 87 (91.58) 8 (8.42) (.) 95

8 Educatio n Designation Trainee/Software Engineer 37 (9.24) 4 (9.76) (.) 41 System Analyst 19 (87.2) 14 (11.2) 2 (1.6) 125 Project Leader/ Manager 52 (.) (.) 52 Total 198 (9.82) 18 (8.26) 2 (.92) 218 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Table 6.2 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the question, is there ample opportunity for promotion in the company? The table shows that a great majority of the respondents irrespective of education, gender and designation think that there are many promotion opportunities in the organization. A few think otherwise. The number of the respondents who are uncertain is still less. Table: 6.3 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that In Your Opinion what should be the Basis for Promotion No. of the Respondents Variables Seniority Merit Seniority-cum- Merit Total B.E./ B.Tech. 46 (44.66) 9 (8.74) 48 (46.6) 13

9 Designation Gender M.C.A./M.Tech. 28 (24.35) 7 (.9) 8 (69.57) 115 Male 41 (33.33) 16 (13.1) 66 (53.66) 123 Female 33 (34.74) (.) 62 (65.26) 95 Trainee/ Software Engineer (24.39) (12.2) (63.41) System Analyst 45 (36.) 7 (5.6) 73 (58.4) 125 Project Leader/ Manager 19 (36.54) 4 (7.69) 29 (55.77) 52 Total 74 (33.94) 16 (7.34) 128 (58.71) 218 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Table 6.3 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the statement that in your opinion what should be the basis for promotion. More than 46 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents, more than 69 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents, more than 53 per cent of the male respondents, more than 65 per cent of the female respondents, more than 63 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, more than 58 per cent of the system analysts, more than 55 per cent of the project leaders/managers, and more than 58 per cent of all the respondents are of the opinion that seniority-cum-merit should be the

10 Gender Education basis for promotion. On an average about 34 per cent of the respondents think seniority should be the basis for promotion. From this it can be concluded that a majority of the employees think that senioritycum-merit should be the basis for promotion. Table: 6.4 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of Opinions of the Respondents on Existing Promotion Policy in the Company No. of the Respondents Variables Highly Satisfied Satisfied Undecided Dissatisfied Highly Dissatisfied Total B.E./ B.Tech. (7.77) [4] (41.75) [172] (31.7) [96] (19.42) [4] (.) [] [348] {3.38} M.C.A/ M.Tech. (33.4) [19] (42.61) [196] (17.39) [6] (6.96) [16] (.) [] [462] {4.2} Male (2.32) [125] (47.97) [236] (23.58) [87] (8.13) [2] (.) [] [468] {3.8} Female (22.1) [15] (34.74) [132] (24.21) [69] (18.95) [36] (.) [] [342] {3.6}

11 Designation Trainee/ (.) (48.78) (48.78) (2.44) (.) Software Engineer [] [8] [6] [2] [] [142] {3.46} System Analyst (2.8) [13] (35.2) [176] (25.6) [96] (18.4) [46] (.) [] [448] {3.58} Project Leader/ (38.46) (53.85) (.) (7.69) (.) Manager [1] [112] [] [8] [] [22] {4.23} Total (21.1) [23] (42.2) [368] (23.85) [156] (12.84) [56] (.) [] [81] {3.71} Source: Field Survey Note: 1. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. 2. Figures in the square brackets are weighted scores. 3. Figures in flower brackets are weighted average scores. promotion. The table 6.4 shows an analysis of respondents overall opinion on existing policy of

12 Approximately one-half of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and more than three-fourths of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are either fully or simply satisfied with existing promotion policy of the company, 31.7 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are undecided, and per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and 6.96 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are dissatisfied with the existing promotion policy. Nobody is highly dissatisfied. Reasons are not known. Calculated WAS of B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents is 3.38 thus indicating a high level of satisfaction, whereas WAS of the responses of M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents is 4.2 thus indicating a very high level of satisfaction with the existing promotion policy of the company. More than 68 per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female respondents are either fully or simply satisfied; per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female respondents are undecided; and 8.13 per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female of respondents are dissatisfied. No one is highly dissatisfied. Calculated weighted average scores of the responses of both male and female respondents indicate existence of a high level of satisfaction over the existing promotion policy of the company. Slightly less than 5 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 56 per cent of the system analysts and more than 92 per cent of the project leaders/managers are satisfied with the existing promotion policy; as many as per cent of the trainees/software engineers and 25.6 per cent of the system analysts are undecided; and a meager 2.44 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 18.4 per cent of the system analysts and 7.69 per cent of the project leaders/managers are dissatisfied. Nobody is highly dissatisfied. Calculated weighted average scores show that satisfaction level among the trainees/software engineers and system analysts is high, whereas among the project leaders/managers is very high.

13 Gender Education On the whole 21.1 per cent of the respondents are highly satisfied, 42.2 per cent of the respondents are satisfied, per cent of the respondents are dissatisfied and nobody is highly dissatisfied with the existing promotion policy in the company. Overall weighted average score of the responses is 3.71 thus indicating a high level of satisfaction with the existing promotion among the respondents. Table: 6.5 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that Company s Promotion Policies are well defined and shared with all Employees No. of the Respondents Variables Completely Agree Agree Undecided Do Not Agree Not at all Agree Total B.E./ B.Tech. (14.56) [75] (29.13) [12] (16.5) [51] (39.8) [82] (.) [] [328] {3.18} M.C.A/ M.Tech. (38.26) [22] (31.3) [144] (12.17) [42] (18.26) [42] (.) [] [448] {3.9} Male (24.39) [15] (34.15) [168] (11.38) [42] (3.8) [74] (.) [] [434] {3.53}

14 Designation Female (3.53) [145] (25.26) [96] (17.89) [51] (26.31) [5] (.) [] [342] {3.6} Trainee/ Software Engineer (7.32) [15] (41.46) [68] (31.15) [42] (17.7) [14] (.) [] [139] {3.39} System Analyst (31.2) [195] (16.8) [84] (11.2) [42] (4.8) [12] (.) [] [71] {3.55} Project Leader/ Manager (32.69) [85] (53.85) [112] (5.77) [9] (7.69) [8] (.) [] [214] {4.12} Total (27.6) [295] (3.27) [264] (14.22) [93] (28.44) [124] (.) [] [776] {3.56} Source: Field Survey Note: 1. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. 2. Figures in the square brackets are weighted scores. 3. Figures in flower brackets are weighted average scores.

15 Table 6.5 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the statement that company s promotion policies are well defined and shared with all employees. Approximately 44 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are either agree with the statement; 16.5 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are undecided; and 39.8 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents donot agree with the statement. Calculated weighted average scores of the responses of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents is 3.18 and that of the responses of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents is 3.9 thus indicating a high level of agreement with the statement that the company s promotion policies are well defined and shared with all employees. More than 58 per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female respondents do agree with this statement; per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female respondents are undecided; and as many as 3.8 per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female of respondents are do not agree with the statement. Calculated weighted average scores of the responses of both male and female respondents indicate a high level of agreement with the statement. Slightly less than 48 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 48 per cent of the system analysts and more than 86 per cent of the project leaders/managers do agree with the statement; as many as per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 11.2 per cent of the system analysts and 5.77 per cent of the project leaders/managers are undecided; and 17.7 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 4.8 per cent of the system analysts and 7.69 per cent of the project

16 Gender Education leaders/managers do not agree with the statement. Calculated weighted average scores show that agreement level among the trainees/software engineers and system analysts is high, whereas among the project leaders/managers is very high. On the whole 27.6 per cent of the respondents completely agree, 3.27 per cent of the respondents simply agree, per cent of the respondents are undecided, and per cent of the respondents do not agree with the statement. Overall weighted average score of the responses (3.56) indicate a high level of agreement with the statement that company s promotion policies are well defined and shared with all employees. Table: 6.6 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that Promotion Decisions are based on Suitability of the Employee rather than on Favoritism Variables No. of the Respondents Yes No Uncertain Total B.E./ B.Tech. 74 (71.84) 26 (25.24) 3 (2.91) 13 M.C.A/ M.Tech. 95 (82.61) 19 (16.52) 1 (.87) 115 Male 1 (81.3) 23 (18.69) (.) 123 Female 69 (72.63) 22 (23.16) 4 (4.21) 95

17 Designation Trainee/ Software Engineer (6.98) (29.27) (9.76) System Analyst 1 (8.) 25 (2.) (.) 125 Project Leader/ Manager 44 (84.62) 8 (15.38) (.) 52 Total 169 (77.52) 45 (2.64) 4 (1.83) 218 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Table 6.6 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the statement that promotion decisions are based on suitability of the employee rather than on favoritism Education-wise analysis shows that per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents agree with the statement. Nearly onefourth (25.24 per cent) of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents disagree with the statement. Remaining 2.91 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified and.87 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are not certain whether they agree or not with the statement. Gender-wise analysis shows that 81.3 per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female respondents agree with the statement; per cent of the male respondents and per cent of the female respondents disagree with the statement; and only 4.21 per cent of the female respondents are uncertain.

18 Designation-wise analysis shows that 6.98 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 8. per cent of the system analysts and per cent of the project leaders/managers agree with the statement. Others do not agree with the statement that promotion decisions are based on suitability of the employee rather than on favoritism. On the whole per cent of the respondents agree, 2.64 per cent of the respondents do not agree and the remaining 1.83 per cent of the respondents stay neutral. Conclusions: A majority of the respondents irrespective of education, gender and designation think that: there are many promotion opportunities in the organization. Generally project leaders/managers are experienced hence they have got more number of promotions. seniority-cum-merit should be the basis for promotion. satisfied with the existing promotion policy in the company. promotion policies are well defined and shared with all employees. promotion decisions are based on suitability of the employee rather than on favoritism References: 1. Mamoria, C.B. and Ganker, S.V., Human Resource Management, Himalaya Publishing House, Delhi, 28, p Subha Rao.P., Rao, V.S.P, Personnel/Human Resource Management, Konark Publishers, Pvt Ltd, Delhi, 1997, p.315.

19 3. lbid p Mirza S.Saiyadain, Human Resources Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, lbid p.313. CHAPTER 7 REWARD MANAGEMENT In this chapter responses of the respondents on various aspects of reward management, collected through the questionnaire, have been analysed, using certain statistical measures, to understand acceptability of the human resource practices relating to reward management. It is assumed that

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL 3. Mirza S. Saiyadain, Human Resources Management, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co., Ltd., New Delhi, 988. 4. Dale S. Beach, Personnel Management, McMillan, New York, 99. 5. Arun Monappa and Mirza Saiyadain,