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, Personnel Management, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co., Ltd., New Delhi, 99. 6. Asha, S., Psychological Dimensions of Training and Development, HRM Review, ICFAI University press, Aug. 27, p.2. 7. Harikumar, K., Learning and Development-Current Trends in IT, HRM Review, ICFAI University press, Aug. 27, pp.2-3. 8. Ibid p.3 CHAPTER 5 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL In this chapter opinions of the employees on the practices relating performance appraisal in the company have been collected and analyzed. 5. Introduction
To survive and to succeed in the market, the business organizations should produce quality goods, offer services that delight the customers and operate at minimal costs. For making all these possible an organization should possess human resources that could function efficiently and effectively. Human resources are valuable resources for any enterprise. They are vital as they possess the required intelligence to make material, physical and financial resources productive and effective. The human potential is the crux of organizational effectiveness. Appraising human potential in a scientific and systematic manner paves way for enhanced corporate performance. Hence, after an employee has been selected, trained and motivated he is apprised of his performance. The performance appraisal is a process of evaluating an employee performance on a job. It is estimating an employee s value in terms of qualities and status. 5.2 Meaning and Definition Performance appraisal is the most important and indispensable tool for an organization. Performance appraisal measures the effectiveness of the personnel. Edwin B Flippo defines performance appraisal as a systematic, periodic and as far as humanly possible an impartial rating of employee s excellence in matters pertaining to his present job and potentialities for a job. 2 To Maurice, B. Coming performance appraisal means attempts to recognize and reward for personnel abilities that an individual brings to his job, measured by the extent to which his output or quality of his work exceeds the minimum that is fixed as the basic rate of pay. 3 To Yoder Performance Appraisal refers to the formal procedure used in an organization to evaluate personalities, contributions and potentials of group members. 4 According to Heyel it is the process of evaluating the performance and qualification of the employee in terms of requirements of the job for which he is employed, for the purpose of
administration including placement, selection for promotions, providing financial rewards and other actions which require differential treatment among the members of the group as distinguished from actions affecting all members equally. 5 According to Martin Fisher performance appraisal is a process for establishing shared understanding about what is to be achieved, and an approach for managing and developing people in a way which increases the probability that it will be achieved in the short or long-term. 6 Performance appraisal is a method of evaluating the behavior of employees in the work spot, normally including both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of job performances. 7 In order to find out whether an employee is worthy of continued employment or not, and if so, whether he should receive a bonus, a pay rise or a promotion, his performance needs to be evaluated from time to time. 8 The object of performance appraisal is to improve the efficiency of an enterprise by attempting to mobilize the best possible efforts from individuals employed in it. Performance Appraisal is a procedure to establish a clear understanding of what the organization strives to achieve and streamline the combined efforts of all the employees so that the company improves its effectiveness and competitiveness in the market place. It is a systematic alignment of employee objectives, skills, abilities, efforts with the organization s strategic objectives to create a high-performance culture. The emphasis is on improving, learning and developing the career potential of employees to achieve the overall business objectives. It aims at analyzing the performance against the set standards, both quantitative and qualitative. Performance appraisal is a measure of performance of an employee in accomplishing goals and plans of an organization within a specific period of time. It gives a picture about how an employee is working in his present job and what are the strong and weak points. Performance appraisal system
provides feedback to the employees on their performance and helps him to take utmost care and attention, where it deserves. The process of performance appraisal helps in linking information gathering and decision making process which provides a basis for judging the effectiveness of personnel subdivisions such as coming as rightly observed that the overall objective of performance appraisal is to improve efficiency of an enterprise by attempting to mobilize the best possible efforts from the individuals employed in it. The performance appraisal system has assumed a new shape and nature in the form of a two-way communication link between the employees and the employers. Proper communication between the assessing authority and the employee under appraisal is essential for gathering all the required information from the employee. A performance appraisal system that is based on a free and unrestrained approach would generate the preferred data and help organizational productivity. To achieve the desired objectives performance appraisal system should be realistic and impartial, with a positive orientation towards remedial steps. Therefore it requires skilful handling. 5.3 Need for Performance Appraisal People differ in their abilities and their aptitudes. There is always some difference between the quality and quantity of the same work on the same job being done by two different people. Therefore, performance appraisal is necessary to understand each employee s abilities, competencies and relative merit and worth for the organization. Performance appraisal rates the employees in terms of their performance. Performance appraisal helps to rate the performance of the employees and evaluate their contribution towards the organizational goals. If the process of performance appraisals is formal and
properly structured, it helps the employees to clearly understand their roles and responsibilities and give direction to the individual s performance. It helps to align the individual performances with the organizational goals and also review their performance. Performance appraisal takes into account the past performance of the employees and focuses on the improvement of the future performance of the employees. Its aim is to measure what an employee does. 9 It is a power tool to calibrate, refine and reward the performance of the employee. It helps to analyze his achievements and evaluate his contribution towards the achievements of the overall organizational goals. 5.4 Benefits of Appraisal Appraisal offers a valuable opportunity to focus on work activities and goals, to identify and correct existing problems, and to encourage better future performance. Thus the performance of the whole organization is enhanced. However benefits of performance appraisal can be summarized as follows. a) Motivation and Satisfaction: Performance appraisal can have a profound effect on levels of employee motivation and satisfaction - for better as well as for worse. Performance appraisal provides employees with recognition for their work efforts. The existence of an appraisal program indicates to an employee that the organization is genuinely interested in their individual performance and development, which can have a positive influence on the individual's sense of worth, commitment and belonging. b) Training and Development: Performance appraisal offers an excellent opportunity - perhaps the best that will ever occur - for a supervisor and subordinate to recognize and
agree upon individual training and development needs. Performance appraisal can make the need for training by an employee's work performance, the presence or absence of work skills, by linking it clearly to performance outcomes and future career aspirations. c) Recruitment and Induction: Appraisal data can be used to monitor the success of the organization's recruitment and induction practices. Appraisal data can also be used to monitor the effectiveness of changes in recruitment strategies. d) Employee Evaluation: Evaluation is a major objective of performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is the process of examining and evaluating the performance of an individual. The need to evaluate employees is to encourage and develop them. e) Career planning and Development: Performance feedback guides career decisions about specific paths one should investigate. f) Compensation adjustments: Performance evaluations help decision makers determine who should receive pay raises and who should not. Many firms grant part or all of their pay increases and bonuses based upon merit, which is determined mostly through performance appraisals. g) Placement decisions: Promotions, transfers, and demotions are usually based on past or anticipated performance. 5.5 Process of Performance Appraisal Performance Appraisal process consists of the following stages. a) Establishing Performance Standards: The first step in the process of performance appraisal is setting up of the standards which will be used as the base to compare the actual performance of
the employees. The standards set should be clear, easily understandable and in measurable terms. b) Communicating the Standards: Once the standards are set, it is the responsibility of the management to communicate the standards to all the employees of the organization. The employees should be informed and the standards should be clearly explained to them. This helps them in understanding their roles and to know what exactly is expected from them. The standards should also be communicated to the appraisers or the evaluators. c) Measuring the Actual Performance: The next step in the process of performance appraisal is measuring the actual performance of the employees that is the work done by the employees during the specified period of time. It is a continuous process which involves monitoring the performance throughout the year. This stage requires the careful selection of the appropriate techniques of measurement, taking care that personal bias does not affect the outcome of the process. d) Comparing the Actual with the Desired Performance: The actual performance is compared with the desired or the standard performance. The comparison helps to know the deviations in the performance of the employees from the standards set. The result can show the actual performance being more than the desired performance or, the actual performance being less than the desired performance depicting a negative deviation in the organizational performance. e) Discussing Results: The results of the appraisal are to be communicated and discussed with the employees on one-to-one basis. The results, the problems and the possible solutions are discussed with the aim of problem solving and reaching consensus. The feedback should be given with a positive attitude as this can have an effect on the employees future performance.
The purpose of the meeting should be to solve the problems faced and motivate the employees to perform better. f) Decision Making: The last step of the process is to take decisions which can be taken either to improve the performance of the employees, take the required corrective actions, or the related HR decisions like rewards, promotions, demotions, transfers etc. 5.6 Organizational Performance and Performance Appraisal 2 : Performance appraisal process is one of the central pillars of the performance management which is directly related to the organizational performance and has a direct impact on it. Employee performance ultimately affects the organizational performance and objectives. Apart from the direct benefits to the organisation, appraisals contribute to employee satisfaction, which in turn leads to improved performance. For an organization to be effective, the goals, the standards and the action plans need to be planned well in advance. Thus, performance appraisal facilitates the achievement of organizational goals. It also facilitates the optimal use of the organizational resources. Performance appraisal is the strength of performance management, which in turn affects the organizational performance. It helps to identify and overcome the problems faced by the employees in their work. 5.7 Methods of Performance Appraisal 3 a) Essay Appraisal Method: This traditional form of appraisal, also known as Free Form method involves a description of the performance of an employee by his superior. The description is an evaluation of the performance of any individual based on the facts and often includes examples and evidences to support the information.
b) Straight Ranking Method: This is one of the oldest and simplest techniques of performance appraisal. In this method, the appraiser ranks the employees from the best to the poorest on the basis of their overall performance. It is quite useful for a comparative evaluation. c) Paired Comparison: This is a better technique of comparison than the straight ranking method. This method compares each employee with all others in the group, one at a time. After all the comparisons on the basis of the overall comparisons, the employees are given the final rankings. d) Critical Incidents Methods: In this method of performance appraisal, the evaluator rates the employee on the basis of critical events and how the employee behaved during those incidents. It includes both negative and positive points. e) Field Review: In this method, a senior member of the HR department or a training officer discusses and interviews the supervisors to evaluate and rate their respective subordinates. A major drawback of this method is that it is a very time consuming method. But this method helps to reduce the superiors personal bias. f) Checklist Method: The rater is given a checklist of the descriptions of the behavior of the employees on the job. The checklist contains a list of statements on the basis of which the rater describes on-the-job performance of the employees. g) Graphic Rating Scale: In this method, an employee s quality and quantity of work is assessed in a graphic scale indicating different degrees of a particular trait. The factors taken into consideration include both the personal characteristics and characteristics related to on-the-job performance of the employees.
h) Forced Distribution: To eliminate the element of bias from the rater s ratings, the evaluator is asked to distribute the employees in some fixed categories of ratings on a normal distribution curve. The rater chooses the appropriate fit for the categories on his own discretion. Modern methods: a) Assessment Centres 4 : An assessment centre typically involves the use of methods like social/informal events, tests and exercises, assignments being given to a group of employees to assess their competencies to take higher responsibilities in the future. Generally, employees are given an assignment similar to the job they would be expected to perform if promoted. The trained evaluators observe and evaluate employees as they perform the assigned jobs and are evaluated on job related characteristics. The major competencies that are judged in assessment centres are interpersonal skills, intellectual capability, planning and organizing capabilities, motivation, career orientation etc. Assessment centres are also an effective way to determine the training and development needs of the targeted employees. b) Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales: Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) is a relatively new technique which combines the graphic rating scale and critical incidents method. It consists of predetermined critical areas of job performance or sets of behavioral statements describing important job performance qualities as good or bad (for eg. the qualities like inter-personal relationships, adaptability and reliability, job knowledge etc). These statements are developed from critical incidents. In this method, an employee s actual job behavior is judged against the desired behaviour by recording and comparing the behaviour with BARS. Developing and practicing BARS requires expert knowledge. c) Human Resource Accounting Method: Human resources are valuable assets for every organization. Human resource accounting method tries to find the relative worth of these assets
in terms of monetary units. In this method the performance appraisal of the employees is judged in terms of cost and contribution of the employees. The cost of employees include all the expenses incurred on them like their compensation, recruitment and selection costs, induction and training costs etc whereas their contribution includes the total value added (in monetary terms). The difference between the cost and the contribution will be the performance of the employees. d) 36 degree feedback, also known as 'multi-rater feedback', is the most comprehensive appraisal where the feedback about the employees performance comes from all the sources that come in contact with the employee on his job. e) Management by Objectives: In this performance appraisal method the supervisor and the employee get together to set objectives in quantifiable terms. The appraisal method has worked to eliminate communication problems by the establishment of regular meetings, emphasizing results, and by being an ongoing process where new objectives have been established and old objectives had been modified as necessary in light of changed conditions. 5.8 Performance Appraisals in IT industry The approach to performance appraisal was generally to combine both development objectives and reward. However to some extent both these aspects were compromised by the pressure to retain and the need to achieve maximum revenue from employees. The IT companies have taken the lead in implementing 8 degree and 36 degree appraisals. The appraisal by subordinates is considered a very important input especially for project managers. Several companies have a 36 degree appraisal done once in two to three years and not every year.
Many companies did appraisals more often than on an annual basis. Appraisals at the end of a project/module and often twice a year were commonly reported. The reason was the need felt to review performance from a feedback point of view more often especially in the initial years. The process was also an important input to building a skills inventory that was necessary for project allocation. 5.9 Performance Appraisal System in SUBEX According to the company's current policy, appraisal will be done every six months once by setting the KRA (key result areas) for maximum rating 5. The number of KARs differs from team to team. Along with that competencies will be rated for 5. 5. Responses of the Respondents to the Statements on Performance Appraisal With this background, to collect the opinions on various aspects of the performance appraisal prevailing in Subex Limited, thirteen 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. The responses 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 Weighted Average Score (WAS) Interpretation.-.99 Very Low 2.-2.99 Low 3.-3.99 High 4.-5. Very High The least favourable response is assigned and the most favourable response is assigned 5. Weighted Average Scores (WAS) are calculated as stated earlier. Thus minimum weighted average is and maximum is 5. If Weighted Average Score (WAS) is. to.99 indicates very low level of agreement or satisfaction, 2. to 2.99 indicates low level agreement or satisfaction, 3. to 3.99 indicates high level of agreement or satisfaction and 4 to 5 indicates very high level agreement or satisfaction. To highlight the performance appraisal practices in the SUBEX LIMITED opinions of the selected employees on various appraisal procedures and practices have been collected and analysed in the following pages. For the purpose as many as thirteen statements/questions have been framed. The responses so collected are presented in tables and weighted average scores have been calculated. The responses have been analyzed by educational qualifications, gender and designation. Table: 5.
Designation Gender Education Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Question Do You have Clear Knowledge About the Criteria Adopted for Performance Appraisal in Your Company? Variables No. of the Respondents Yes No Total B.E./B.Tech. 88 (85.44) 5 (4.56) 3 M.C.A./ M.Tech. 97 (84.35) 8 (5.65) 5 Male 5 (85.36) 8 (4.63) 23 Female 8 (84.2) 5 (5.79) 95 Trainee/ 33 8 4 Software Engineer (8.49) (9.5) System Analyst 3 (9.4) 2 (9.6) 25 Project Leader/ Manager 39 (75.) 3 (25.) 52 Total 85 (84.86) 33 (5.4) 28 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Table 5. shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the question do you have clear knowledge about the criteria adopted for performance
Gender Education appraisal in your company? Education-wise analysis of the responses shows that 85.44 percent of the B.E./B.Tech. qualified respondents and 84.35 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents; 85.36 per cent of the male respondents and 84.2 per cent of the female respondents; 8.49 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 9.4 per cent of the system analysts and 75. per cent of the project leaders/managers say that they have clear knowledge about the criteria adopted for performance appraisal in the company. On the whole 84.86 per cent of the respondents have clear knowledge about the criteria adopted for performance appraisal in the company. From this it can be concluded that a great majority of the respondents have clear knowledge of the criteria adopted for performance appraisal in the company. Performance appraisal criteria should be known by all the employees irrespective of education, gender and designation. Hence the company should try to increase awareness among the employees. Table: 5.2 Awareness of the Respondents Regarding the Person Making Performance Appraisal No. of the Respondents Variables HR Manager Dept Head Immediate Superior All of the above Total B.E/ B.Tech. 46 (44.66) 6 (5.82) 5 (49.5) (.) 3 M.C.A./ M.Tech. 46 (4.) 7 (6.9) 6 (53.4) (.87) 5 Male 56 (45.53) 6 (4.88) 6 (48.78) (.8) 23 Female 36 (37.89) 7 (7.37) 52 (54.74) (.) 95
Designation Trainee/ Software Engineer 6 (39.2) (.6) 24 (58.54) (.) 4 System Analyst 6 (48.) 2 (9.6) 52 (4.6) (.8) 25 Project Leader / Manager 6 (3.77) (.) 36 (69.23) (.) 52 Total 92 (42.2) 3 (5.96) 2 (5.38) (.46) 28 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Table 5.2 shows awareness of the respondents regarding the person making performance appraisal. Performance is generally appraised by human resources manager, department head or immediate superior. Majority of the respondents irrespective of education, gender and designation (except system analysts) say that immediate supervisor appraises the performance. About 4 per cent of the respondents are of the opinion that performance is appraised by HR manager. A meager 5.96 per cent of the respondents opine that department head appraises the performance. Only one respondent is under the impression that all the three HR Manager, Dept. Head and Immediate Superior appraise the performance. Differences in the opinions may be due to differences in the perceptions, experiences and awareness based on their positions, placements and education. In this case all are well educated. Some though educated may not be interested in knowing things.
Designation Gender Education Performance appraisal can be done by themselves (self appraisal), by the superiors, by the peers and by the subordinates depending upon the method they use in the organization. However, knowledge relating to the person or persons appraising the performance of the employees in the organization is not either adequate or not the same among the selected employees. Table: 5.3 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Question How Frequently Appraisal is Done? No. of the Respondents Variables Once in Three Months Once in Six Months Once in a Year Total B.E./ B.Tech. (.) 99 (96.2) 4 (3.88) 3 M.C.A. / M.Tech. (.87) 3 (89.57) (9.56) 5 Male (.8) 9 (88.62) 3 (.57) 23 Female (.) 93 (97.89) 2 (2.) 95 Trainee / 34 6 4 Software Engineer (2.44) (82.92) (4.63) System Analyst (.) 24 (99.2) (.8) 25 Project Leader / Manager (.) 44 (84.62) 8 (5.38) 52
Total (.46) 22 (92.66) 5 (6.88) 28 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Table 5.3 shows education-wise, gender-wise and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the question, how frequently appraisal is done? The responses structured are once in three months, once in six months and once in a year. As many as 96.2 per cent of the engineering graduates and 89.57 per cent of the masters of computer applications and technology are of the opinion that appraisal is done once in six months. Gender-wise analysis of the responses show that 88.62 per cent of the male respondents and 97.89 per cent of the female respondents are of the opinion that appraisal is done once in six months. As less as 2. per cent of the female respondents and.57 per cent of the male respondents say that appraisal is done once in a year. As many as 99.2 per cent of system analysts, 84.62 per cent of the project leaders and managers, 82.92 per cent of the trainees/software engineers are of the opinion that appraisal is done once in six months. Only one trainee respondent thinks that appraisal is done once in three months. This is quite unusual. About 5 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 5.38 per cent of the project leaders/managers, and.8 per cent of system analysts believe that appraisal is done once in a year. On the whole 92.66 per cent of the respondents opine that appraisal is done once in six months, 6.88 per cent of the respondents think that appraisal is done once in a year and only one thinks that appraisal is done once in three months. From this it can be understood appraisal is done once in six months in the organization.
Designation Gender Education Table: 5.4 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that Performance Appraisal is Linked to.: No. of the Respondents Variables Training and Development Reward and Promotion Both Total B.E./ B.Tech. (.97) 22 (2.36) 8 (77.67) 3 M.C.A. / M.Tech. (.87) 9 (6.52) 95 (82.6) 5 Male 2 (.63) 27 (2.95) 94 (76.42) 23 Female (.) 4 (4.74) 8 (85.26) 95 Trainee / 4 36 4 Software Engineer (2.44) (9.76) (87.8) System Analyst (.8) 34 (27.2) 9 (72.) 25 Project Leader / Manager (.) 3 (5.77) 49 (94.23) 52 Total 2 (.92) 4 (8.8) 75 (8.27) 28 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.
Table 5.4 shows education-wise, gender-wise and designation-wise responses of the selected employees to the statement that performance appraisal is linked to As much as 76.42 per cent of the B.E./B.Tech. qualified respondents and 82.6 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are of the opinion that performance appraisal is linked to both training and development, and reward and promotion. Gender-wise analysis shows that more than 75 per cent of both men and more than 85 per cent of the women respondents performance appraisal is linked to both training and development, and reward and promotion. Designation-wise analysis shows that 87.8 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 72. per cent of the system analysts, and 94.23 per cent of the project leaders/managers are of the opinion that performance appraisal is linked with both training and development, and reward and promotion. On the whole out of 28 employees of the company selected for the purpose of the study only two (.92 per cent) respondents are of the opinion that performance appraisal is linked to training and development only, 4 (8.8 per cent) respondents think that it is linked to reward and promotion, whereas 75 (8.27 per cent) respondents opine that performance appraisal is linked to both training and development, and reward and promotion. From this it can be concluded that performance appraisal is linked with both training and development, and reward and promotion. Table: 5.5 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Question that Do You Get Feedback Useful in Identifying Your Shortcomings? Variables No. of the Respondents Yes No Sometimes Total
Designation Gender Education B.E./ B.Tech. 59 (57.28) 8 (7.47) 26 (25.24) 3 M.C.A. / M.Tech. 8 (7.43) 6 (5.22) 28 (24.35) 5 Male 75 (6.97) 7 (3.82) 3 (25.2) 23 Female 65 (68.42) 7 (7.37) 23 (24.2) 95 Trainee / 26 4 4 Software Engineer (63.4) (9.76) (26.83) System Analyst 8 (64.) (.) 3 (24.8) 25 Project Leader / Manager 34 (65.38) 6 (.54) 2 (23.8) 52 Total 4 (64.22) 24 (.) 54 (24.77) 28 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Employees always need feedback which should be useful. Table 5.5 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the question do you get feedback useful in identifying your short comings? As far as educational qualification is concerned 57.28 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and 7.43 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents conceded that they get useful feedback. About one-fourth of the respondents irrespective of educational qualification opine that they sometimes get feedback useful to them.
Remaining respondents think that they do not get feedback, which is useful in identifying their shortcomings. Gender-wise analysis of the responses shows that 6.97 per cent of the male respondents and 68.42 per cent of the female respondents are of the opinion that they get feedback useful for identifying their shortcomings. Cadre-wise analysis shows that 6 to 67 per cent of the trainees, software engineers and system analysts are of the opinion that they get feedback useful for identifying their shortcomings. Quite unusually 65.38 per cent of the project leaders/managers too carry the same opinion. Irrespective of designation, about one-fourth of the respondents think that sometimes they get feedback useful for identifying their shortcomings. On the whole 64.22 per cent of the respondents are of the opinion that they get the feedback necessary for identifying their shortcomings, almost 25 per cent of the respondents opine that they sometimes but not always get the feedback which is useful for identifying their shortcomings and the remaining (. per cent) of the respondents do not think that they get feedback which is useful for identifying their short comings. Table: 5.6 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of Satisfaction with the Criteria of Performance Appraisal Followed in the Company No. of the Respondents Variables Fully Satisfied Satisfied Undecided Dissatisfied Highly Dissatisfied Total
Education B.E./ B.Tech. 9 (8.74) [45] 85 (82.52) [34] 8 (7.77) [24] (.97) [2] (.) [] 3 [4] {3.99} M.C.A./ M.Tech. 43 (37.39) [25] 65 (56.52) [26] 4 (3.48) [2] 3 (2.6) [6] (.) [] 5 [493] {4.29} Gender Male 27 (2.95) [35] 9 (73.7) [36] 5 (4.6) [5] (.8) [2] (.) [] 23 [52] {4.6} Female 25 (26.3) [25] 6 (63.6) [24] 7 (7.37) [2] 3 (3.6) [6] (.) [] 95 [392] {4.3} Designation Trainee/ Software Engineer 8 (9.5) [4] 24 (58.54) [96] 8 (9.5) [24] (2.44) [2] (.) [] 4 [62] {3.95} System Analyst 24 (9.2) [2] 98 (78.4) [392] 2 (.6) [6] (.8) [2] (.) [] 25 [52] {4.6}
2 28 2 2 52 Project Leader/ Manager (38.46) [] (53.85) [2] (3.85) [6] (3.85) [4] (.) [] [222] {4.27} 52 5 2 4 28 Total (23.85) [26] (68.8) [6] (5.5) [36] (.83) [8] (.) [] [94] {4.5} Source: Field Survey Note:. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. 2. Figures in the square brackets are the weighted scores. 3. Figures in the flower brackets are the weighted average scores. Employees satisfaction with the criteria of performance appraisal followed in the company were collected and reported in table 5.6. Out of 3 B.E./ B.Tech. qualified employees nine (8.74 per cent) strongly agree, 85 (82.52 per cent) simply agree, eight (7.77 per cent) are undecided and one (.97 per cent) is not satisfied. Out of 5 M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents 43 (37.39 per cent) are fully satisfied, 65 (56.52 per cent) are satisfied, four (3.48 per cent) are undecided and three (2.6 per cent) are not satisfied. Weighted average scores of the M.C.A/M.Tech. qualified respondents is 4.29 thus representing a very high level of satisfaction, whereas weighted average score of B.E./ B.Tech. qualified is 3.99. It represents a high level of satisfaction. Gender-wise analysis shows that 27 (2.95 per cent) men and 25 (26.3 per cent) women are fully satisfied, 9 (73.7 per cent) men and 6 (63.6 per cent) women are satisfied, five (4.6 per cent) men and seven (7.37 per cent) women are undecided, one (.8 per cent) man and three (3.6 per cent)
Gender Education women are dissatisfied, and nobody is highly dissatisfied. Calculated weighted average scores show a high level of satisfaction. Designation-wise analysis shows that, 8 (9.5 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 24 (9.2 per cent) system analysts, 2 (38.46 per cent) project leaders/project managers are highly satisfied. Twenty four (58.54 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 98 (78.4 per cent) system analysts, 28 (53.85 per cent) project leaders/managers are simply satisfied. Eight (9.5 per cent) trainees/software engineers, two (.6 per cent) system analysts, and two (3.85 per cent) project leaders/managers are undecided. One (2.44 per cent) software engineer, one (.8 per cent) systems analyst, and two (3.85 per cent) project leaders/managers are dissatisfied. Nobody is highly dissatisfied. Weighted average scores of all the three categories of the respondents show a very high level of satisfaction. Table: 5.7 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Question that Is Your Job Responsibility Well Defined? Variables No. of the Respondents Yes No Total B.E./B.Tech. 95 (92.23) 8 (7.77) 3 M.C.A./M.Tech. 9 (94.78) 6 (5.22) 5 Male 8 (95.93) 5 (4.7) 23 Female 86 (9.53) 9 (9.47) 95
Designation Trainee/ 34 7 4 Software Engineer (82.93) (7.7) System Analyst 8 (94.4) 7 (5.6) 25 Project Leader/ Manager 52 (.) 52 Total 24 (93.58) 4 (6.42) 28 Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. Table 5.7 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the question that Is your job responsibility well defined? Out of 3 B.E./B.Tech. qualified respondents 95 (92.23 per cent) accept that their job responsibility has been well defined, whereas 8 (7.77 per cent) members do not think that their job responsibility has been well defined. Of the 5 M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents as many as 9 (94.78 per cent) members agree and six members do not agree with the statement. Gender-wise analysis shows that 8 (95.93 per cent) men and 86 (9.53 per cent) women agree with the statement that their jobs are well defined, whereas five (4.7 per cent) men and nine (9.47 per cent) women do not agree with the statement that their job responsibilities are well defined. Designation-wise analysis shows that 34 (82.93 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 8 (94.4 per cent) system analysts, 52 ( per cent) project leaders/managers agree with the statement and others do not agree. Out of 28 selected employees 93.58 per cent of the employees agree that their job responsibility is well defined whereas just 6.42 per cent of the respondents do not agree with the statement.
Gender Education Table: 5.8 Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that Career Paths are Laid Down for Every Employee with Opportunities Clearly Specified No. of the Respondents Variables Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 24 37 22 2 3 B.E./ B.Tech. (23.3) [2] (35.92) [48] (2.34) [66] (9.42) [4] (.) [] [374] {3.63} 36 34 26 8 5 M.C.A./ M.Tech. (3.3) [8] (29.57) [36] (22.6) [78] (5.65) [36] (.87) [] [43] {3.75} 33 46 28 5 23 Male (26.83) [65] (37.39) [84] (22.76) [84] (2.9) [3] (.8) [] [464] {3.77} 27 25 2 23 95 Female (28.42) [35] (26.3) [] (2.5) [6] (24.2) [46] (.) [] [34] {3.59}
Designation 6 24 8 3 4 Trainee/ Software Engineer (4.63) [3] (58.54) [96] (9.5) [24] (7.3) [6] (.) [] [56] {3.8} 44 26 25 29 25 System Analyst (35.2) [22] (2.8) [4] (2.) [75] (23.2) [58] (.8) [] [458] {3.66} 2 5 6 52 Project Leader/ Manager (9.23) [5] (4.38) [84] (28.85) [45] (.54) [2] (.) [] [9] {3.67} 6 7 48 38 28 Total (27.52) [3] (32.57) [284] (22.2) [44] (7.43) [76] (.46) [] [85] {3.69} Source: Field Survey Note:. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. 2. Figures in the square brackets are the weighted scores. 3. Figures in the flower brackets are the weighted average scores. Every employee wants to grow in his/her career. If the organization in which a person works gives him an opportunity for his career development, he will be happy and
will work hard, to improve his efficiency for the benefit of the organization. To what extent the company is successful in creating opportunities to its employees for their development was studied and the results are reported in table 5.8. Education-wise analysis shows that out of 3 B.E./B.Tech. qualified respondents 24 (23.3 per cent) strongly agree, 37 (35.92 per cent) simply agree, 22 (2.34 per cent) are undecided, 2 (9.42 per cent) disagree and none strongly disagree. Out of 5..M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents 36 (3.3 per cent) strongly agree, 34 (29.57 per cent) just agree, 26 (22.6 per cent) are undecided, 8 (5.65 per cent) disagree and only one (.57 per cent) strongly disagrees with the statement. Gender-wise analysis shows that, 33 (26.83 per cent) men and 27 (28.42 per cent) women strongly agree, 46 (37.39 per cent) men and 25 (26.3 per cent) women simply agree, 28 (22.76 per cent) men and 2 (2.5 per cent) women are undecided, 5 (2.9 per cent) and 23 (24.2 per cent) women disagree and only one (.8 per cent) male respondent strongly disagrees with the statement that career paths are laid down for every employee with opportunities clearly specified. Designation-wise analysis shows that six (4.63 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 44 (35.2 per cent) system analysts, (9.23 per cent) project leaders/managers strongly agree with the statement that career paths are laid down for every employee with opportunities clearly specified. More than one-half (58.54 per cent) of the trainees/software engineers, slightly more than one-fifth (2.8 per cent) of the system analysts, 4.38 per cent of the project leaders/managers simply agree with the statement. About one-fifth of the trainees/software engineers, exactly one-fifth of the system analysts, 28.85 per cent of the project leaders/managers could not say anything affirmatively as to whether they agree with the statement or not. Three (7.3 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 29 (23.2 per cent) system analysts and six (.54 per cent) project leaders/managers disagree with the statement. Only one systems analyst strongly disagrees with the statement. Weighted average scores of
Education the responses of all categories of the respondents fall between 3 and 4, thus representing a high degree of concurrence with the statement. On the whole out of 28 selected employees 6 (27.52 per cent) employees strongly agree, 7 (32.57 per cent) employees simply agree, 48 (22.2 per cent) respondents could not say anything in affirmative, 38 (7.43 per cent) employees disagree and one (.46 per cent) employee strongly disagrees with the statement. The weighted average score of the responses of all the respondents, for the given statement is 3.69 which indicates that they are well in agreement with the statement. From this it can be understood that majority of the employees are of the opinion that career paths are laid down for every employee with opportunities clearly specified in the organization. Table: 5.9 Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that Every Employee is Empowered and Has the Autonomy to Plan, Organize and Do His Work. No. of the Respondents Variables Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 8 45 6 44 3 B.E./ B.Tech. (7.77) [4] (43.69) [8] (5.82) [8] (42.72) [88] (.) [] [326] {3.6} 4 4 6 28 5 M.C.A./ M.Tech. (34.78) [2] (35.65) [64] (5.22) [8] (24.35) [56] (.) [] [438] {3.8}
Gender Male 23 (8.69) [5] 58 (47.5) [232] 5 (4.6) [5] 37 (3.8) [74] (.) [] 23 [436] {3.54} Female 25 (26.3) [25] 28 (29.47) [2] 7 (7.37) [2] 35 (36.84) [7] (.) [] 95 [328] {3.45} Designation Trainee/ Software Engineer 5 (2.2) [25] 2 (5.22) [84] 5 (2.2) [5] (24.39) [2] (.) [] 4 [44] {3.5} System Analyst 25 (2.) [25] 45 (36.) [8] (.8) [3] 54 (43.2) [8] (.) [] 25 [46] {3.33} Project Leaders/ Managers 24 (46.5) [2] 25 (48.8) [8] 6 (.54) [8] 8 (5.38) [6] (.) [] 52 [234] {4.5} Total 48 (22.2) [24] 86 (39.45) [344] 2 (5.5) [36] 72 (33.3) [44] (.) [] 28 [764] {3.5} Source: Field Survey
Note:. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. 2. Figures in the square brackets are the weighted scores. 3. Figures in the flower brackets are the weighted average scores. Table 5.9 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the statement that every employee is empowered and has the autonomy to plan, organize and do his work. Autonomy helps to develop a genuine interest in work, widens vision and relates work with others in the organization. Employee gets sense of pride and evolves certain basic values by himself. It leads to self-motivation and self-discipline. Education-wise analysis shows that out of 3 B.E./B.Tech. qualified respondents eight (7.77 per cent) respondents strongly agree, 45 (43.69 per cent) respondents simply agree, six (5.82 per cent) respondents are undecided, 44 (42.72 per cent) respondents disagree and none strongly disagree with the statement. Out of 5 M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents 4 (34.78 per cent) respondents strongly agree, 4 (35.65 per cent) respondents just agree, six (5.22 per cent) respondents are undecided, 28 (24.35 per cent) respondents disagree and none strongly disagree with the statement. Gender-wise analysis shows that, 23 (8.69 per cent) men and 25 (26.3 per cent) women strongly agree, 58 (47.5 per cent) men and 28 (29.47 per cent) women simply agree, five (4.6 per cent) men and 7 (7.37 per cent) women are undecided, 37 (3.8 per cent) men and 35 (36.84 per cent) women disagree with the statement that every employee is empowered and has the autonomy to plan, organize and do his/her work. Designation-wise analysis shows that five (2.2 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 25 (2. per cent) system analysts, and 24 (46.5 per cent) project leaders/ managers strongly agree with the statement that every employee is empowered and has the autonomy to plan, organize and do his/her work.
Twenty one (5.22 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 45 (36. per cent) system analysts, and 25 (48.8 per cent) project leaders/managers simply agree with the statement. Five (2.2 per cent) trainees/software engineers, one (.8 per cent) systems analyst, and six (.54 per cent) project leaders/managers could not say whether they agree with the statement or not. Ten (24.39 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 54 (43.2 per cent) system analysts and eight (5.38 per cent) project leaders/managers disagree with the statement. Nobody expressed strong disagreement with the statement. Calculated weighted average scores of responses of the selected project leader/manager designates show a very high agreement with the statement. Weighted average scores of the others also show a high agreement with the statement. On the whole out of 28 selected employees 48 (22.2 per cent) employees strongly agree, 86 (39.45 per cent) employees agree, 2 (5.5 per cent) employees are undecided, and 72 (33.3 per cent) employees disagree with the statement. The WAS for the given statement is 3.5 which indicates that they are well in agreement with the statement. From this it can be understood that majority of the employees are of the opinion that career paths are laid down for every employee with opportunities clearly specified in the organization. Table: 5. Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that Employees regularly receive feedback about their potential for higher level jobs No. of the Respondents Variables Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Education B.E./ B.Tech. 8 (7.77) [4] 43 (4.75) [72] 7 (6.5) [5] 35 (33.98) [7] (.) [] 3 [333] {3.23} M.C.A./ M.Tech. 35 (3.43) [75] 45 (39.3) 8] 4 (2.7) [42] 2 (8.26) [42] (.) [] 5 [439] {3.82} Gender Male 2 (7.7) [5] 46 (37.39) [84] 2 (7.7) [63] 35 (28.45) [7] (.) [] 23 [422] {3.43} Female 22 (23.6) [] 42 (44.2) [68] (.53) [3] 2 (22.) [42] (.) [] 95 [35] {3.68} Designation Trainee/ Software Engineer 5 (2.2) [25] 25 (6.98) [] 3 (7.32) [9] 8 (9.5) [6] (.) [] 4 [54] {3.76} System Analyst 25 (2.) [25] 48 (38.4) [92] 7 (3.6) [5] 35 (28.) [7] (.) [] 25 [438] {3.5}
3 5 3 52 Project Leader/ Manager (25.) [65] (28.85) [6] (2.5) [33] (25.) [26] (.) [] [84] {3.54} 43 88 3 56 28 Total (9.72) [25] (4.37) [352] (4.22) [93] (25.69) [2] (.) [] [772] {3.54} Source: Field Survey Note:. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals. 2. Figures in the square brackets are the weighted scores. 3. Figures in the flower brackets are the weighted average scores. Table 5. shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the responses to the statement that employees regularly receive feedback about their potential for higher level jobs. To develop the human resources in the organization, continuous feedback should be provided to the employees about their strengths and weaknesses. With the help of the feedback one can get to know about their present capabilities and workout the needed things to achieve the desired position. So, the companies should help employees by providing continuous feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Education-wise analysis shows that out of 3 B.E./B.Tech. qualified respondents eight (7.77 per cent) respondents strongly agree, 43 (4.75 per cent) respondents simply agree, 7 (6.5 per cent) respondents are undecided and 35 (33.98 per cent) respondents disagree. Out of 5 M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents, 35 (3.43 per cent) respondents strongly agree, 45 (39.3 per cent) respondents just agree, 4 (2.7 per cent) are undecided, and 2 (8.26 per cent) respondents disagree with the
statement. Weighted average scores of both technical graduates and postgraduates show a high degree of agreement with the statement. Gender-wise analysis shows that 2 (7.7 per cent) men and 22 (23.6 per cent) women strongly agree, 46 (37.39 per cent) men and 42 (44.2 per cent) women simply agree, 2 (7.7 per cent) men and ten (.53 per cent) women are undecided, and 35 (28.45 per cent) men 2 (22. per cent) women disagree with the statement that employees regularly receive feedback about their potential for higher level jobs. Weighted average scores show a high degree of agreement with the statement. Designation-wise analysis shows that five (2.2 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 25 (2. per cent) system analysts, and 3 (25. per cent) project leaders/ managers strongly agree with the statement that employees regularly receive feedback about their potential for higher level jobs. Twenty five (6.98 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 48 (38.4 per cent) system analysts, and 5 (28.85 per cent) project leaders/managers simply agree with the statement. Three (7.32 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 7 (3.6 per cent) system analysts, and (2.5 per cent) project leaders/managers could not say whether they agree with the statement or not. Eight (9.5 per cent) trainees/software engineers, 35 (28. per cent) system analysts and 3 (25. per cent) project leaders/managers disagree with the statement. Nobody expressed strong disagreement with the statement. Calculated weighted scores of the responses show a agreement with the statement irrespective of designation. On the whole 43 (9.72 per cent) of the selected employees strongly agree, 88 (4.37 per cent) of the selected employees simply agree, 3 (4.22 per cent) of the selected employees stay neutral, and 56 (25.69 per cent) of the selected employees disagree with the statement. However nobody strongly disagree with the statement. The WAS for the given statement is 3.54 thus indicating a high level of
Gender Education agreement with the statement. From this it can be understood that majority of the employees are of the opinion that employees regularly receive feedback about their potential for higher level jobs. Table: 5. Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement that The Performance Appraisal Provides an Opportunity for Self Review & Reflection No. of the Respondents Variables Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 7 38 3 27 3 B.E./ B.Tech. (6.79) [35] (36.89) [52] (3.9) [93] (26.2) [54] (.) [] [334] {3.24} 33 34 2 36 5 M.C.A./ M.Tech. (28.7) [65] (29.57) [36] (.43) [36] (3.3) [72] (.) [] [49] {3.56} 9 45 23 36 23 Male (5.45) [95] (36.58) [8] (8.69) [69] (29.27) [72] (.) [] [46] {3.38} 2 27 2 27 95 Female (22.) [5] (28.42) [8] (2.5) [6] (28.42) [54] (.) [] [327] {3.44}