CHAPTER 4: Empirical Research 4.1 RESEARCH APPROACH In order to understand some of the issues regarding the perception of employees on the effective use of the current appraisal system, an exploratory research was conducted. Zikmund (2003:110) defines an exploratory research as an initial research conducted to clarify and define the nature of the problem. Zikmund (2003:111) further states that an exploratory research is used as a diagnostic tool to point out issues of concern or generate a possible explanation for some patterns. 4.2 SAMPLING METHOD AND DESIGN Sampling is defined by Zikmund (2003:369) as a process of using a small number of items or parts of a larger population to make conclusions about the whole population. The target population for this study is those employees who have been with the bank for at least two years from the two divisions, being Retail Credit, Group IT. Zikmund (2003:373) defined the sampling frame as a list of elements from which a sample may be drawn. A personnel list was used as a sampling frame for this study. The personnel list containing Surname, Name, Level, Region and Start Date (See Annexure A) was supplied to the researcher by human resources. This study had to ensure that there was adequate representation of managerial and non managerial levels of employees from both divisions. Each member of the groups, provided they satisfied the definition of the target population as explained in the paragraph above, had an equal chance of being selected. According to Zikmund (2003:379), a probability sampling is a sampling technique in which every member of the target population has a known non-zero probability of selection. 77
105
Embed
CHAPTER 4: Empirical Research 4.1 RESEARCH APPROACH ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CHAPTER 4: Empirical Research
4.1 RESEARCH APPROACH In order to understand some of the issues regarding the perception of
employees on the effective use of the current appraisal system, an exploratory
research was conducted. Zikmund (2003:110) defines an exploratory research as an initial research conducted to clarify and define the nature of
the problem. Zikmund (2003:111) further states that an exploratory research
is used as a diagnostic tool to point out issues of concern or generate a
possible explanation for some patterns.
4.2 SAMPLING METHOD AND DESIGN Sampling is defined by Zikmund (2003:369) as a process of using a small
number of items or parts of a larger population to make conclusions about the
whole population. The target population for this study is those employees
who have been with the bank for at least two years from the two divisions,
being Retail Credit, Group IT.
Zikmund (2003:373) defined the sampling frame as a list of elements from
which a sample may be drawn. A personnel list was used as a sampling
frame for this study. The personnel list containing Surname, Name, Level,
Region and Start Date (See Annexure A) was supplied to the researcher by
human resources. This study had to ensure that there was adequate
representation of managerial and non managerial levels of employees from
both divisions. Each member of the groups, provided they satisfied the
definition of the target population as explained in the paragraph above, had an
equal chance of being selected. According to Zikmund (2003:379), a
probability sampling is a sampling technique in which every member of the
target population has a known non-zero probability of selection.
77
Probability sampling was therefore applied for the purposes of this study, with
the stratus being the division (retail credit and Group IT) and position level
(managers and non-managers) who are equal on some characteristics (at
least two years with the bank).
Sample Division Total employees
(#) Employees, 2yrs+ with the bank (#)
Sample (#)
Responses
Retail Credit 1,348 800 100 46
Group IT(Other*) 878 551 100 18
TOTAL RESPONSES 64
RESPONSES WITH NO SUBORDINATES 44
RESPONSES WITH SUBORDINATES 20
A sample size of 64 cases was used for this study.
4.3 RESPONSE RATE Response rate is defined by Zikmund (2003:215) as the number of
questionnaires returned or completed, divided by the total number of eligible
people who were contacted or asked to participate in the study.
For the purposes of this study, Human Resources consultants from each
division were asked to brief the selected participants prior to receipt of the
questionnaires. Participants were asked to indicate their willingness to
participate prior to the questionnaire being sent to them electronically by
email.
The researcher scheduled sessions with selected participants so as to
complete the questionnaires under supervision. 22 of the completed
questionnaires were completed under the researcher’s supervision and the
other 42 questionnaires were delivered to the researcher or electronically
completed and emailed to the researcher.
The table below illustrates the response rate calculated as:
Most respondents have been in their current position for more than 12
months. Only 17.2% of the sample is fairly new (i.e. less than 12 months) in
their current positions.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary n/a
Manager vs. non manager comparison n/a
Deductions Given an average long service of respondents in question 3 above,
respondents in “<12 months” in current position still commented from
experience in their previous positions. It is not apparent who the “Other”
category represents in the variable analysis table.
85
4.6.2 Responses of respondents with subordinates. Although most of the managers have subordinates, it is possible to find
employees at managerial levels with no subordinates. Non managers can
have subordinates and these non-managers are referred to as supervisors.
SECTION B: EMPLOYEES WITH SUBORDINATES
5) Do you always have enough time to prepare before discussions with your subordinates? Category reclassification None
Variable Analysis
Category f Total Respondents %
Respondents with subordinates %
Respondents with subordinates cumulative %
Yes 15 23.4% 75.0% 75.0%No 5 7.8% 25.0% 100.0%Total with subordinates 20 31.3% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 44 68.8% TOTAL 64 100.0% 100.0%
Only 20 of 64 respondents have subordinates. 75.0% with subordinates have
enough time to prepare before discussions with their subordinates.
Respondents’ elaboration commentary Most respondents commented that they have to wait for senior managers to
provide them with ratings for their immediate subordinates.
Manager vs. non manager comparison n/a
86
Deductions A quarter of employees in the bank do not have time to prepare before they
have performance appraisal discussions with their subordinates. It is possible
that appraisals are not seen as important, or, because the ratings will be
predefined, they do not see the need to prepare. This may result in focus not
on relevant issues and an improper application of the system.
87
6) How do you feel about appraising employees below you? Category reclassification
Questionnaire Category Analysis category
Daunting, Bad Experience, Playing GOD Negative
Enjoy it, Fulfilling Positive
Variable Analysis
Category f Total Sample %
Sample with Subordinates %
Sample with subordinates cumulative %
Daunting 2 3.1% 10.5% 10.5% Bad Experience 3 4.7% 15.8% 26.3% Playing GOD 1 1.6% 5.3% 31.6% Enjoy it 7 10.9% 36.8% 68.4% Fulfilling 6 9.4% 31.6% 100.0% Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%
36.8% of sample with subordinates, “Enjoy” discussions with their
subordinates, whilst 31.6% find the experience “Fulfilling”. However, 15.8% of
the participants describe the experience as “Bad” and 10.5% as “Daunting”.
Category f Total Sample %
Sample with Subordinates %
Sample with subordinates cumulative %
Negative 6 9.4% 31.6% 31.6% Positive 13 20.3% 68.4% 100.0% Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%
31.6% of managers/supervisors who conduct performance appraisal
discussions have a negative feeling when appraising their subordinates.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary Respondents however commented that they felt comfortable doing the
performance appraisal reviews especially when they have had enough time to
prepare. There were other comments that indicated that the process takes
time and they would rather use the time to do their day to day job.
88
Manager vs. non manager comparison n/a
Deduction A negative feeling when conducting a performance appraisal discussion can
result in the environment or climate not being conducive to a constructive
discussion. This could result in subordinates feeling intimidated and not being
able to be open and free to voice their opinions. It is also possible that the
staff acting as manger/supervisor may avoid confrontation with the staff
member thereby opting for average ratings.
89
7) Do you feel adequately trained to perform a PA discussion? Category reclassification
Questionnaire Category Analysis category
Inadequate Inadequate
Partly Adequate, Fully Adequate Adequate
Variable Analysis
Category f Total Sample %
Sample with Subordinates %
Sample with subordinates cumulative %
Inadequate 2 3.1% 10.5% 10.5% Partly Adequate 7 10.9% 36.8% 47.4% Fully Adequate 10 15.6% 52.6% 100.0% Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%
Of the 19 eligible respondents for this question, 36.8% of the participants felt
“Partly adequate” to perform performance appraisal discussion. 52.6% of the
participants, felt “Fully adequate” to perform performance appraisal discussion.
Category f Total Sample %
Sample with Subordinates %
Sample with subordinates cumulative %
Inadequate 2 3.1% 10.5% 10.5%Adequate 17 26.6% 89.5% 100.0%Total with subordinates 19 29.7% 100.0% Total with no subordinates 45 70.3% TOTAL 64 100.0%
10.5% of managers/supervisors felt inadequate to conduct performance
appraisal discussions.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary Although only 10 of the sample of 19 felt “Fully adequate”, most of the sample
commented that they have not been formally trained and therefore use their
own experience when conducting discussions with their subordinates.
90
Manager vs. non manager comparison n/a
Deduction Formal performance appraisal training is important so as to give those who
have to perform it correct guidance and support. This will go a long way to
ensure not only that they are confident, but also to ensure that they focus on
performance aspect and are honest and constructive in their feedback. Not
only is it important for the managers/supervisors to know how to give
feedback and probe for relevant information from their subordinates, but
subordinates should also be trained to know how to receive feedback. Lack
of formal training for managers/subordinates makes all employees victims of
an inadequately implemented system irrespective, of how good the system is.
91
4.6.3 Section for all respondents
Each and every employee in the bank has a manager/supervisor who
conducts their performance appraisal. This section of the questionnaire
focuses on the following issues:
Preparation by employees;
Understanding of the performance appraisal system;
Moderation process;
Discussion of the performance appraisal review;
Outcome of the performance appraisal process;
Development Plans; and
Other, including general comments from respondents.
SECTION C: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL (“PA”) For each of the questions in this section the analysis approach is as follows:
Frequency distributions for each variable; and
Cross tabulation of each variable analysis by respondents’ current
position (i.e. managers versus non managers). Most of the cross
tabulation cells contained less than 5 cases and the researcher could
therefore not draw valid and reliable statistical inferences. Most
categories are reclassified to provide meaningful numbers and
percentages.
92
C1: Preparation by employees 8) For your last PA session how much time were you given for preparation? Category reclassification
Questionnaire Category Analysis category
None, <=2 days, 3 – 6 days Less than 1 week
1 week, 2-3weeks, 4+weeks More than 1 week
Variable Analysis
Category f % Cumulative %Less than 1 week 30 46.9% 46.9%More than 1 week 32 50.0% 96.9%No Response 2 3.1% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%
46.9% of the sample is given less than a week as preparation time prior to the
appraisal discussion. 50.0% of the sample is given a week or more to prepare,
prior to their performance discussion with their managers.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary n/a
Manager vs. non manager comparison
Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Less than 1 week 19 61% 11 35% More than 1 week 12 39% 20 65%
31 100% 31 100%
61% of non managers are given less than a week to prepare prior to their
performance appraisal discussion with their managers, versus only 35% of
managers.
93
Deductions Only half of the sample is given a week or more to prepare for their
performance appraisal discussions with their managers. There seems to be a
big difference when one compares the time that the managers are given for
preparation to that of their non-managerial counterparts. Not only are most
employees not given adequate time to prepare, non-managerial levels are in
many cases caught by surprise, to do the appraisal.
94
9) Was the preparation time given adequate? Category reclassification
Questionnaire Category Analysis category
Too short Too Short
Adequate, More than enough Enough
Not important to me Not important to me
Variable Analysis
Category f % Cumulative %Too short 16 25.0% 25.0%Enough 42 65.6% 90.6%Not important to me 3 4.7% 95.3%No Response 3 4.7% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%
25.0 % of the sample finds the time given prior to the discussion “Too short”.
65.6% of the sample said the time given for preparation is “Enough” whilst
4.7% said the time given for preparation is not important to them.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary n/a
Manager vs. non manager comparison
Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Too short 8 27% 8 26% Enough 21 70% 21 68% Not important to me 1 3% 2 6%
30 100% 31 100%
The table above shows an almost identical response between managers and
non managers.
Deductions It is quite obvious from question(8) than non managers are given less time to
prepare than managers, but surprisingly 70% of them still find the time to be
enough. This may imply that they do not see or understand the importance of
95
knowing in advance that the performance appraisal discussion will take place.
This then implies that in most cases the non managers do not have anything
to prepare anyway. This could also reflect lack of understanding of a proper
performance appraisal process, especially from managers/supervisors. It is
quite disturbing to note that some respondents, although only 4.7%, do not
see preparation time as important to them.
96
10) Do you feel that your manager (who does your appraisal) has done adequate preparation before the PA discussion with yourself? Category reclassification
65.6% respondents are “satisfied” with their performance discussion between
themselves and their managers. 32.8% are “dissatisfied”.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary n/a
Manager vs. non manager comparison
Level
Non Managers Managers
f % f % Satisfied 22 69% 20 65% Dissatisfied 10 31% 11 35%
32 100% 31 100%
A slightly bigger proportion of non-managers (69%) is “satisfied” with the
performance discussions than the managers (65%).
Deductions Although 65.6% of respondents are “satisfied” with the discussions between
themselves and their managers/supervisors, the percentage that is
“dissatisfied” (32.8%), is of concern. The dissatisfaction between managers
and non-managers groups is over 30% and this needs attention. The
103
dissatisfaction could cover a wide range of issues and perhaps questions to
follow will assist in establishing the source of dissatisfaction.
104
15) How do you feel about user’s (manager & subordinate) ability to interpret measurement scales and critical behaviours in the PA system? Category reclassification None
Although a large number of the sample find the measurement scale
“easy”(78.1%) in Question 12 and 65.6% are “satisfied” with the discussion
between themselves and their managers, Question 14, 42.2% of the sample
still find the interpretation of the measurement scales and critical behaviours
“open to subjectivity”. Only 20.3% finds the interpretation “very clear”.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary Most common comments on this question from the respondents were that the
ratings are predetermined prior to performance appraisal discussion.
Respondents felt that their managers/supervisors are not very open and
honest with them when discussing the ratings and ratings are interpreted to
suit the situation at that particular moment, so as to tie back to the predefined
rating.
Manager vs. non manager comparison
Level Non Managers Managers f % f % Open to subjectivity 10 32% 17 55% Very Clear 6 19% 7 23% No Comment 15 48% 7 23% 31 100% 31 100%
105
55% of managers as opposed to 32% of non managers felt that the
performance system measurement scales and critical behaviours are open to
subjectivity. Approximately half of non managers answered “No comment” for
this question.
Deductions Positive responses came from only 20.3% of the sample, i.e. they felt that the
interpretation is “very clear”. Most of the responses are not very encouraging,
i.e. 42.2% felt that the interpretation is “open to subjectivity” with 55% and
32% of managers and non managers respectively. Once again this questions
the credibility of the system to the users. One factor that stands out from this
analysis is that 34.4% of respondents could not comment on this question,
more so for non managers (48%). Is it because of fear of victimisation, lack of
interest or simply the inability to comment? This is one aspect of the study
that needs close attention especially during the analysis of other questions to
follow.
106
C3: Moderation process 16) In your understanding is the moderation done BEFORE or AFTER the PA discussion between manager and employee? Category reclassification None
Of the sample, 65.6% said that their rating was used for salary review, 50.0%
for bonus, 45.3% for promotion and 9.4% said the rating was not used at all.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary Although a small percentage of the sample commented that their ratings are
used for salary reviews, bonuses and promotions, there was a large
proportion of the sample that commented that their ratings are not linked to
anything at all.
129
Manager vs. non manager comparison
Salary Review Bonus Level Level Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers f % f % f % f % Yes 22 79% 20 74% 11 44% 21 72% No 6 21% 7 26% 14 56% 8 28%
28 100% 27 100% 25 100% 29 100%
Promotion Not used at all Level Level Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers f % f % f % f % Yes 15 54% 14 54% 3 17% 3 18% No 13 46% 12 46% 15 83% 14 82%
28 100% 26 100% 18 100% 17 100%
Most managers (72%) responded “Yes” to the fact that their ratings are used
for their “bonus”. This is very different from the non managers (44%).
Deductions The big response to differences on bonus between the two groups could be
attributed to the fact that non-managers do not qualify for the bonus pool as
their bonus / 13th cheque is agreed with the trade union.
130
C6: Development Plan (“DP”)
28) How would you rate your DP in relation to your long-term (“LT”) career objectives? Category reclassification None
Variable Analysis
Category f % Cumulative %No DP 19 29.7% 29.7%DP-No match to LT career objectives 13 20.3% 50.0%DP-Matches LT career objectives 27 42.2% 92.2%No Response 5 7.8% 100.0%TOTAL 64 100.0%
Note*: DP=Development Plan and LT = Long Term
29.7% of the sample do not have a development plan. 20.3% have a
development plan but in their opinion it is not in line with their long term career
objectives. 42.2% have development plans that are in line with their long term
objectives.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary Although 42.2% responded that they have development plans that are in line
with their long term career objectives, respondents still commented that their
development plans are their own responsibility and they cannot rely on their
managers for that. Respondents also commented that the bank offers them a
job and not a career. Respondents also felt that training offered by the bank
is to enable them to do specific jobs and is not intended to grow their careers.
Some commented that development plans discussed with their managers are
in most cases not formalised and cover short term Key Results Areas.
131
Manager vs. non manager comparison
Level Non Managers Managers f % f % No DP 8 28% 11 37% DP<>LT* 6 21% 7 23% DP=LT* 15 52% 12 40%
29 100% 30 100%
Note*: DP=Development Plan and LT = Long Term
52% of non-managers have development plans that are in line with their long
term career objectives as opposed to 40% of managers. 37% of managers do
not have development plans versus 28% of non-managers. Deductions It is concerning to see that only 42.2% of staff have development plans that
match their long term career objectives. Reading the elaborate commentary
one gets the feeling that even the 42.2%, their managers/supervisors are not
aware of existence of the DPs. Respondents’ commentary gives the reader
an impression that a large proportion of staff do not see their long term career
objectives being met in the organisation (i.e. “the organisation only offers a job
and not career”). It is of concern to see half of the staff having long term
career objectives that are not addressed collectively with their
43.8% of the sample have actions for their development plans and 37.5%
have time frames for their development plans.
Respondents’ elaborative commentary In instances where respondents commented that development plans exist,
actions and time frames are not implemented or closely monitored.
Manager vs. non manager comparison
Actions Time Frames Level Level Non Managers Managers Non Managers Managers f % f % f % f % Yes 17 65% 11 42% 13 52% 11 44% No 9 35% 15 58% 12 48% 14 56%
26 100% 26 100% 25 100% 25 100%
Managers who answered “Yes” to “Actions” on the development plans
comprise just over 42% versus 65% of non-managers. From the above table
it looks like more employees at non-managerial levels have development
plans and these have actions and timeframes. This does not seem to be the
case for employees at managerial levels.
Deductions Development plans are not prioritised by managers and supervisors.
133
C7: Other
30) When are job expectations discussed between you and your manager? Category reclassification None
32) Please elaborate in general on what your perception is on the effective use of the
current performance appraisal system in the bank.
GENERAL COMMENTS
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
ANNEXURE C: Non Managerial PA forms
GENERAL STAFF PERFORMANCE REVIEW
RETAIL CREDIT
EMPLOYEE PERSONAL DETAILS:
e Surnam Initials Personnel Number Position Title Job Family Level IBT Business Unit NSTRUCTIONS: I The Performance Assessment has four parts:
IX
(i) A set of Principal Accountabilities (PA’s) (ii) Key Result Areas (KRAs) (iii) Critical Behaviours (CB’s) (iv) Future Development Planning
Please complete each part during the discussion with the appraisee and record the outcomes on the spreadsheet provided.
SECTION I PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABILITIES
Every position exists for a specific purpose. The purpose may be described by a set of Principal Accountabilities. These are the enduring deliverables for which a position holder is responsible. Usually, there are no more than seven Accountabilities. Please describe below those Principal Accountabilities associated with the position under review (principal accountabilities as per the current job description). These should be discussed and agreed with the employee so that he/she is quite clear about his/her accountabilities.
SECTION I PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABILITIES
1 2 3 4
X
5 SECTION II KEY RESULT AREAS (KRAS)
Identify and agree on the appraisee's Key Result Areas and write them into the space provided below. Agree a relative weighting per KRA and write this in the appropriate column (decimal ratings may be used). Assess actual performance by rating each KRA.
Score is calculated as Weight % X Rating divided by 100. Unrounded KRA total is calculated as the sum of the individual KRA scores.
Rating descriptors from previous years have been done away with and replaced with 1-5 scale where: 1 = Poor performance 5 = Outstanding performance.
SECTION III ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL BEHAVIOURS
This list contains criteria to assess how a role was performed. The appraiser is free to choose those items that represent HOW the role should be performed. Highlight the chosen behaviours by checking the "star" box. Where necessary appropriate items can be added to those provided. No limit to number of items chosen. Rate each behaviour numerically, decimals may be used.
Legend: Chosen Behaviour 1: Poor 2: Fair 3: Good 4: Excellent Thinking, Problem Solving, Innovation Score
1 Generates focused and practical solutions 2 Drives for simplifying and improving processes 3 Continually bears customer focused solutions in
mind 4 Questions sub-standard practices 5 Creative when faced with obstacles 6 Experiments and takes well-informed risks 7 Provides innovative solutions 8 Analyses problems thoroughly 9 Demonstrates sound judgement
10 Makes decisions quickly 11 Thinks proactively 12 Looks beyond the obvious answer 13 Thinks outside the box 14 Shows a quick mind Personal and Interpersonal Effectiveness
Score 1 Has a supportive, solution-seeking approach
XII
SECTION III ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL BEHAVIOURS
This list contains criteria to assess how a role was performed. The appraiser is free to choose those items that represent HOW the role should be performed. Highlight the chosen behaviours by checking the "star" box. Where necessary appropriate items can be added to those provided. No limit to number of items chosen. Rate each behaviour numerically, decimals may be used.
Legend: Chosen Behaviour 1: Poor 2: Fair 3: Good 4: Excellent 2 Works as part of a team and builds relationships 3 Challenges people while supporting them 4 Praises people for good work 5 Selects the best people and rewards them 6 Coaches and shapes performance 7 Manages poor performance 8 Motivates people and builds enthusiasm 9 Develops people
10 Celebrates successes 11 Contributes towards a positive working environment12 Values differences in others 13 Customer and service orientated 14 Shows respect for others 15 Provides support for others 16 Communicates and networks 17 Shows self confidence 18 Is realistic about his/her abilities 19 Demonstrates trustworthiness and integrity 20 Open to change 21 Deals effectively with ambiguity 22 Sensitive to others Motivation, Purpose, Drive
Score 1 Shows energy and drive 2 Focuses on delivering re lts su
XIII
SECTION III ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL BEHAVIOURS
This list contains criteria to assess how a role was performed. The appraiser is free to choose those items that represent HOW the role should be performed. Highlight the chosen behaviours by checking the "star" box. Where necessary appropriate items can be added to those provided. No limit to number of items chosen. Rate each behaviour numerically, decimals may be used.
Legend: Chosen Behaviour 1: Poor 2: Fair 3: Good 4: Excellent 3 Action and practical solution orientated 4 Learns and develops herself / himself 5 Shows commitment in the face of obstacles 6 Optimistic, even under adverse conditions 7 Motivates people to be goal directed 8 Enthusiastic about future possibilities 9 Willing to take responsibility
10 Willing to accept responsibility Overall Critical Behaviour Assessment rating:
EXPLANATION OF PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE: Performing below the required standards (B):
Performs below the required standards, needing constant supervision and often making mistakes. Although some of the required skills are present, application on the job is weak. Care of internal\external customers suffers, as the service provided is of a low standard. The contribution of the individual is deficient, with extensive formal, and on-the-job training as well as performance counselling necessary. Generally performing to most of the required standards (G): Meets most of the standards. Generally capable of performing at the desired level, but performance/provision of customer care may be inconsistent due to skills deficit and/or inability to apply skills/knowledge on the job. Formal and/or on-the-job training may be required to perform at the fully competent level. Performing at the fully competent level (F): Meets all of the standards. Has all the required skills and knowledge to perform the job independently and applies skills and knowledge to provide good levels of customer service consistently and reliably. Contribution is considerable and supervision is rarely required. Surpassing most of the required standards (S):
Surpasses most of the required standards. Apart from having all the required knowledge , skills and ability, also demonstrates a sustained commitment to excellent performance, providing well above average customer service by often putting in the extra effort. Rarely, if ever requires supervision, making very few errors and is expert in the job. Contribution to the team is constructive and the level of customer service provided by the whole team is enhanced by the individual's approach. Exemplifies the level of excellence to be aimed for in customer service. Performing at an outstanding level (O/S):
Consistently surpasses most of the standards. As well as producing an exceptionally high level of work, is able to function beyond the requirements of the job. Able to act as advisor to others, solving problems and providing coaching. Functions as an informal leader, using depth of knowledge and personal skill to encourage the improvement of performance/customer service delivered by the entire team.
XVII
PART A: APPRAISAL OF PAST PERFORMANCE Section 1: Appraisal of Key Result Areas (KRAs) - contributes 70% towards the overall performance rating. State the KRA, weight the importance of each KRA to the job, by filing in a percentage. For each KRA fill in a score (1-5) in the score column, multiply each KRA score by its weight and record this figure in the Weight X Score column. Add the scores in this last column to arrive at an unrounded total.
No. Weight Key Result Areas Standards/ Measures Score Weight X
70% X 3.25 = 2.28 Generally performing to most of the required standards (G) = Score 2.00 - 2.99 30% X 4 = 1.20 Performing at the fully competent level (F) = Score 3.00 - 3.99
Unrounded Total = 3.48 Surpassing most of the required standards (S) = Score 4.00 - 4.99 Performing at an outstanding level (O/S) = Score 5
XVIII
Section 2: Appraisal of Behavioural Competencies - contributes 30% towards the overall performance rating. Evaluate the importance of each competency to the job by placing a tick in the critical box. Tick the scale descriptor box that best describes the appraisee's performance level for each competency,decimals may be used. Rating scale: 1 - Below Standard, 2 - Generally Performing, 3 - Fully Competent, 4 - Surpassing, 5 - Outstanding
Critical Competency Score Comments
Showing initiative
Problem solving
Decision making/applying
Displays business curiosity
Relationship building and networking
Negotiation
Self development
People management
Communication
Team effectiveness
Developing subordinates
Driving change
Planning
Overall Critical Behaviour Assessment Rating:
XIX
The overall rating comprises 70% of the unrounded KRA rating + 30% of the overall Critical behaviour assessment rating. Example:
Overall KRA rating (unrounded) = 3.50
Overall Critical Behaviour assessment rating= 3.00 3.50 X 70% = 2.45 3.00 X 30% = 0.90 ,
Overall unrounded rating = 3.35 Moderator:
ame
N Signature Date Appraiser: Comments: Name Signature Date Appraisee: Comments: Name Signature Date
XX
Tick as appropriate: I have seen the contents of my Review discussion form and it was fully discussed with me.
Yes No
I accept the contents as fair
Yes No
I have made my comments in a separate statement which will be submitted to the Human Resources Department.
Yes No
PART B: FUTURE PERFORMANCE GOALS Future Key Result Areas (KRAs)
No. Weight Key Result Area 1 …….% 2 …….% 3 …….% 4 …….% Customer Service 5 10%
100%
XXI
Annexure E: Organisations internal performance appraisal process
KEY MEASURESKey Result Areas Behavioural Competencies Skills assessment (training attended and NQF) Noteworthy events Potential Grid Retention of key staff Leadership (360 Degree appraisals) Staff Development (mentoring and coaching) Personal Development Innovation (projects) Branch audit and inspection reports/Compliance. Knowledge of the appraisee
Appraiser completes appraisal form and discusses individual appraisals with key Moderators.
XXIII
Changes made by the moderation panel are “flagged” and communicated by the HR representative to the relevant appraiser if the latter was not part of the moderation panel
Changes flagged and applied
One-on-one appraisal discussions. Changes made as a result of the appraisal discussions are communicated to HR per spreadsheet to be updated together with the previously “flagged” changes. Employee advised of ranking category.
One-on-one appraisal discussions take place
Anomalies raised, discussed and applied in need
Final Ranking
XXIV
XXV
Reward
Final Ranking
Market position and performance. Current reward should be evaluated against the relevant market for the position under consideration and the performance of the incumbent.
Market vulnerability. It may in rare cases be justifiable to increase the reward eligibility of sound employees who will be difficult to replace or in respect of whom some other urgent retention imperative exists
Final ranking is provided to CMC to complete the reward review in line with ranking outcomes and guidelines provided as part of the annual reward review process.
General Staff Interim Appraisal Timelines
Preliminary Appraisal input
RankingModeration panel
Final Performance Ranking
Anomalies raised, discussed and applied in need
Changes flagged and applied
One-on-one discussions take place
14 – 18 June
21 – 28 June
20 - 23 July
29 June – 19 July26 – 30 July
XXVI
Managerial Staff Interim Appraisal Timelines
Preliminary Appraisal input
RankingModeration panel
Final Performance Ranking
Anomalies raised, discussed and applied in need
Changes flagged and applied
One-on-one discussions take place
26 – 30 July
2 – 13 Aug
26-27 Aug
16-26Aug30-3Sept
XXVII
Ranking
•Employees are compared to each other, and assigned a number that supposedly indicates whether they are more, similarly, or
less effective than their colleagues.
•Encourages managers to evaluate employees honestly, provide clearer distinctions between employees and promote a high-
performance culture.
•Formal ranking: 20:70:10.
•Moderation Panels to be used as objective measurements in performance ranking and as reward distribution panels for reward
ranking.
Moderation Guidelines – Retail Banking
OVERVIEW:
The purpose of moderation is to ensure that appraisal outcomes of individuals are aligned with the broader performance context of
their specific area/division/province and accurately reflects the overall performance of Retail Banking. The initial focus will be to
prepare sufficiently, using the ranking framework to contextualise, the comparative employee contribution and deliverables in
XXVIII
accordance with the overall outputs as represented in the business results. Additional factors as listed in the key measures can be
considered to ensure that a holistic view is taken in the final rankings as described in the moderation process phases.
MODERATION PROCESS
Phase 1 Appraiser completes appraisal form and discusses individual appraisals with key moderators (individual who will sign as moderator)
Phase 2 Excel spreadsheets with rankings captured by the relevant HR department
Phase 3 Moderation panel discuss and consider ranking outcomes in conjunction with appraisal input in accordance with roles and
responsibilities of the panel. HR practitioner presents “bell curve” data and moderation panel agrees to changes where applicable.
Phase 4 Changes made by the moderation panel need to be “flagged” and communicated by the HR representative to the relevant appraiser
if the latter was not part of the moderation panel.
XXIX
Phase 5 One-on-one appraisal discussions. Changes made as a result of the appraisal discussions need to be communicated to HR per
spreadsheet to be updated together with the previously “flagged” changes. Employee advised of ranking category.
Phase 6 Final ranking is provided to Career Management Committee to complete the reward review in line with ranking outcomes and
guidelines provided as part of the annual reward review process.
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MODERATION PANEL
• Reviews the appropriateness and consistency of the ratings and verify forms for correctness and completeness
• Encourages the elimination of excessive strictness, leniency, inconsistency and other biases, encouraging the full utilisation of
the rating scale.
• Consult with the appraiser (s) where opinions differ and reach consensus prior to appraisal discussion. Focus on preparation
and not prejudging outcomes.
ROLE OF THE HR PRACTIONER(FACILITATOR)
• Ensures that issues relating to dissatisfaction are followed up
• Provides guidance on performance related issues
• Plays a mediation role in difficult appraisal outcomes
• Makes management information available to assist with ongoing performance management