HR Proj -Performance Appraisal (EurekaForbes Ltd.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERTITLE

PAGE NO

ABSTRACT 2

1INTRODUCTION

1.1 Profile of an organization3

2OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

17

3 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 18

4SCOPE OF THE STUDY

19

5RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

20

6DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

23

7FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

83

8 CONCLUSION86

9SUGGESTION 87

10

ANNEXUREQuestionnaireBibliography

88

1

ABSTRACT

The study entitled “A Study on effectiveness of performance appraisal system at

Eureka Forbes Limited”.

Performance Appraisal is not an important or easy management task and it should be

an once a easy management task and it should be an once a year event. The reason they

conduct Performance Appraisal in the first place in that they believe in accomplishing

two things.

Help employees to understand the quality of their current performance and

identify what they must to do to improve it. Motivate employees to improve their

performance.

Project objectives are ;

To examine the effectiveness of performance appraisal given to the employer

To understand the performance appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes

Limited.

To ascertain the awareness level among the employees about the performance

appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes

To confirm with the employees opinion about the performance appraisal system

To ascertain the ways and means to improve the performance appraisal at Eureka

Forbes Limited

To improve the overall performance of the organization

To know the satisfactory level of the employer about performance appraisal

2

1.INTRODUCTION

Appraising the performance of individuals, groups and organizations is a common

practice of all societies. While in some instances the appraisal processes are structured

and formally sanctioned, in other instances they are an informal and integral part of daily

activities. Thus, teachers evaluate the performance of students, bankers evaluate the

performance of creditors, parents evaluate the behavior of the children, and all of us,

consciously or unconsciously evaluate our own actions from time to time.

“Performance appraisal” has been identified as one of the most complex of

man-management activities. It is often a difficult and emotion laden process.

Performance appraisal has become part of organizational life. Every organization has

some kind of evaluating the performance of its personnel.

“Performance appraisal” or “Merit rating” is one of the oldest and universal

practices of management. This approach resulted in an appraisal system in which the

employee’s merits like initiative, dependability, personality etc were compared with

others and ranked or rated.

HISTORY

During and after World War I, systematic performance appraisal was quite

prominent. Credit goes to Walter Dill Scot for systematic performance appraisal

technique of “man-to-man rating system” (merit rating). It was used for evaluating

military officers. Industrial concerns also used this system during 1920s and 1940s for

evaluating hourly paid workers. However, with the increase in training and management

development programs from 1950s, management started adopting performance appraisal

for evaluating technical, skilled, professional and managerial personnel as a part of

training and executive development programmes. With this evolutionary process, the

3

term merit rating had been changed into employee appraisal or performance appraisal.

MEANING

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

performance. Performance here refers to the degree of accomplishment of the tasks the

make up an individual’s job. It indicates how well an individual is fulfilling the job

demands. Often the term is confused with effort, which means performance is always

measured in terms of results.

“Performance appraisal” is a systematic evaluation of present and potential

capabilities of personnel and employees by their superiors, superior’s superior or a

professional from outside. “It is a process of estimating or judging the value, excellent

qualities or status of a person or thing.”

DEFINITION

1 According to ‘Flippo’ (1998), “Performance appraisal is the systematic periodic

and an impartial rating of an employees excellence in matters pertaining to his

present job and his potential for a better job”

2 According to ‘C. Higel’ (1973), “The performance appraisal is the purpose of

evaluating the performance and qualification of the employees in terms of the

requirement of the job for which he is employed, for the purposes of

administration including placement, selection for promotion, providing financial

rewards and other actions which require differential treatment among the

members of a group as distinguished from action affecting all members equally”.

3 According to ‘N.K. Rowland’ (1970), defines “performance appraisal is the

process of assessing the performance and progress of an employee or of a group

4

of employees on a given job and his potential for future development.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

According to ‘Gupta C.B’ “The main characterisistics of performance appraisal are as

follows.’’

1. Performance appraisal is a process of consisting of a series of steps.

2. It is a systematic evaluation of employee’s strength and weakness in terms of the

job.

3. Performance appraisal is a scientific or objective study. Formal procedures are

used in the study. The same approach is adopted for all jobholders so that the

results are comparable.

4. It is an ongoing or continuous process where in the evaluations arranged

periodically according to a definite plan.

5. The main purpose of performance appraisal is to secure information necessary for

making objective and correct decisions on employees.

OBJECTIVES OF APPRAISAL

a) To identify areas for further training needs.

b) To help determine promotions and transfers.

c) To reduce grievances and

5

d) To improve job performance

The appraisals were found useful particularly for

a) Promotions

b) Helping the supervisors know their employees.

c) Helping the workers to know their progress.

d) Wage and salary administration.

e) Training and development

Who will appraise?

The appraiser may be any person who has through knowledge about the job

content, contents to be appraised, standard of contents and who observes the employee

while performing a job.

Typical appraisers are…

Supervisor, peers, subordinates, employees themselves, users of services and

consultants.

When to appraise?

Information appraisals are conducted whenever the supervisor or personnel

managers feel it necessary. However, systematic appraisals are conducted on a

regular basis.

6

STAGES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

1. At the first stage, performance standards are established based on job description

and job specification.

2. The second stage is to inform these standards to all employees including

appraisers.

3. The third stage is following the instructions given for appraisal measurement of

employee performance by the appraisers through observations, interview, records

and reports.

4. The fourth stage is finding out the influence of various internal and external

factors on actual performance of the employee and others.

5. The fifth stage is comparing the actual performance with the standards and

finding out the deviations.

6. The sixth stage is communicating the annual performance of the employee and

other employees doing the same job and discuss with him about the reason for

positive or negative deviations.

7. The seventh stage is suggesting necessary changes in standards, job analysis, and

internal and external environment.

8. The eighth stage is follow-up of performance appraisal report.

7

NEED AND PURPOSE OFPERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Performance appraisal is needed in order to;

1. Provide information about the performance ranks basing on which decisions regarding

salary fixation, confirmation, promotion, transfer and demotion.

2. Provide feedback information about the level of achievement and behavior of

subordinate. This information helps to review the performance of the subordinate,

rectifying performance deficiencies and to set new standards of work, if necessary.

3. Provide information which helps to counsel the subordinate.

4. Provide information to diagnose deficiency in employee regarding skill, knowledge,

determine training and development needs and to prescribe the means for employee

growth provides information for correcting placement.

5. To prevent grievances and in disciplinary activities.

PURPOSE

Performance appraisal aims at attaining the different purposes. They are

a. To create and maintain a satisfactory level of performance.

b. To contribute to the employee growth and development through training, self and

management development programmes.

c. To help the superiors to have a proper understanding about their subordinates.'

d. To guide to job changes with the help of continuous ranking.

e. To provide fair and equitable compensation based on performance.

f. To facilitate for testing and validating selection tests, interview techniques through

comparing their scores with performance appraisal ranks

g. To provide information for making decisions regarding lay off, retrenchment etc.

h. To ensure organizational effectiveness through correcting employee for standard and

8

improved performance, and suggesting the change in employee behavior.

METHODS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

There are several methods and techniques used for evaluating employee

performance. These may be classified into two broad categories as stated by

C.B.Gupta (1998)

1. Traditional methods

2. Modern methods

TRADITIONAL METHODS

“Traditional method” envisages the following: -

1. CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

A confidential report is a report prepared by the employee’s immediate

superior. It covers the strength and weakness, main achievements and failure,

personality and behavior of the employee. It is descriptive appraisal used for

promotions and transfers of employees.

2. FREE FORM OR ESSAY METHOD

Under this method, the evaluator writes a short easy on the employee’s

performance on the basis of overall impression. The description is expected to be

a factual and as concrete as possible. An essay can provide a good deal of

information about the employee especially if the evaluator gives examples of each

one of his judgment.

9

3. STRAIGHT RANKING METHOD

In this technique, the evaluator assigns relative ranks to all the employees

in the same work unit doing the same job. Employees are ranked from the best to

the poorest on the basis of overall performance. The relative position of an

employee is reflected in this numerical bank.

4. PAIRED COMPARISON METHOD

Each employee is compared with all the others, in pair one at a time. The

number of times an employee is judged better than the others determine his rank.

Comparison is made based on overall performance. The number of comparisons

to be made can be decided based on the following: N (N-1)/2. Where N is

the number of person to be compared.

5. FORCED DISTRIBUTION METHOD

In this technique, the rate is required to distribute his rating in the form of

a normal frequency distribution. This method eliminates the rate bias of central

tendency. It helps to reduce bias involved in straight ranking and paired

comparison.

6. GRAPHIC RATINGS SCALE METHOD

The rater is given numeric scale indicating different degrees of a particular

trait. The rate is given a printed form for each employee to be rated. The form

contains several characteristics relating to the personality and performance of

employees. Intelligence, quality of work, leadership skills, judgment etc are some

of the characteristics. The rater records his judgment on the employee’s trait on

the scale. The numerical points given are added up, to find out his overall

10

performance standing in the group.

7. CHECK LIST

A checklist of statements that describe the characteristics and performance

of employee in his job. The rater checks to indicate if the behavior of an employee

is positive or negative to each statement. The performance of an employee is

rated on the basis of number of positive checks.

8. CRITICAL INCIDENT METHOD

In this method supervisor keeps a written record of critical (either good or

bad) events and how different employees behaved during such events. The rating

of an employee depends on his positive/negative behavior during these events.

9. GROUP APPRAISAL METHOS

Under this method, a group of evaluators assess the employees. This group

consists of the immediate supervisor of the employee, other supervisor having

close contact with the employee’s work, head of the department and a personnel

expert. The group determines the standards of performance for the job, measures

actual performance and offer suggestions for improvement in future.

10. FIELD REVIEW METHOD

In this method a training officer from the personnel department interviews

line supervisors to evaluate their respective subordinates, the interview prepares

in advance the questions to be asked. By answering these questions the

supervisors gives his opinion about the level of performance of his subordinate,

the subordinate work progress, his strength and weakness, promotion potential

etc. the evaluators takes detailed notes of the answers which are then approved by

the concerned supervisor. These are then placed in the employee personnel

11

service file.

MODERN METHODS

1. Appraisal by results MBO

This method has been evolved by “Peter Drucker”. MBO is potentially a

powerful philosophy of managing and an effective way for operationalising the

evaluation process.

MBO can be described as a “Process whereby the supervisor and subordinate

managers of an organization jointly identifies its common goals, define each

individuals major area of responsibility in terms of results expected of him and

use these measures as guides for operating the unit and assessing the contributions

of each of its members.

2. Assessment centre method

The assessment centre concept was initially applied to military situations

by Simoniet in the German Army in the1930 and the war office selection board of

the British Army in the year 1960s. The purpose of this method and is to test

candidate in a social situation. Assessments are made to determine employee

potential for purpose of promotion.

3. 360 degree performance appraisal

The appraisal may be any person who thorough knowledge about the job

has done by contents to be appraised. Standards of contents and who observes the

employee while performing a job. The 360 degree feedback is understood as

systematic collection of performance data on an individual or group, derived from

a number of stakeholders-the stakeholders being the immediate supervisors, team

12

members, customers, peers and self.

FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

According to Chakraborthy (1978) performance appraisal should be done with

caution. It is always advisable to make a preliminary survey of the following constraints

within which the employees of an organization are working.

1. Environmental constraints.

These are several environmental constraints, which may outside the control of

worker and to ignore this fact in judging his performance would be unjust. For example.

The quality of raw material in an organization may deteriorate over a period or the

machinery may break down unexpectedly. As a result, both productivity and quality may

suffer. But if selection of materials and maintenance of machinery are done at higher

levels in the organization the performance appraisal of the worker should not be affected.

2. Organizational leadership

The style of the top leadership of an organization should also be looked into. It is

nature of leadership at the top, which determines largely the loyalty and commitment of

employees to the goals of an organization for better performance. Employees at every

level become highly performance conscious. Performance appraisal under such

conditions is liked by everybody but in opposite conditions it is considered as an

imposition.

3. Interdependence of sub-systems

Since every organization is a big system composed of a number of interdependent

sub-systems, the success or failure of any one sub-system has got to be interpreted in the

context of all other sub-systems to which it is related. For example, the sub-standard

output of the production department may be due to the poor quality of purchases made by

13

the purchasing Department or the trouble may be at some higher level sub-systems where

planning for the production and purchase departments has been done.

It is precisely because of this interdependence of sub-systems that suggestion is

often made to start performance appraisal from the apex. This leads to more systematic

and logical cause-and-effect tracing of performance at all levels within the organization.

4. Organizational structure

Initiative, drive and innovation thrive best in a flexible structure. These qualities

do not receive encouragement in a rigid structure. This is because in this type of

structure the authority to approve innovation is often place several levels above the

people who innovate. This makes the proposal pass from person to person and robs the

information reaching the ultimate decision-makers of much of its logic and

understanding. What is needed is a direct relationship between the doer and approver.

No matter how strategically wise or strong a boxer is if he has to call New Delhi to clear

each punch during his fight in Udaipur, he is doomed. In rigid structures, ponderous

planning and controls make people give up innovating and become resigned and bitter.

Rather than beg for the acceptance of their innovative ideas they take their ideas and

creativity home and become dead wood at work.

ETHICS OF APPRAISAL SYSTEM

In any performance appraisal, due consideration must be given to the ethics of appraisal,

failing which many organizational problems may crop up and the very purpose of appraisal may be

defeated. M.S. Kellogg has suggested following do’s and don’ts.

1. Do not appraise without knowing why the appraisal is needed.

2. Appraise based on representative information.

3. Appraise on the basis of sufficient information

4. Appraise on the basis of relevant information

14

5. Be honest on your assessment of all the facts you have obtained.

6. Do not write one thing and say another.

7. In offering an appraisal, make it plain that this is only your personal opinion of the

facts as you see them;

8. Pass on appraisal information only to those who have good reason to want it;

9. Don’t imply the existence of an appraisal that has not been made

Do not accept another’s appraisal without knowing the basis on which it was

made.

PERFROMANCE APPRAISAL IN EUREKA FORBES LTD.

Performance Appraisal is not an important or easy management task and it should be

an once a easy management task and it should be an once a year event. The reason they

conduct Performance Appraisal in the first place in that they believe in accomplishing

two things.

1. Help employees to understand the quality of their current performance and

identify what they must to do to improve it.

2. Motivate employees to improve their performance.

Effective performance Appraisal has 3 basic components.

1 Planning (performance)

2 Managing (performance)

3 Appraising (performance)

1. PERFORMANCE PLANNING

It is the process of identifying desired performance and gaining employees

commitments to perform the organization expectations.

15

Performance planning clearly identifies the expected results as well as the behavior

and skills which are expected to demonstrate performance planning clearly identifies the

expected results as well as the behavior and skill which are expected to demonstrate,

provide a specific action plan and aimed at a clear target.

2. PERFORMANCE MANAGING

This is daily process of working towards the performance expectations established in

the planning phase together manager and employee review the employee’s performance

on a periodic basis.

3. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

It is both the beginning and the end poi9nt of performance management. The analysis

of past performance provides the basis for planning next years expectations and at the

same time it “close the loop” of the current cycle.

During this, employees come to know where they stand and what is expected of them

and what they need to achieve in the next performance period. The design also come to

know what results it can expect from their employees and what resource like training and

development, and counseling are needed to help than to achieve the desired results more

effectively.

16

2.OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of performance appraisal given to the employer

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

To understand the performance appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes Limited.

To ascertain the awareness level among the employees about the performance appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes

To confirm with the employees opinion about the performance appraisal system

To ascertain the ways and means to improve the performance appraisal at Eureka Forbes Limited

To improve the overall performance of the organization

To know the satisfactory level of the employer about performance appraisal

17

3.LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

While answering the questionnaire, respondents discussed with colleagues this would have influenced the original opinion of the respondents.

The study was conducted only in Eureka Forbes Limited and with in HR and Marketing Department. Hence limiting the scope of the finding only to Eureka Forbes Limited.

The respondents had a language barrier.

This study is also subject to sampling errors.

Since the data was collected using a questionnaire; there is a possibility of ambiguous replies or omission of replies.

18

4.SCOPE OF THE STUDY

o The study has been conducted with respect to effectiveness towards performance

appraisal system existing in the organization.

o This study is useful to know the strength and weakness of appraisal. Therefore,

the management can update the system with necessary changes.

o These finding of the study can be used for conducting further study.

o This study helps in giving suggestion to improve the efficiency of the

organization.

19

5.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

The aim of the study is to find out the level of awareness among the employees

about the performance appraisal system adopted in the organization and also to confirm

with their opinion about the system. Hence, it was decided to adopt the descriptive

research design for the purpose of the study.

UNIVERSE AND SAMPLE

The first step in developing any sample design is to clearly define the set of objects,

technically called as the universe.

At Eureka Forbes over 3000 employees are working. These 3000 employees were

considered as the universe and from these 200 respondents of HR Department were

considered as the samples.

TOOL OF DATA COLLECTION

A Structured questionnaire was used for collection of data. The questionnaire

contained questions on the following aspects:

1. Personal data

2. Knowledge and awareness on Performance appraisal system

3. Opinion on performance appraisal system

4. Suggestions

20

PRE-TESTING

In order to ascertain the validity of the tool of data collection. Viz., Questionnaire, a

pretesting was done by the researcher with ten of the respondents from the universe.

This pretesting was essential to find out the parts of the questionnaire, which was

lacking perfection. The exercise done in this regard is of real use for the researcher to

give the final touches to the questionnaire before taking it for final data collection.

Since the number of units in the universe was limited, the researcher decided to

include those ten units taken for pre-testing in the sample.

SOURCES OF DATA

On one hand since the study focuses on the components of Performance Appraisal

System, it was needed to seek the help of secondary sources of data, i.e., Books, articles,

to arrive at conceptual clarity of performance appraisal system.

On the other hand, the study was also concerned with finding out the level of

awareness prevailing among the employees about the performance appraisal system, the

primary sources of data i.e., the end users are taken into consideration.

DATA COLLECTION

The data collection was done in the month of February 2009. The researcher

personally went to the organization and collected the data from the respondents on the

basis of availability. Even though it was a questionnaire, the researcher had to personally

be with the respondents to give necessary clarifications with regard to the doubts raised

by the respondents on the different questions included in the questionnaire.

21

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The data was checked, edited and tested. The data was processed using a

computer package termed as Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The table

work has been created according to the respective headings as in questionnaire.

This was done to summarize the raw data to and to convert it into statistical

tables. Charts and tables have been used to highlight certain findings.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Through the study on the Performance Appraisal System the researcher has

made an attempt to study the different aspects of the appraisal system adopted at Eureka

Forbes.

The researcher also seeks to assess the awareness level among the employees

about the appraisal system adopted and their opinion on the same. Through this, the

researcher would find out the areas, which needs improvement in the present appraisal

system.

22

6.DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

TABLE NO. 1

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE

S. No Age (in years) No. of Respondents Percentage

1 21-30 22 11%

2 26-30 64 32%

3 31-40 82 41%

4 Above 40 32 16%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents by their age. It is seen that (41%)

most of the respondents fall under the age group of 31- 40 years. Of the left 59%, 32%

fall under the age group of 26-30 years. Where as 11% of the respondent fall under the

age group of 21-30 years and 16% fall under the age group of Above 40 years.

23

CHART-1

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE

11%

32%

41%

16%

No. of Respondents

21-3026-3031-40Above 40

24

TABLE NO. 2

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR SEX

S. No Sex No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Male 136 68%

2 Female 64 32%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 2 shows the distribution of the respondents by their sex. According to the

table it is clear that majority (68%) of the respondents are males. The remaining 32% are

females. Thus, it is clear that a majority of the respondents are males.

25

CHART-2

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR SEX

Male; Percentage; 68%

Female; Percentage; 32%

Percentage

Percentage

26

TABLE NO. 3

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DEPARTMENT

S. No Department No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Human Resources 48 24%

2 Marketing 106 53%

3 Administration 46 23%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 3 shows the departments in which respondents are placed. It is seen that

more than half (53%) of the respondents are in the Marketing department. Nearly one

fourth (24%) of the respondents are in the HR department and an equal percentage (23%)

are in the administration-oriented department.

27

CHART-3

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DEPARTMENT

Human Resources; Percentage; 24%

Marketing; Per-centage; 53%

Administration; Percentage; 23%

Percentage

Percentage

28

TABLE No. 4

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

S. No Educational

qualification

No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Up to 12th standard 34 17%

2 Diploma 40 20%

3 Under graduation 78 39%

4 Post graduation 48 24%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 4 shows that most of the respondents about (39%) have completed their

under graduation, about one fourth (24%) of the respondents have completed their post

graduation, about one fifth (20%) have done their diploma. and others about (17%) have

finished up to or below the twelfth standard.

29

CHART-4

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

Up to 12th standard; Percentage; 17%

Diploma; Percentage; 20%

Under graduation; Percentage; 39%

Post graduation; Percentage; 24%

Percentage

Percentage

30

TABLE NO. 5

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DESIGNATION

S. No Designation No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Executive 56 28%

2 Worker 90 45%

3 Staff 54 27%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 5 gives the designation of the respondents. It is inferred that most (45%) of

the respondents came under the worker category where as nearly one third (28%) of the

respondents come under the executive category and an almost equal percentage (27%)

come under the staff category.

31

CHART-5

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DESIGNATION

Executive; Per-centage; 0.28; 28%

Worker; Per-centage; 0.45;

45%

Staff; Percentage; 0.27; 27%

Percentage

ExecutiveWorkerStaff

32

TABLE NO. 6

RESPONDENT BY THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

S. No Experience (years) No. of Respondents Percentage

1 0 – 3 52 26%

2 3 - 5 56 28%

3. Above 5 92 46%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 6 shows the years of experience of the respondents. From the table it is

inferred that most (46%) of the respondents have more than 5 years of experience .One

third (28%) of the respondents have 3 to 5 years of experience and an almost equal

percentage (26%) have up to 3 years of experience.

33

CHART-6

RESPONDENT BY THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

0 – 3; Percentage; 26%

5-Mar; Percentage; 28%

Above 5; Percentage; 46%

Percentage

Percentage

34

TABLE NO. 7

RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON CONCEPT OF

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

S. No Awareness on PAS Number of respondent Percentage

1. Yes 200 100%

2. N0 0 0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 7 shows the distribution of respondents by their awareness on the concept

of performance appraisal system. This table clearly shows that all (100%) the

respondents are aware of the concept performance appraisal system.

35

CHART-7

RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON CONCEPT OF

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Yes; Percentage; 100%

N0; Percentage; 0%

Percentage

Percentage

36

TABLE NO. 8

AWARENESS ON ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM AT

EUREKA FORBES

S. No Opinion No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Yes 192 96%

2 No 8 4%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 8 shows the distribution of the respondents by their awareness on the

established performance appraisal system at Eureka Forbes. The table shows that a very

great majority (96%) of the respondents are aware of the established performance

appraisal system at Eureka Forbes. The rest 4% of the respondents are not aware of the

above system. Thus, the table clearly shows that most of the respondents are aware of the

system.

37

CHART-8

AWARENESS ON ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM AT

EUREKA FORBES

Yes; Percentage; 96%

No; Percentage; 4%

Percentage

Percentage

38

TABLE NO. 9

RESPONDENTS BY THE TIME (STAGE) AT, WHICH THEY CAME TO

KNOW ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

AT EUREKA FORBES

S. No Stage No. of respondents Percentage

1. Joining 39 19.5%

2. Induction 41 20.5%

3. Later stage 120 60.0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 9 gives the time at which the respondents came to know about performance

appraisal system at Eureka Forbes. It is interpreted that more than half (60%) of the

respondents came to know about the performance appraisal system in the later stage. One

fifth (19.5%) of the respondents came to know about the system at the time of joining and

an equal percentage (20.5%) at the time of joining.

39

CHART-9

RESPONDENTS BY THE TIME (STAGE) AT, WHICH THEY CAME TO

KNOW ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

AT EUREKA FORBES

Joining; Percentage; 0.195; 20%

Induction; Percentage; 0.205; 21%

Later stage; Percentage;

0.6; 60%

Percentage

JoiningInductionLater stage

40

TABLE NO. 10

RESPONDENTS BY THE SOURCE OF COMING TO KNOW ABOUT THE

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

S. No Source No. of respondents Percentage

1. Supervisor 59 29.5%

2 Colleagues 22 11%

3. Own initiates 10 5%

4. HR Department 109 54.5%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 10 gives the source through which the respondents came to know about the

performance appraisal system. It is seen that majority (54.5%) of the respondents came

to know about the system through the Head of the department. Where as nearly one third

(29.5%) of the respondents came to know about the system through their supervisor, an

almost one tenth (11%) through the colleagues and only 5% of them came to know

through their own initiates.

41

CHART-10

WHO DOES THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Supervisor; Per-centage; 30%

Colleagues; Per-centage; 11%

Own initiates; Percentage; 5%

HR Department; Percentage; 55%

Percentage

Percentage

42

TABLE NO. 11

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THEIR NEED FOR PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM

S. No Need for PAS No. of respondents Percentage

1. Yes 200 100%

2. No 0 0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 11 shows the opinion of the respondents on their need for the performance

appraisal system. It is seen that all (100%) of the respondents see the need for

performance appraisal system.

43

CHART-11

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THEIR NEED FOR PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Yes; Percentage; 100%

No; Percentage; 0%

Percentage

Percentage

44

TABLE NO. 12

RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON THE PERIODICITY OF APPRAISAL

ADOPTED AT EUREKA FORBES.

S. No Periodicity No. of respondent Percentage

1. Quarterly 0 0%

2. Half-yearly 0 0%

3. Annually 192 96%

4. No idea 8 4%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Through the secondary source, it is understood by the researcher that the appraisal

at Eureka Forbes is done on an annual basis. To confirm the respondent’s awareness on

the periodicity of the performance appraisal system was analyzed. It is seen from Table

12 that the appraisal done in Eureka Forbes is annual and this that almost all the

respondents are quite aware of the periodicity of appraisal.

45

CHART-12

RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON THE PERIODICITY OF APPRAISAL

ADOPTED AT EUREKA FORBES.

Quarterly; Per-centage; 0%

Half-yearly; Per-centage; 0%

Annually; Per-centage; 96%

No idea; Percentage; 4%

Percentage

Percentage

46

TABLE NO. 13

RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ABOUT THE PERSON APPRAISING THE

PERFORMANCE

S. No Awareness about

appraiser

No. of respondent Percentage

1. Immediate supervisor 37 18.5%

2. H.O.D. 130 65.0%

3. HR Department 33 16.5%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 13 gives the awareness of the respondents about the person appraising their

performance. It is seen that most (65%) of the respondents are aware that their Head of

the department does the appraisal while nearly one fifth (18.5%) of the respondents are

aware that their immediate supervisor does the appraisal and an almost equal percentage

(16.5%) are aware that their Human resource department does the appraisal on their

program.

47

CHART-13

RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ABOUT THE PERSON APPRAISING THE

PERFORMANCE

Immediate supervisor; Percentage; 0.185; 19%

H.O.D.; Percentage; 0.65; 65%

HR Department; Percentage; 0.165;

17%

Percentage

Immediate supervisorH.O.D.HR Department

48

TABLE NO. 14

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM IN THE ORGANISATION

S. No Existing system No. of Respondents Percent

1. Simple 180 90%

2. Complex 5 3.5%

3. No idea 15 6.5%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 14 gives us the opinion of the respondents on the existing performance

appraisal system. Most of the respondents (90%) feel that the system is simple where as a

few (3.5%) of them feel that it is complex and only (6.5%) says that they have no idea.

49

CHART-14

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM IN THE ORGANISATION

Simple; Percentage; 90.00%

Complex; Percentage; 3.50%

No idea; Percentage; 6.50%

Percentage

Percentage

50

TABLE NO. 15

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE NATURE OF PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE EUREKA FORBES

S. No Nature No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Fully objective 114 57%

2. Fully subjective 16 8%

3 Partly objective and

partly subjective

70 35%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 15 gives the respondents opinion on the performance appraisal system.

From the above table it is found that more than half (57%) of the respondents feel that it

its fully objective where as about one third (35%) of the respondents feel that it is partly

objective and partly subjective and nearly one tenth (8%) of the respondents feel that it is

subjective.

51

CHART-15

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE NATURE OF PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE EUREKA FORBES

Fully objective; Percentage; 57%

Fully subjective; Percentage; 8%

Partly objective and partly subjective; Percentage; 35%

Percentage

Percentage

52

TABLE NO. 16

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY IN IDENTIFYING EMPLOYEES

STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

S. No Extent of opportunity No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Very large extent 11 5.5%

2 Large extent 123 61.5%

3. Some extent 63 31.5%

4. Not at all 3 1.5%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 16 gives the respondents opinion on the extent to which the appraisal

system provides opportunity in identifying the employees’ strength and weakness. It is

inferred that a majority (61.5%) of the respondents say that it provides opportunities to

identify the strength and weakness to a large extent. About one third (31.5%) of the

respondents say that opportunities are provided to some extent and a few (5.5%) say that

it provides opportunities to a very large extent. A very few (1.5%) say that the

performance appraisal system does not provide them with any opportunity.

53

CHART-16

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY IN IDENTIFYING EMPLOYEES

STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

Very large extent; Percentage; 5.50%

Large extent; Percentage;

61.50%

Some extent; Percentage;

31.50%

Not at all; Per-centage; 1.50%

Percentage

Percentage

54

TABLE NO. 17

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON EXTENT TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DISCOVERING EMPLOYEES POTENTIAL

S. No Discovering potential No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Strongly agree 16 8%

2 Agree 160 80.0%

3. Neither agree nor disagree 0 0%

4. Disagree 22 11%

5 Strongly disagree 2 1%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 17 shows that a great majority (80%) of the respondents agree that the

performance appraisal system helps in discovering the employees potential and about one

tenth (8%) of the respondents strongly agree that the performance appraisal discovers

employees potential and an almost equal percentage (11%) disagree and (1%) of them

strongly disagree with the same.

55

CHART-17

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON EXTENT TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DISCOVERING EMPLOYEES POTENTIAL

Strongly agree; Percentage; 8.00%

Agree; Percentage; 80.00%

Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;

0.00%

Disagree; Percentage; 11.00%

Strongly disagree; Percentage; 1.00%

Percentage

Percentage

56

TABLE NO. 18

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM IN COMMUNICATING TOP MANAGEMENT PLANS GOALS TO

STAFF

S. No Opinion of the Respondents No. of Respondents Percentage

1. Strongly agree 26 13%

2, Agree 146 73%

3. Neither agree nor disagree 0 0%

4. Disagree 28 14%

5. Strongly agree 0 0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 18 gives the opinion of the respondents on the scope of performance

appraisal system in communicating the top management plans and goals to the staff. It is

seen that most (73%) of the respondents agree that the performance appraisal system is

helpful for communicating the top management plans to the staff. About one tenth (13%)

of the respondents strongly agree that performance appraisal system is helpful for

communicating top management goals to the staff and an almost equal percentage (14%)

disagree with the same.

57

CHART-18

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM IN COMMUNICATING TOP MANAGEMENT PLANS GOALS TO

STAFF

Strongly agree; Percentage; 13%

Agree; Percentage; 73%

Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;

0%

Disagree; Percentage; 14%

Strongly agree; Percentage; 0%

Percentage

Percentage

58

TABLE NO. 19

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE PAS IN IDENTIFYING THE EMPLOYEE

DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS.

S. No Opinion of the respondent No. of Respondents Percentage

1. Strongly agree 47 23.5%

2. Agree 150 75%

3 Neither agree nor disagree 0 0%

4. Disagree 3 1.5%

5. Strongly disagree 0 0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 19 shows opinion of the respondents on the use of the performance

appraisal system in identifying the employee developmental needs. It is observed that

majority (75%) of the respondents agree that performance appraisal system provides

opportunity in identifying the employees’ developmental needs. About one fifth (23.5%)

of the respondents strongly agree and the remaining few (1.5%) of the respondents

disagree that the performance appraisal system provides opportunity in identifying the

employee’s developmental needs.

59

CHART-19

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE PAS IN IDENTIFYING THE EMPLOYEE

DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS.

Strongly agree; Percentage; 24%

Agree; Percentage; 75%

Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;

0%

Disagree; Percentage; 2%

Strongly disagree; Percentage; 0%

Percentage

Percentage

60

TABLE NO. 20

RESPONDENTS BY THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING FEED BACK FROM

THE APPRAISER

S. No Possibility of Feedback No. of Respondents Percentage

1. Yes 187 93.5%

2. No 13 6.5%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 20 gives the opinion of the respondents on the possibility of getting

feedback from the appraiser. It is seen that most (93.5%) of the respondents say that there

is a possibility of getting a feedback from the appraiser while nearly one tenth (6.5%) say

that there is no possibility of getting a feedback.

61

CHART-20

RESPONDENTS BY THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING FEED BACK FROM

THE APPRAISER

Yes; Percentage; 0.935; 94%

No; Percentage; 0.065; 7%

Percentage

YesNo

62

TABLE NO. 21

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT OF FEEDBACK THEY GET

FROM THE SUPERVISOR.

S. No Extent of feedback Number Percentage

1. To a great extent 86 43%

2. To some extent 58 29%

3. Not at all 56 28%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 21 gives the opinion of the respondents on the extent of feedback from the

supervisor. It is seen that about two fifth (43%) of the respondents say that they receive

feedback to a great extent while nearly one third (29%) of the respondents say that they

receive feedback to some extent and an equal percentage (28%) say that they do not

receive feedback at all.

63

CHART-21

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT OF FEEDBACK THEY GET FROM

THE SUPERVISOR.

To a great ex-tent; Series1;

0.43; 43%

To some extent; Series1; 0.29; 29%

Not at all; Series1;

0.28; 28%

Chart Title

Extent of feedbackTo a great extentTo some extentNot at all

64

TABLE NO. 22

RESPONDENTS SATISFACTION TOWARDS FEEDBACK GIVEN ON

DISCUSSION WITH THE SUPERVISOR

S. No Discussion on

feedback

Number Percentage

1. Fully 40 20%

2. Partly 103 51.5%

3. Not at all 57 28.5%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 22 gives the opinion of the respondents on the extent of discussion with the

supervisor about the feedback One fifth (20%) of the respondents say that it its fully

satisfactory and about half (51.5%) says that it is partly satisfactory. Nearly one third

(28.5%) say that the nature of discussion with the supervisor is not there at all.

65

CHART NO. 22

RESPONDENTS SATISFACTION TOWARDS FEEDBACK GIVEN ON

DISCUSSION WITH THE SUPERVISOR

Fully; Percentage; 20.00%

Partly; Percentage; 51.50%

Not at all; Per-centage; 28.50%

Percentage

Percentage

66

TABLE NO. 23

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AWARENESS ABOUT THE CRITERIA

ADOPTING FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

S. No Respondents

awareness

Number Percentage

1. Very large extent 7 3.5%

2. Large extent 56 28.0%

3. Some extent 127 63.5%

4. Not at all 10 5.0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 23 gives the awareness of the respondents on the criteria adopted for

performance appraisal system. It is seen that most (63.5%) of the respondents have

awareness to a large extent and nearly one third (28.0%) of the respondents have

awareness to some extent. A very few 3.5 % have awareness to a very large extent and a

few (5%) do not have any awareness on criteria for the performance appraisal system.

67

CHART-23

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AWARENESS ABOUT THE CRITERIA ADOPTING

FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Very large extent; Percentage; 4%

Large extent; Percentage; 28%

Some extent; Percentage; 64%

Not at all; Per-centage; 5%

Percentage

Percentage

68

TABLE NO. 24

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON HIGH QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW

DISCUSSION

S. No Opinion Number of

respondents

Percentage

1 Strongly agree 13 6.5%

2. Agree 143 71.5%

3. Neither agree nor disagree 37 18.5%

4. Disagree 7 3.5%

5. Strongly disagree 0 0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 24 gives the opinion of the respondents on the nature of performance

review discussion. The analysis shows that most (71.5%) of the respondents agree that

the nature of performance review discussion is good while a few (6.5%) strongly agree to

it. Nearly of fifth (18.5%) neither agree nor disagree to the above statement while a very

few (3.5%) do not agree to the statement.

69

CHART -24

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON HIGH QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW

DISCUSSION

Strongly agree; Percentage; 6.50%

Agree; Percentage; 71.50%

Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;

18.50%

Disagree; Percentage; 3.50% Strongly disagree;

Percentage; 0.00%

TOTAL; Percentage; 100.00%Percentage

Percentage

70

TABLE NO. 25

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM FOR THE PART OF GROWTH AND LEARNING.

S. No Growth and learning Number of

respondents

Percentage

1. Strongly agree 17 8.5%

2, Agree 150 75.0%

3. Neither agree nor disagree 20 10.0%

4. Disagree 13 6.5%

5. Strongly disagree 0 0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 25 gives the opinion of the respondents on the extent to which the

performance appraisal system facilitates growth and learning. It is inferred that most

(75%) of the respondents agree that the performance appraisal system facilitates growth

and learning and nearly one tenth (8.5%) strongly agree to it. One-tenth (10%) neither

agree nor disagree to the above said statement, while a few (6.5%) disagree to the

statement.

71

CHART-25

RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM FOR THE PART OF GROWTH AND LEARNING.

Percentage

Percentage

72

TABLE NO. 26

RESPONDENT OPINION ON BENEFIT OF PERFORMACNE APPRAISAL

S. No Beneficiaries Number of

respondents

Percentage

YES NO

1. Employees 200 0 100%

2. Employer 200 0 100%

3 Organization 200 0 100%

Inference:

Table 26 gives the opinion of the respondents on the benefits of the performance

appraisal system for the employee, employer and the organization. It is inferred that all

the respondents (100%) agree that the performance appraisal system benefits the

employee, employer and the organization to a great extent.

73

CHART NO. 26

RESPONDENT OPINION ON BENEFIT OF PERFORMACNE APPRAISAL

Employees; YES; 100% Employer; YES; 100%

Organization; YES; 100%

Employees; NO; 0 Employer; NO; 0 Organization; NO; 0

YESNO

74

TABLE NO. 27

RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION FROM HR DEPARTMENT

S. No HRD DEPARTMENT SHOULD

PROVIDE

NUMBER OF

RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

1. Guidelines and Introduction 80 40%

2. Only Introduction 57 28.5%

3. Only Training 47 23.5%`

4. Better Feedback 16 8.0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 27 gives the expectation of the respondents from the HR department. It is

observed that out of the two hundred respondents, two fifth (40%) of them prefer the

guideline and introductory course. Nearly one third (28.3%) of them prefer guideline and

introductory course and a few (8.3%) of them prefer better feedback from the appraiser.

75

CHART-27

RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION FROM HR

DEPARTMENT.

PERCENTAGE; 40.00%

PERCENTAGE; 28.50%

PERCENTAGE; 0.00%

PERCENTAGE; 8.00%

HRD DEPARTMENT SHOULD PROVIDEPERCENTAGE

76

TABLE NO. 28

RESPONDENTS EXPECTATON ON NATURE OF PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM

S. No Expectation Number of

respondents

Percentage

1. A more effective PAS should link

promotion and individual

development

140 70.0%

2 A more effective PAS should link

only promotion

60 30.0%

3. A more effective PAS should link

neither promotion nor individual

development

0 0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 28 gives the expectation of the respondents on the nature of performance

appraisal system. It is observed that out of the 200 respondents, most (70%) of them

prefer both promotion and individual development where as one third (30%) of them

prefer only promotion.

77

CHART-28

RESPONDENTS EXPECTATON ON NATURE OF PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM

A more effec-tive PAS

should link promotion

and individual development; Percentage;

0.7; 70%

A more effec-tive PAS

should link only promo-

tion; Per-centage; 0.3;

30%

Percentage

A more effective PAS should link promotion and individual de-velopmentA more effective PAS should link only promotionA more effective PAS should link neither promotion nor individual development

78

TABLE NO. 29

RESPONDENTS PREFERENCE ON THE FREQUENCY OF PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

S. No Preferred

frequency

Number of respondents Percentage

1. Monthly 57 28.5%

2. Quarterly 106 53.0%

3. Annually 37 18.5%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 29 gives the preference of the respondents on the frequency of the use of

performance appraisal system. It is observed that out of the 200 respondents, more than

half (53.0%) of them prefer that the performance appraisal should be conducted once in

three months and nearly one third (28.5) of them prefer to use it on a monthly basis.

79

CHART-29

RESPONDENTS PREFERENCE ON THE FREQUENCY OF PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

Monthly; Per-centage; 0.285;

28%

Quarterly; Percentage; 0.53; 53%

Annually; Percentage; 0.185; 19%

Percentage

MonthlyQuarterlyAnnually

80

TABLE NO. 30

RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION TOWARDS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM

S. No Focus area Number of

respondents

Percentage

1. Team work along with individual

performance

143 71.5%

2. Only teamwork 41 20.5%

3. Only individual performance 16 8.0%

TOTAL 200 100%

Inference:

Table 30 shows the expectations of the respondents towards the performance

appraisal system. It is observed that out of the 200 respondents, most (71.5%) of them

prefer teamwork along with individuals where as one fifth (20.5%) of the respondents

prefer only team performance and a few (8.0%) of the respondents prefer only individual

performance.

81

CHART- 30

RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION TOWARDS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SYSTEM

Team work along with indi-vidual performance; Per-

centage; 0.715; 72%

Only teamwork; Percentage; 0.205; 21%

Only individual performance; Percentage; 0.08; 8%

Percentage

Team work along with individual performanceOnly teamworkOnly individual performance

82

7.FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter talks about the major findings of the study entitled “A Study on

effectiveness of performance appraisal system at Eureka Forbes Limited”. The findings

from the study are as given in this chapter.

A majority of the respondents in the organization fall between the age group of 31 years

to 40 years while a lesser percentage of the respondents fall under the category of 21

years - 30 years of age (Refer table 1).

Among the respondents majority of them (68%) are males while the remaining

(32%) are females. (Refer table 2)

A majority of the respondents (53%) belong to Marketing departments (Refer table 3)

Among the respondents about 39% of them have had their collegiate education (Refer

table 4)

Most (45%) of the respondents came under the worker category where as nearly one

fourth of the respondents come under the executive category. (Refer table 5)

It has been found that a majority (45%) of the respondents has more than 5 years of

experience. (Refer table 6)

From the data it has been found that all (100%) the respondents are aware of the concept

of Performance Appraisal System (Refer table 7)

It is found that majority of the respondents (96%) are aware of the performance appraisal

system in the organization. (Refer table 8)

From the data, it is found that most (60%) of the respondents have come to know about

the Performance Appraisal System only when the exercise was undertaken for the first

time in their career at Eureka Forbes ltd. and not before that. (Refer table 9)

It is seen that majority (54.5%) of the respondents came to know about the system

through the Head of the Department. Where as nearly one fifth of the respondents came

to know about the system through immediate supervisor. (Refer table 10)

83

It is seen that all (100%) of the respondents see the need for Performance Appraisal

System. (Refer table 11)

Almost all the respondents are aware of the periodicity of appraisal (i.e.) one year. (Refer

table 12)

Most (65%) of the respondents are aware that their Head of the Department does the

appraisal. (Refer table 13)

It is found that the most of the respondents (90%) feel that system is simple where as a

few of them feel that it is complex. (Refer table 14)

More than half of the respondents (57%) feel that the Performance Appraisal System

adopted at Eureka is fully objective. One third feels that it is partly objective and partly

subjective and few of the respondents feel that it is subjective. (Refer table 15)

Majority (61.5%) of the respondents say that Performance Appraisal System provides

opportunities to identify the strength and weakness of the employees to a large extent.

About one third of the respondents say that opportunities are provided to some extent

only. (Refer table 16)

Among the respondents a great majority of them agree that Performance Appraisal

System helps discovering the employee’s potential and about one tenth of the respondents

disagree with the same. (Refer table 17)

Most of the respondents (73%) agree that the Performance Appraisal System is helpful

for communicating top management plans to the staff where as about one tenth of the

respondents disagree with the same. (Refer table 18)

Majority (75%) of the respondents feel that Performance Appraisal System provides

opportunity to identify the employee’s developmental needs. (Refer table 19)

Majority (93.5%) of the respondents say that there is a possibility of getting feedback

from the appraiser while nearly one tenth (6.7%) say that there is no possibility of

getting feedback. (Refer table 20)

Majority of the respondent (43 %) say that they receive feedback to great extent and

about (29%) say that they receive feedback to a some extent while a (28 %) say that they

do not receive feedback at all (Refer table 21)

Majority of the respondents (51.5%) say that they partly discuss, about one fourth

(28.5%) say that they never discuss with the supervisor and (20%) of the respondents say

that they discuss with the supervisor about the feedback. (Refer table 22)

Most (63.5%) of the respondents have awareness to a some extent about criteria for

performance appraisal and nearly one third of the respondents have awareness to large

84

extent where as few (5%) do not have any awareness on the criteria for the performance

appraisal system (Refer table 23)

Most (71.5%) of the respondents agree that the nature of performance appraisal

discussion is good while a few strongly agree to it. Nearly one fifth neither agree nor

disagree to the above statement while a very few do not agree to the statement. (Refer

table 24)

Most (75%) of the respondents agree that the Performance Appraisal System facilitates

growth and learning and nearly one tenth strongly agree to it. One tenth of the

respondents neither agrees nor disagrees to the above said statement while a few disagree

to the statement. (Refer table 25)

All the respondents (100%) agree that Performance Appraisal System benefits the

employee, employer and organization to the some extent. (Refer table 26)

It is observed that majority (40%) of the respondents prefer guideline and introductory

course and a few of them prefer better feedback from the Human Resource Department.

(Refer table 27)

A vast majority of the respondents (70%) prefer that Performance Appraisal System

should enhance both promotion and individual development. (Refer table 28)

More than half (53%) of the respondents prefer that the Performance Appraisal should be

conducted once in three months. (Refer table 29)

It is observed that a vast majority (71.5%) of the respondents prefers that Performance

Appraisal System should focus on teamwork along with individuals. (Refer table 30)

85

8.CONCLUSION

From the study, we can come to certain conclusions.

1 It is seen that most of the respondents fall under the age group of 51-60 years

2 A majority of them belong to the Marketing and HR department.

3 Though a majority of the respondents are aware of the performance appraisal system

in the organization they have come to know about it only in the later stage. They also

invariably see the need for the performance appraisal system.

4 Most of the employees feel that performance appraisal system is objective and that it

provides opportunities to discover their potential.

5 They also accept that the performance appraisal system improves communication

within the organization.

6 Though a majority of the respondents say that they receive feedback from their

appraiser they are not very appreciative of the extent of feedback.

7 The employees express that the use of performance appraisal system can be improved

further for their betterment.

8 The employees’ welfare being the prime concern it should be made sure that the

performance appraisal system should be modified to suit the needs of the employees.

86

9.SUGGESTIONS

Though the existing performance appraisal system has been found to be fairly good

based on the response of the study, the researcher would like to give the following

suggestion to make the system more effective.

1. The performance appraisal system in the organization is conducted once in a year

and this is used mostly for administrative purpose like promotions, salary

increases etc., it is suggested that performance appraisal could be done at more

frequent intervals, so that it will provide feedback on a continuous basis.

2. It is suggested that individual employees may be informed about his /her

performance rating. A report on the assessment may be given to the individual

concerned to know about his strength and weakness. This will give an

opportunity to the employee to improve up on his strength and overcome his

weakness for further development.

3. It is suggested that performance appraisal should be used to; determine the

training needs of the employees. If particular employee is not performing up to

the expectation. A training program may enable them to correct any skill or

knowledge deficiencies. Employees who are performing well above the

requirements of the position can be placed in a development program that will

prepare them for promotion to a higher level.

4. Guidance and introductory course should be included. The performance appraisal

system should focus on the individual development and the concept of teamwork

along with individuals should be enhanced.

87

10. ANNEXURE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Subba Rao P. “Personnel/ Human Resource Management” Konark Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi- 1998.

Tripathi. P.C. “Human Resource Development” Sultan Chand & Sons, Delhi-2003.

Mamoria C.B. “Personnel Management” Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai- 2002

JOURNALS

Dr. Gurpiner Kaur. “Performance Appraisal is an indispensable management tool”

HRD Times - Volume 3, September 2001.

Mr. David king “Performance Appraisal to Performance Management” HRD times,

Volume 4, December 2002.

WEBPAGES

www. amanet.org

www.prehall.com

www.performance-appraisal.com

88