PAM Project Report Group 3

8/8/2019 PAM Project Report Group 3

1/31

Measuring Effectiveness of

Performance ManagementSystem in North Delhi Power

Ltd

Submitted to

Prof. Pankaj KumarIIM Lucknow

Submitted by

GROUP-3Yogita (PGP23092)

Veena N H (PGP24112)Kopal Verma (PGP24141)

Parthiban (PGP24148)Vaibhav Goel (PGP24170)

11/25/2009


2/31

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. IV

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ V

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... V

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... VI

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION ..................................................................... VII

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN NDPL ...................................... VIII

INITIATIVESTOBUILDAPERFORMANCEORIENTEDCULTURE: ...............................................................IX

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. X

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... X

SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS ............................................ X

LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF RESEARCH ................................................... XI

PARAMETERS TO BE EVALUATED .............................................................. XI

ROLE CLARITY: THE PURPOSE OF THE KPAS IS TO BRING OUT GREATERROLE CLARITY AND ENSURE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING BETWEENAPPRAISER AND APPRAISEE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. THE PURPOSE OFIDENTIFYING OBJECTIVES IS TO ESTABLISH MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE WORKSTANDARDS THAT MAY REDUCE SUBJECTIVITY IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT.

THIS FORMS THE BASIC FRAMEWORK IN RELATION TO WHICHDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED. WITHOUT THESE A SHARPERFOCUS ON THE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM VARIOUS TASKSCANNOT BE ACHIEVED. ........................................................................... XI

DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... XIII

3.1 ROLE CLARITY ........................................................................................................XIII3.2 IMPROVED COMMUNICATION ..........................................................................................XV3.3 TRAININGAND DEVELOPMENTAL NEED .............................................................................XIX3.4 PLANNING ............................................................................................................XXIII3.5 MOTIVATION .........................................................................................................XXIV3.6 MEASUREOF PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................XXVIFACTORSCONTRIBUTINGTOPERFORMANCEMEASUREMENT ............................................................XXIX

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ XXX

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ XXXI

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... XXXII

SHAY S. TZAFRIR, GEDALIAHU H. HAREL, YEHUDA BARUCH AND SHIMON L.DOLAN. THE CONSEQUENCES OF EMERGING HRM PRACTICES FOREMPLOYEES' TRUST IN THEIR MANAGERS ............................................. XXXII


3/31

Executive Summary

In every organization it is important that goals set for the employees are in sync with the

companys goals. For achieving these set of goals, it is important that the performance of

employees is regularly monitored and improved. To ensure continuous improvement in

the employees performance, interactions with employees at regular intervals are

essential. Performance Management Systems are tools to achieve this. Performance

Management by definition is a process that consolidates goal setting, performance

appraisal and development in to a single common system, the aim of which is to ensure

that the employees performance is supporting the companys strategic aims.

This study focuses on performance management system at NDPL and evaluates

effectiveness of the system on parameters like role clarity, Motivation, Employee

involvement, planning, training and developmental needs and communication.

The methodology of research adopted for the project is Survey based. The survey is usedto determine the employees perspective of PMS. The questionnaire for employers

includes questions related to the performance metrics considered for appraising the

employees, adherence to Performance Management processes, how far are the

management objectives met, adequate understanding among the managers of the PMS

and sensitivity to subordinate expectations and aspirations, efforts to boost employee

performance, and feedback.

The study reveals that the PMS in NDPL performs well on role clarity and planning

parameters. However the score on parameters like motivation, developmental needs and

periodic review is low.

We therefore recommend that the organization should invest in the training and

developmental needs, periodic performance reviews and in programs which help the

employees to understand and know the repercussions of their ratings on future.


4/31

List of Tables

TABLE 1: ROLE EXPECTATION.................................................................XIII

TABLE 2: KPAS UNDERSTANDING...........................................................XIV

TABLE 3: JOINT KNOWLEDGE...................................................................XV

TABLE 4: OPEN DISCUSSION...................................................................XVI

TABLE 5: COMMUNICATION OF BUSINESS PLANS....................................XVII

TABLE 6: FUTURE IMPLICATIONS..........................................................XVIII

TABLE 7: PERIODIC ORIENTATION PROGRAMMES.....................................XIX

TABLE 8: TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT..................................................XX

TABLE 9: UNDERSTANDING FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE.............XXI

TABLE 10: DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS.......................................................XXII

TABLE 11: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES............................................XXIII

TABLE 12: PLANNING...........................................................................XXIV

TABLE 13: MOTIVATION........................................................................XXV

TABLE 14: GOAL ACHIEVEMENT............................................................XXVI

TABLE 15: MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE...............................................XXVII

TABLE 16: REFLECT COMPETENCIES....................................................XXVIII

TABLE 17: PERIODIC REVIEW..............................................................XXVIII

TABLE 18............................................................................................XXIX

TABLE 19.............................................................................................XXX

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: ROLE EXPECTATION...............................................................XIV

FIGURE 2: KPAS UNDERSTANDING..........................................................XIV

FIGURE 3: JOINT KNOWLEDGE.................................................................XV

FIGURE 4: OPEN DISCUSSION.................................................................XVI

FIGURE 5: COMMUNICATION OF BUSINESS PLANS..................................XVII

FIGURE 6: FUTURE IMPLICATIONS.........................................................XVIII


5/31

FIGURE 7: PERIODIC ORIENTATION PROGRAMMES...................................XIX

FIGURE 8: TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT.................................................XX

FIGURE 9: UNDERSTANDING FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE...........XXI

FIGURE 10: DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS.....................................................XXII

FIGURE 11: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES..........................................XXIIIFIGURE 12: PLANNING.........................................................................XXIV

FIGURE 13: MOTIVATION.......................................................................XXV

FIGURE 14: GOAL ACHIEVEMENT..........................................................XXVI

FIGURE 15: MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE.............................................XXVII

FIGURE 16: REFLECT COMPETENCIES..................................................XXVIII

FIGURE 17: PERIODIC REVIEW..............................................................XXIX

Introduction

Research cited in the Harvard Business Review suggests that companies which utilise

effective performance management systems may perform better in financial terms than

those which do not (Rheem 1996, 34), although direct causeeffect relationships are

inherently problematic (Colbert 2004). In particular, companies which manage the

performance of their people effectively are more likely to outperform than those which

do not (McDonald and Smith 1995).

Success or failure in performance management depends on organizational philosophies,

and the attitudes and skills of those responsible for its implementation and administration,

together with the acceptance, commitment and ownership of appraisers and appraisees

(Lawler 1994; Hedge and Teachout 2000). A particular programmes effectiveness may

also be influenced by the notions of procedural fairness and distributive justice

(Gabris and Ihrke 2000), where procedural fairness refers to the employees perception

of the programmes overall process equity, and where distributive justice is linked to

perceptions of the fairness of associated rewards and recognition outcomes.


6/31

Supporters of performance review and management systems such as Drucker (1954),

Cascio (1996), and Wilson (2001), argue that performance review programmes are the

logical, and preferable, means to appraise, to develop, and to effectively utilise,

employees knowledge and capabilities.

About the organization

North Delhi Power Limited (NDPL) is a joint venture between Tata Power Company and

the Government of NCT of Delhi with the majority stake being held by Tata Power. It

distributes electricity in North & North West parts of Delhi and serves a populace of 50

lakh. The company started operations on July 1, 2002 post the unbundling of erstwhile

Delhi Vidyut Board. With a registered consumer base of around 10 lakh and a peak load

of around 1180 MW, the companys operations span across an area of 510 sq kms. NDPL

has been the frontrunner in implementing power distribution reforms in the capital city

and is acknowledged for its consumer friendly practices.

NDPL is the first power distribution utility from India to have won the prestigious Edison

Award in the international category. The prestigious award is given annually by the

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) to honour both international and U.S. electric companies

for outstanding contributions to the advancement of the Power industry.

NDPL was also conferred the Asian Utility of the Year 2008 award by Asian Power and

is also the winner of Palladium Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Award.


7/31

NDPL has the distinction of being the youngest company and the first power utility in

India to receive the prestigious CII EXIM Award for Strong Commitment to Excel. It is

also the only distribution utility to receive the ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001

certification. NDPL has also been conferred the National Award for Meritorious

Performance by the President of India.

Performance management system in NDPL

Performance Management Philosophy

To create a congruence between the objectives of the organization, individual

departments and employees of NDPL.

To help employees to consciously aim at and improve upon their performance and

thus organizational effectiveness.

To facilitate and equip employees suitably for current and future responsibilities

To create a sense of fairness among officers about the systems of assessment and

reward

Balance Scorecard (OPMS & DPMS)

Tool for aligning the objectives of the organization as a whole with departments

and individual employees.

Mobilise change through executive leadership.

Sound strategy map at the corporate and divisional level.

Undertaking initiatives to contribute to the achievement of targets

Translate strategy into operational terms - Key Performance Indicators identified

and targets set for measuring performance at all levels.

Undertaking initiatives to contribute to the achievement of targets.


8/31

Align the organisation to the strategy cascading and establishing linkages with

individual performance.

Objectives of Performance Management System

Performance Planning:

Defines expectations from an individual in terms of what he has to achieve in the

form of the objectives & how performance will be measured.

Managing Performance:

Action taken to achieve the desired objective which includes a continuous process

of providing feedback on performance, conducting informal progress reviews,

coaching, reviewing objectives and dealing with performance problems where

necessary.

Performance Review:

Individual performance review happens on-line when an annual review of

performance takes place, covering achievements, progress and problems. This

leads to performance ratings. Introduction of Electronic PMS (e-PMS) has

benefited the organization in terms of empowerment, transparency, speed and

automated information for management analysis and decision.

Identifying training needs:

The training needs identified serve as an input while formulating the training

calendar. This would help an employee extend his/her knowledge & skills and

enhance capabilities to improve performance in specified areas.

Initiatives to build a performance oriented culture:

Defining Career progression for all levels

Conducting Employee Engagement Survey.

Reward & recognition policy

Element of flexible pay and performance bonus in the pay structure

Customised electronic appraisal system to enable tracking of goals, mid-term

review and achievement of targets.


9/31

Emphasis on competence enhancement- Competency framework of Tata

Leadership Practices (TLPs) adopted.

Competency manual prepared- detailing Tata Leadership Practices (TLP).

Conducting assessment centers for evaluation against competencies and to

identify opportunity for development of employees.

Formulation of Personal Development Plans

Conducting Leadership Development Programs -Training imparted for

developing critical competencies.

Evaluation of Training effectiveness

Research Objectives

To study the performance appraisal system at NDPL and to measure its effectiveness

Research methodology

The methodology of research adopted for the project is Survey based. The survey

included questions related to the demographic information, experience with PMS,

indicators of employees performance, and expectations from the PMS, problems and

gaps in the existing PMS, adequate follow-up from employers regarding set objectives

and recommended trainings, employees recommendations.

The questionnaire also includes questions related to the performance metrics considered

for appraising the employees, adherence to Performance Management processes, how far

are the management objectives met, adequate understanding among the managers of the

PMS and sensitivity to subordinate expectations and aspirations, efforts to boost

employee performance, and feedback mechanisms in place.

An online survey is administered to employees of NDPL. Response is collected from

employees of different cadre and is analyzed with SPSS.

Sampling and Data collection methods


10/31

The data source: Primary as well as Secondary.

The research approach: Survey Method.

The research instrument: Questionnaire.

The respondents: The Managers & Employees of NDPL.

The primary data was collected by interacting with few employees of NDPL. A concise

questionnaire was prepared on the basis of the information collected from these

employees.

Limitations and Scope of Research

Following are the limitations that we had faced in the project with respect to the analysis

and data.

The sample size is particularly small.

The data collected is limited to NDPL organization, a power sector.

Therefore, care needs to be taken in generalizing the findings to other

organizations or to other sectors.

Parameters to be evaluated

Role clarity:The purpose of the KPAs is to bring out greater role clarity and ensure a

common understanding between appraiser and appraisee from the very beginning.

The purpose of identifying objectives is to establish mutually acceptable work

standards that may reduce subjectivity in the final assessment. This forms the basic

framework in relation to which development efforts are to be directed. Without these

a sharper focus on the capability requirement to perform various tasks cannot be

achieved.

Motivation: One of the most important outcomes of Performance management systemis commitment and motivation by Increasing peoples sense of personal value and

enhancing the individuals perception of empowerment (Bevan and Thompson 1992;

Fletcher and Williams 1992; Taylor and Pierce 1999). Thus in order to achieve improved

performance, PMS should be designed in a way so as to motivate employees and make

them strive for continuous improvements.


11/31

Measure of performance: PMS improved organizational performance (Bevan and

Thompson 1992); improved management performance (Smither, London, Vasilopoulos,

Reilly, Millsap and Salvemini 1995). The PMS should help to measure the performance

of employees in an objective manner. Research cited in the Harvard Business Review

suggests that companies which utilize effective performance management systems may

perform better in financial terms than those which do not (Rheem 1996, 34)

Communication and employee involvement: Communication is a reflection of the

organizational culture. Organizational communication was found to be positively

correlated with organizational effectiveness (Baruch and Gebbie, 1998). Moreover,

organizational communication generates the big picture for employees, helping them

understand the role of the self within the organizational system (Bowen and Lawler,

1995).

Involving the employee as an equal in the review process is more likely (according to

Meyer) to increase commitment to action plans, making the entire process both more

satisfying and more productive. However, in a study by Carroll & Tosi (1973) results

indicated that "subordinate participation in setting goals did not result in higher levels of

perceived goal success or in more favorable attitudes towards a superior or toward

management by objectives". It may be that in some situations, employee involvement is

seen as positive, and in other not.

Training and developmental need: As per research findings, employee

development is expected to create a sense of certainty, enhance employability and faith in

management. Among its positive outcomes, this investment increases employability for

the individual employee (Waterman et al., 1994).An effective PMS should recognize the

developmental needs of employee and provide necessary support to build upon the

weaknesses.

Motivation and empowerment: Empowerment in an organizational context can be

viewed as a set of conditions necessary for intrinsic task motivation (Conger and
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb9http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb9http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb97http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb97http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb97http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb13http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb9http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb9http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb97http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb13


12/31

Kanungo, 1988). It can also be seen as a set of motivational techniques, contrasting

traditional paradigms such as Taylorism which is predominantly based on strong

managerial control, first stated by Plato some 2,400 years ago (see Clemense and Mayer,

1987).

An effective PMS should help to build trust, provide vision, remove performance-

blocking barriers, offer encouragement, motivate, and coach employees. More and more

managers are being advised that effective leaders share power and responsibility with

their employees.

Data Analysis

3.1 Role Clarity

Each employee grasp what is expected of him with the help of the

appraisal system

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Agree 20 41.7 41.7 41.7

Disagree 2 4.2 4.2 45.8

Neutral 16 33.3 33.3 79.2

StronglyAgree

2 4.2 4.2 83.3

stronglydisagree

8 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 1: Role Expectation
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb13http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb12http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb12http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb13http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb12http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0140330602.html#idb12


13/31

Figure 1: Role Expectation

As seen in the table1 and figure 1, 45.9% agree that performance appraisal provides them

role clarity. However 20.9% feel that PMS does not provide any role clarity which is a

matter of concern.

Are KPAs and KRAs clearlyunderstood by the

employees?

No 14 0.28 28

Yes 36 0.72 72

Total 50 100 100%Table 2: KPAs Understanding

Figure 2: KPAs Understanding


14/31

As per table 2 and figure 2, only 72% of the employees know their

KPAs and KRAs. Hence effort should be made to explain KPAs and KRAs

to the employees.

PMS helps appraisee and appraiser to have joint knowledge of each

team members job

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 29.2 29.2 29.2

Disagree 12 25.0 25.0 54.2

Neutral 12 25.0 25.0 79.2

StronglyAgree

2 4.2 4.2 83.3

stronglydisagree

8 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Joint Knowledge

Figure 3: Joint Knowledge

According to table 3 and figure 3, only 33.4% agree that PMS helps appraisee and

appraiser to have joint knowledge of each team members job while 41.7% disagree which

is a matter of concern.

3.2 Improved Communication


15/31

PMS encourages open discussion between appraiser and appraisee

through reviews

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 12 25.0 25.0 25.0

Disagree 8 16.7 16.7 41.7

Neutral 18 37.5 37.5 79.2

StronglyAgree

4 8.3 8.3 87.5

Strongly

Disagree6 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 4: Open discussion

Figure 4: Open Discussion

According to table 4 and figure 4, only 33.3% employees think PMS encourages opendiscussion between appraisers and appraisee through reviews while 29.2% do not think

so. Hence organization can take sufficient steps to encourage open discussions during

reviews.


16/31

PMS aids the communication of business plans to staff

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 4 8.3 8.3 8.3

Disagree 12 25.0 25.0 33.3Neutral 22 45.8 45.8 79.2

Strongly Agree 4 8.3 8.3 87.5

StronglyDisagree

6 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 5: Communication of Business Plans

Figure 5: Communication of Business Plans

According to table 5 and figure 5, only 16.6% employees think PMS aids the

communication of business plans to staff while 37.5% do not think so.

Hence organization can take sufficient steps to improve communication of business

plans.


17/31

Objectives and future implications\Repercussions of PMS are clear

to employees and mangers

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 37.5 37.5 37.5

Disagree 6 12.5 12.5 50.0

Neutral 14 29.2 29.2 79.2


StronglyDisagree

8 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 6: Future Implications

Figure 6: Future Implications

According to table 6 and figure 6, only 41.7% employees think objectives and future

implications\repercussions of PMS are clear while 29.2% do not think so.

Hence sufficient steps should be taken so that objectives and future

implications\Repercussions of PMS are made clear to employees and managers.


18/31

Periodic orientation programmes are conducted to explain the

objectives and process of PMS

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 8 16.7 16.7 16.7

Disagree 6 12.5 12.5 29.2

Neutral 24 50.0 50.0 79.2

StronglyDisagree

10 20.8 20.8 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 7: Periodic Orientation Programmes

Figure 7: Periodic Orientation Programmes

According to table 7 and figure 7, only 16.7% employees think periodic orientation

programs are conducted to explain the objectives and process of PMS while 33.3% do not

think so.

3.3 Training and Developmental Need


19/31

With the help of PMS managers know the support they need to give

for achieving departmental goals


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 29.2 29.2 29.2

Disagree 12 25.0 25.0 54.2

Neutral 14 29.2 29.2 83.3


Strongly

Disagree6 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 8: Training and Development

Figure 8: Training and Development

According to table 8 and figure 8, only 33.4% employees think that with the help of

PMS, managers know the support they need to give for achieving departmental goals

objectives and future implications\repercussions of PMS are clear while 37.5% do not

think so. Hence organization should take sufficient measures regarding training and

development needs of the employees.


20/31

PMS helps the appraisee and appraiser to have the common

understanding of the factors affecting the performance of the

appraisee


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 29.2 29.2 29.2

Disagree 6 12.5 12.5 41.7

Neutral 16 33.3 33.3 75.0


Strongly

Disagree6 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 9: Understanding factors affecting performance

Figure 9: Understanding factors affecting performance

According to table 9 and figure 9, only 41.7% employees think PMS helps the appraisee

and appraiser to have the common understanding of the factors affecting the performance

of the appraisee while 25% do not think so.


21/31

PMS helps to identify the developmental needs for accomplishing

the departmental goals


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 33.3 33.3 33.3

Disagree 10 20.8 20.8 54.2

Neutral 16 33.3 33.3 87.5


Strongly

Disagree4 8.3 8.3 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 10: Developmental Needs

Figure 10: Developmental Needs

According to table 10 and figure 10, only 37.5% employees think PMS helps to identify

the developmental needs for accomplishing the departmental goals while 29.1% do not

think so. Hence organization should take sufficient measures to identify development

needs.


22/31

PMS provides scope for giving insights into strengths and

weaknesses of employees

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 12 25.0 25.0 25.0

Disagree 10 20.8 20.8 45.8

Neutral 16 33.3 33.3 79.2


Strongly

Disagree6 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 11: Strengths and Weaknesses

Figure 11: Strengths and Weaknesses

According to table 11 and figure 11, only 33.3% employees think PMS provides scope

for giving insights into strengths and weaknesses of employees while 33.3% do not think

so.

3.4 Planning


23/31

PMS helps managers to plan well the departmental goals and

their accomplishment

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 26 54.2 54.2 54.2

Disagree 4 8.3 8.3 62.5

Neutral 6 12.5 12.5 75.0


Strongly

Disagree6 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 12: Planning

Figure 12: Planning

According to table 12 and figure 12, 66.7% employees think PMS helps managers to plan

well the departmental goals and their accomplishment while 20.8% do not think so.

3.5 Motivation


24/31

PMS helps discover individual potential

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 29.2 29.2 29.2

Disagree 4 8.3 8.3 37.5Neutral 14 29.2 29.2 66.7


StronglyDisagree

10 20.8 20.8 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 13: Motivation

Figure 13: Motivation

According to table 13 and figure 13, only 43.7% employees think PMS helps discover

individual potential while 29.1% do not think so. Hence organization should take

sufficient measures to recognize potential.


25/31

PMS acts as a catalyst to motivate the employees towards goal

achievement

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 29.2 29.2 29.2

Disagree 4 8.3 8.3 37.5

Neutral 14 29.2 29.2 66.7

StronglyAgree

8 16.7 16.7 83.3

Strongly

Disagree8 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 14: Goal Achievement

Figure 14: Goal Achievement

According to table 14 and figure 14, only 45.9% employees think PMS acts as a catalyst

to motivate the employees towards goal achievement PMS helps discover individual

potential while 25% do not think so.

3.6 Measure of Performance


26/31

The data generated from PMS provides objective indications of

actual performance

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 33.3 33.3 33.3

Disagree 6 12.5 12.5 45.8

Neutral 12 25.0 25.0 70.8


Strongly

Disagree10 20.8 20.8 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Table 15: Measure of performance

Figure 15: Measure of Performance

According to table 15 and figure 15, only 41.6% employees think that data generated

from PMS provides objective indications of actual performance while 33.3% do not think

so.

PMS provides scope for reflection and assessment of each appraisee

on the personality factors and other competencies

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 29.2 29.2 29.2Disagree 8 16.7 16.7 45.8

Neutral 12 25.0 25.0 70.8


StronglyDisagree

10 20.8 20.8 100.0

Total 48 100.0 100.0


27/31

Table 16: Reflect competencies

Figure 16: Reflect competencies

According to table 16 and figure 16, only 37.5% employees think PMS provides scope

for reflection and assessment of each appraisee on the personality factors and other

competencies while 37.5% do not think so. Hence organization should take sufficient

measures so that PMS reflects competencies.

3.7 Periodic Review

How often does the manager discuss/performance counselling about theaccomplishments of the KPAs and KRAs with the employees?


Cumulative

Percent

Valid monthly 4 8.0 8.0 8.0

quarterly 18 36.0 36.0 44.0

Yearly 28 56.0 56.0 100.0

Total 50 100.0 100.0

Table 17: Periodic Review


28/31

Figure 17: Periodic Review

As shown by table 17 and figure 17, only 8 % of the respondents get the monthlyfeedback on their performance while 36% and 56% get the feedback about their

performances quarterly and yearly respectively.

Factors contributing to performance measurement

Communalities

Init ial Extraction

Monetary 1.000 .855

CareerGrowth 1.000 .736

RoleClarity 1.000 .898

TrainingNeeds 1.000 .739

Motivation 1.000 .740

Promotion 1.000 .792

Control 1.000 .801

ImprovedCommunication 1.000 .706

RecognizingAchievement 1.000 .791

ImprovedPerformance 1.000 .820

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 18


29/31

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance Cumulative %

1 6.522 65.216 65.216 6.522 65.216 65.216 4.589 45.893 45.893

2 1.357 13.575 78.791 1.357 13.575 78.791 3.290 32.898 78.791

3 .679 6.792 85.584

4 .426 4.264 89.848

5 .356 3.557 93.405

6 .237 2.370 95.775

7 .177 1.770 97.545

8 .099 .991 98.536

9 .083 .827 99.363

10 .064 .637 100.000

Table 19

As seen in table 17 and table 18, all the above factors are highly related to performance measurement.

Total Variance Explained

Conclusion

The study reveals that 72% of the employees understand their KPAs and KRAs and

approximately 50 % of the employees have a clear understanding of what is expected

from them to achieve the departmental and organizational targets. However 41.7%

employees dont have the clear understanding of their team member goals.

On communication parameter only 33.3% employees think PMS encourages open

discussion between appraisers and appraisee through reviews. Only 41.7% employees

think objectives and future implications\repercussions of PMS are clear and 16.7%

employees think periodic orientation programs are conducted to explain the objectivesand process of PMS while 33.3% do not think so. Only 37.5% employees think PMS

helps to identify the developmental needs for accomplishing the departmental goals and

33.3% employees think PMS provides scope for giving insights into strengths and

weaknesses of employees.


30/31

The study also shows that 66.7% employees think PMS helps managers to plan well the

departmental goals and their accomplishment and only 45.9% employees think PMS acts

as a catalyst to motivate the employees towards goal achievement. Only 41.6%

employees think that data generated from PMS provides objective indications of actual

performance and 37.5% employees think PMS provides scope for reflection and

assessment of each appraisee on the personality factors and other competencies.

Also only 8 % of the employees get monthly feedback on their performance while 56%

get yearly feedback.

Recommendations

The organisation should arrange training programs to educate the managers about

the whole process of PMS. This effect should trickle-down from the top to

bottom.

Emphasis should be paid towards having periodic (continuous) performance

reviews rather than the yearly reviews on performance and any deviation from the

desired expectations should be corrected as soon as possible through timely

feedback.

Human resource department should very clearly communicate the repercussions

of the PMS to employees and a proper documentation of the whole system should

be done.

Mangers should promote open discussion while deciding the goals and KPAs of

the department in case of any conflict and it should be resolved through mutual

consensus.


31/31

PMS should be designed to help the employees realize their actual potential. For

example by setting arduous objectives and attaching lucrative rewards with it.

References

Shay S. Tzafrir, Gedaliahu H. Harel, Yehuda Baruch and Shimon L. Dolan. The

consequences of emerging HRM practices for employees' trust in their managers

Wimer, S., and K.M. Nowack. 1998. 13 common mistakes using 360-degree feedback.Training and Development Journal; 52(5): 6970.

Harper, S., and Vilkinas T. 2005. Determining the impact of an organisationsperformance management system,Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources; 43; 76

Alan R. Nankervis and Robert-Leigh Compton. 2006. Performance management: Theoryin practice,Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2006; 44; 83

Official Website. North Delhi Power Limited, www.ndpl.com

Rao. T. V., HRD Score Card 2500 based on HRD Audit

PAM Project Report Group 3

Documents