Performance Appraisal -Allied Nippon

A

A STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

IN ALLIED NIPPON LIMITEDSite-IV, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad

(PRODUCTION DEPTARTMENT)

Table of contents

1. Company-Profile

2. Introduction of Study

3. Research Methodology

4. Data Analysis

5. Findings

6. Conclusions.

7. Limitations

8. Recommendation

9. Bibliography.

10. Annexure.

Acknowledgement

This project is the result of the help of the various people who rendered their

support and suggestions from time to time. I take this opportunity to thank all

of them with a deep sense of gratitude and reverence.

Firstly, I wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma (HR-

Executive)and also project guide Allied Nippon Limited, Sahibabad,

Ghaziabad for his caring and guiding support and for giving a very patient

hearing whenever i needed. He directly made a significant contribution to

emerge to this project report.

My sincere thank to Ms.Richa Sahani faculty guide who helped me out

tremoundously in the successful completion of this project report. I would

like to thank my family and friends who directly or indirectly helped me in

finishing the project successfully.

THE COMPANY PROFILE

Allied Nippon Ltd (ANL), an ISO/TS 16949:2002 company, that

manufactures and markets friction products including Disc Brake Pads, Brake

Linings, Brake Shoes, Clutch Facings, and Brake Hydraulics for Cars,

Railways, Commercial Vehicles (CV), Off The Road Vehicles (OTR )and

various other automotive applications.  Allied Nippon Ltd.(ANL) has  Joint

Venture Collaboration with Japan Brake Industrial Company Limited (JBI),

Tokyo, Japan.

Vision

We want to maintain our leadership position in our chosen area of business in India and to establish it globally. We will endeavor to create new opportunities for growth in our strategic business. MISSION

Foresight, enterprise, determination and commitment.Forging ahead with modern technologies.Reaching out to the global market.Progressing with team work.Displaying firm commitment and ready action in our operations

ABOUT OUR PARTNERS

JAPAN BRAKE INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (JBI)

JBI, a Hitachi group company, is a pioneer in the development of   Friction

Material Technology. It is a major supplier to the world’s leading automobile

manufacturers including Honda, Suzuki, Mazda, General Motors and

Hyundai.As   JBI’s Joint Venture partner,ANL continuously receives upto

date technical knowledge, and research & development expertise. 

NABCO LTD

To widen its automotive product range, ANL has signed a Technical

Collaboration agreement with NABCO Ltd. to manufacture Railway Brake

Blocks. NABCO has been consistently involved in the development of

Automotive Brake Systems and Railway Car Brake System in Japan.

International Operations

With an exhaustive distributor network, ANL has offices, warehousing and

customer support centres across the globe. ANL’s International Operations

are equipped to handle problems and technical queries of customers, build

better customer contact and provide superior services.

International Locations :

- ANL Europe Ltd

  Bristol (U.K.)

- Allied Comline Ltd

  Middlesex (U.K.)

- Nippon Line Ltd

  Moscow (Russia)

- Engineering Office  Bristol (U.K.)

ALLIED NIPPON

MANUFACTURING A – 12, Site IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad – 201010 Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.) INDIA Tel No.: +91 11 55351409 +91 120 2896686 - 95 Fax No: +91 120 2896685 e.mail : [email protected] website: http://www.alliednippon.com/

REGISTERED OFFICE (INDIA) ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED 1006, Akashdeep Building 26/A, Barakhamba Road New Delhi – 110 001. INDIA Tel No : +91 11 23753575 – 76 +91 11 26428043 Fax No: +91 11 23753575 e.mail : [email protected]

(U.K.) ALLIED COMLINE LIMITED Unit – 30, Northfield Industrial Estate Beresford Avenue, Wembley Middlesex HAO INW, England Tel No. : (44) 020 8902 8989 Fax No : (44) 020 8902 9898 e.mail : mailto:%[email protected] website : http://www.comline.uk.com/

(U.K.) ANL EUROPE LIMITED Unit 16 Londonerry Farm Keynsham Road, Willsbridge Bristol BS 30 6EL, England Tel No : (44) 0117 932 1050 Fax No : (44) 0117 932 1059 e.mail : [email protected] website : http://www.anl-europe.com/

(RUSSIA) NIPPON LINE LIMITED 307,8, 2nd Roschinsky Proezd, Moscow, Russia - 115419 Tel No : +7 (095) 956 6670 Fax No : +7 (095) 956 6670 e.mail :mailto:[email protected] website : http://www.allied-nippon.com/

PRODUCT PROFILE

Brake Pads and Brake Shoes

Formulas specially designed in Japan and Europe are responsible for the superior performance of our disc brake pads and brake shoes. This exceptional technology and quality give us the highest market share in India for Two Wheeler friction materials. We also export these materials to over 15 countries.Allied Nippon is an OE supplier to Honda, Hero Honda, Bajaj, Piaggio, Yamaha.

Brake Linings, Shoes, Discs and Hydraulics

ANL’s Braking range also consists of various products such as Brake

Linings, Brake Shoes and Brake Hydraulics.

The products have been supplied extensively to manufacturers of Passenger

Cars, Suvs,  LCVs, Tractors, Two Wheelers and Four Wheelers

Commercial Vehicles - Trucks and Off-The-Road Vehicles

Based on increasing product acceptance& recogination ANL has expanded

its manufacturing and business activities to include an exhaustive range of

Commercial vehicles (CV) and Off-The-Road (OTR) vehicles pads such as

heavy earth movers.  Customers are assured and guaranteed  the safety and

reliability of ANL products. The pads are supplied with complete accessories

and wear indicators.

Railways

ANL is a pioneer in the development and manufacturing of composition

Brake Blocks for Railways. It has acquired the latest and most cost effective

technology from NABCO, Japan, a worldwide leader in its field and superior

quality, Safety being a paramount importance; ANL Brake Blocks are

manufactured under the most stringent quality checks

MANUFACTURING

Experienced, skilled and trained personnel monitor the entire production

process. All raw materials are screened through a rigorous selection process

and the manufacturing process ensures zero defect system at every stage.

The computerized and fully automated plant uses JBI’s proven technology

and process methods. Furthermore the critical operations – Weighing,

Mixing, Pre-forming, Heat Moulding and Finishing are given high priority.

ANL, equipped with modern tool room facilities, is in a unique position to

design, develop and manufacture tooling for products required by the

customer within stipulated time schedules.

REACH & DEVELOPMENT

Besides using superior Japanese Technology, ANL  has built and developed

its own centre for in-house research and development activities, thereby

providing it with a solid backing.

To conduct and  complete in-house testing for newly developed products

(ranging from two-wheeler to HCVs), ANL’s R & D centre, approved by the

Government of India, is equipped with a Dynamometer and the Krauss

testing machine.

ANL’s R & D centre also conducts rigorous tests to ensure that the highest

standards are maintained in raw material selection, mix quality and the entire 

manufacturing process.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Allied Nippon friction materials go through systematically defined Quality

Assurance testing procedures and programmes.

ANL products consistently guarantee the combination of safety, strength,

high endurance, dependability and cost effective performance. All critical

and special characteristics are statistically measured and controlled.

Well-equipped in-house Quality Control meets the calibration and inspection

requirement as per international standards.

OEM USERS

The Original Equipment Users

ANL, a major OEM supplier for renowned Vehicle Manufacturers, caters to

the requirement of various Original Equipment Manufacturers which include

Honda, Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Toyota, Fiat, GM, Ford, Daewoo,

Hyundai, International Harvester and Massey Ferguson,and Brake system

suppliers including Bendix and Girling.

Allied Nippon Bonded Brake Shoes are also used as Original Equipment on

two wheelers manufactured by Hero Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki Bajaj, Royal

Enfield, Kinetic Motors in India and Piaggio in Italy.

WHAT IS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL?

Since organizations exist to achieve goals, the degree of success that

individual employees have in reaching their individual goals is important in

determining organizational effectiveness. The assessment of how successful

employees have been at meeting their individual goals, therefore, becomes a

critical part of HRM. This leads us to the topic of performance appraisal.

People differ in their abilities and aptitudes. These differences are

natural to a great extent and cannot be eliminated even by giving the same

basic education and training to them. There will be some differences in the

quality and quantity of work done by different employees even on the same

job. Therefore, it is necessary for management to know these differences so

that the employees having better abilities may be rewarded and the wrong

placements of employees may be rectified through transfers. The individual

employee may also like to know the level of his performance in comparison

to his fellow employees so that he may improve on it. Thus, there is a great

need to have suitable performance appraisal system to measure the relative

merit of each employee.

The basic purpose of performance appraisal is to facilitate orderly

determination of an employee’s worth to the organization of which he is a

part. However, a fair determination of the worth of an employee can take

place only by appraising numerous factors some of which are highly

subjective, as for instant, attendance, while others are highly subjective, as

for instant, attitude and personality. The objective factor can be assessed

accurately on the basis of records maintained by the Human resource or

personnel Department, but there is no device to measure the subjective factor

precisely. Notwithstanding this, appraisal of these factors must be done to

achieve the full appreciation of every employee merit.

What is Performance Appraisal?

Performance appraisal goes by various names such

as performance evaluation, progress rating, merit rating, merit evaluation, etc.

But in this chapter, we shall use the terms performance appraisal and merit

rating to denote the appraisal of the performance of the employees of an

organization.

Performance appraisal means systematic evaluation of the

personality and performance of each employee by his supervisor or some

other person trained in the techniques of merit rating. It employs various

rating techniques for comparing individual employees in a work group, in

term of personal qualities or deficiencies and the requirements of their

respective jobs. To quote dale Yoder,” performance appraisal includes all

formal procedures used to evaluate personalities and contribution and

potential of group members in a working organization. It is a continuous

process to secure information necessary for making correct and objective

decisions on employees.” The comparison of performance with job

requirements helps in finding out the merit of individual employees in a week

group. Supervisor or an independent appraiser may do rating.

Performance appraisal is a formal programme in an

organization, which is concerned with not only the contribution of the

members who form part of the organization, but aims at spotting the potential

also. The satisfactory performance is only a part of the system as a whole and

the management needs more information than mere performance ratings of

the subordinates. There are no two opinions about the necessity of

performance appraisal, which can meet requirements of the management to

achieve the organizational goals.

Performance appraisal is the systematic evaluation of

the individual with respect to his performance on the job and his potential for

development. Performance appraisal is concerned with determining the

differences among the employees working in the organization. Generally, the

individual’s immediate superior in the organization and whose performance

is reviewed in turn by his superior does the evaluation. Thus, everyone in

Performance appraisal employs rating techniques for comparing individual

employees in the work group, in terms of personal qualities or deficiencies

and the requirements of their respective jobs.

Purpose of Performance Appraisal:

The objective of performance appraisal fall in two categories:

1) Administrative; and

2) Self-improvement

1) Administrative Objectives.

a) Promotions:

This is the most important administrative use of performance

appraisal. It is to the common interest of both the management and employees

to promote employees onto position where they can most effectively utilize

their abilities. It is mismanagement to promote employees into position where

they cannot perform effectively at the time in question. A properly developed

and administered performance appraisal system can aid in determining whether

individuals should be considered for promotions. The system must rate the

ratee for the present job and his potentialities for the higher job. A person

performing the job well does not necessarily mean that he is fit for promotion.

b) Transfers:

In an organization, it may be necessary to consider various types of personnel

actions such as transfer, layoffs, demotions and discharges. In some cases, such

actions are called for because of unsatisfactory performance while in other

cases it may be called for due to economic conditions over which the

organization has no control because of changes in production process. Such

actions can be justified if they are based on performance appraisal.

c) Wage and Salary Administration:

In some cases, the wage increases are based on the performance appraisal

reports. In some cases, appraisals and seniority are used in combination.

d) Training and Development:

An appropriate system of performance appraisal can be helpful in identifying

the areas of skills or knowledge in which certain employees are not up to par,

thus pointing out general training deficiencies which presumably should be

corrected by additional training, discussions, or counseling. Performance

appraisal can also help in spotting the talented employees so as to train and

develop them to create an inventory of executive skills. It can also provide the

areas where the employees/executives could be further trained and positioned

to meet retirement and expansion situations.

e) Personnel Research:

Performance appraisal helps in research in the field of personnel

management. Various theories in human relationship are outcome of efforts to

find out the cause and effect relationship between the personnel and their

performance.

2) Self Improvement.

The performance appraisals bring out the deficiencies and

shortcomings of the employees. Performance appraisal helps human resource

development in a way. A promotion minded individual could ask for the target

programmes of a position he seeks and use the information given by

performance appraisal to prepare him for the job and enhance his candidacy.

Performance appraisal also helps to spot out a person’s ability to

see an organization problem, devise ways of attracting it, translate his ideas

into action, incorporate new information as it arises and carry his plans through

the results. It highlights a sort of total managerial action in contrast to things

they customarily factor out as conceptual entities-things such as planning

function, leadership ability, or financial knowledge. The manager’s selection

will often be improved by this emphasis on the whole managerial job.

Why Performance Appraisal?

The important reasons or benefits, which justify the existence of a

system of performance appraisal in an enterprise, are as under:

1) A good system of performance appraisal helps the supervisor to

evaluate the performance of his employees systematically and periodically. It

also helps to assign that work to individual for which they are best suited.

2) Performance rating helps in guiding and correction of employees. The

supervisor may use the results of rating for the purpose of constructively

guiding employees in the efficient performance of work.

3) The ability of the staff is recognized and can be adequately rewarded

by giving them special increments.

4) Performance appraisal can be used as a basis of sound personnel policy

in relation to transfers and promotions. If the performance of an employee is

better than others, he can be recommended for promotion, but if a person is not

doing well in a job, he may be transferred to some other job.

5) Ratings can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of training

programmes. Merit rating reveals weaknesses of employees and the training

programmes can be modified accordingly.

6) Performance appraisal provides an incentive to the employees to better

their performance in a bid to improve their rating over others.

7) Systematic appraisals will prevent grievances and develop confidence

amongst the employees if they are convinced of the impartial basis of

evaluation. The record of merit rating is available in permanent form to protect

the management against subsequent charges of discrimination, which might be

leveled by the trade union leaders.

Performance Appraisal has a beneficial effect on both the persons

doing the appraisal and being appraised. The appraisal brings prominently to

the attention of supervisors or executives the importance of knowing their

subordinates as human being. The necessity of performance appraisal leads the

appraiser to a thoughtful analysis of people rated and tends to make him more

alive to opportunities and responsibilities in developing the subordinates.

The objective of appraisal is to derive the point to the appraisee

without inviting his resentment or drawing back into the shell or taking

defensive attitude.

Limitations of Performance Appraisal:

Performance appraisal may not yield the desired results

because of the following deficiencies:

1) If the factor included in the assessment is irrelevant, the result of merit

rating will not be accurate.

2) Different qualities to be rated may not be given proper weightage

certain in cases.

3) Some of the factors are highly subjective like initiative and personality

of the employees; so the actual rating may not be on scientific lines.

4) Supervisors often do not have critical ability in assessing the staff.

Sometimes, they are guided by their personal emotions and likes. So the

ratings are likely to be biased.

Difference between Performance Appraisal and Job Evaluation:

Performance Appraisal Job Evaluation1.

Performance appraisal is concerned with the differences among the employees in terms of their performance. It is also termed as merit as it is concerned with the comparative merit of individuals.

Job evaluation is the analysis of various jobs to know the demands, which the normal performance of particular jobs make on average employees. It does not take into account the individual abilities of the job-holder.

2.

It considers the abilities and performance of individuals.

It considers the requirement of various jobs in terms of jobs description and job specifications.

3.

The purpose of merit rating is to appraise the performance of individuals to take decisions like increase in pay, transfer, promotion, etc. It also serves as guidelines for the management to consider the type of training, which should be imparted to the employees.

The purpose of job evaluation is limited, i.e. to determine the worth of the job on the basis of demands made by a particular job on the average worker. This facilitates fixation of wages for various jobs.

4.

Performance appraisal rates the man and not the job as it is concerned with assessing of the abilities of the individuals. As a matter of fact, it measures the worth of different employees to the organization.

Job evaluation analyses the job to determine their relative worth and fix their wage levels that are fair and equitable.

5.

Performance appraisal is used as a basis of personnel policies as regards transfer and promotion

Job evaluation is used to shape the wage policy of the organization.

Methods of Appraisal

There are various methods of merit rating may be classified into:

1) Traditional Methods and

2) Modern Methods.

1) Traditional Methods

Traditional methods are very old technique of performance appraisal. They are

based on trait-oriented appraisal. Evaluation of employees is done on the basis

of standards of personal traits or qualities such as attitudes, judgment,

versatility, initiative, dependability, leadership, loyalty, punctuality, knowledge

of job, etc.

There are seven traditional methods of appraisal. They are:

Unstructured appraisal. Employee ranking. Forced distribution. Graphic – rating scales. Check – lists. Critical incidents. Field review.

Unstructured Appraisal.

Under this, the appraiser is required to write down his impression about the

person being appraised in an unstructured way. However, in some

organizations, comments are required to be grouped under specific headings

such as quality of job performance, reasons for specific job behaviors,

personality traits, and development needs. This system is highly subjective

and has its merit in its simplicity and is still in use especially in the small

firms.

Ranking Method:

Ranking is a simple process of placing in a rank according to their job

performance. It permits comparison of all employees in any single rating group

regardless of type of work. All workers are judged on the same factors and

they are rated on the overall basis with reference to their job performance

instead of individual assessment of traits. In this way, the best in placed first in

the rank and the poorest occupies the last rank. The difficulty of this system is

that the rater is ranked to consider a whole person. Subjectively of the

appraiser may enter into his judgments. Asking the appraiser to rank

employees on certain desirable traits can reduce the subjectiveness in this

method. The other difficulty with this method is that it does not indicate the

degree of difference between the first man and the second man, and so on.

Paired comparison is an improvement over simple ranking. Under this, every

employee in a job family is compared with every other employee to determine

which is the better worker. The rater is provided with a little booklet containing

two names on each page. Obviously the number of rank order would be n(n –

1)/2, where n is the total number of persons to be compared. In this way, every

employee is compared with every other employee in the same job family. The

paired comparison gives a more reliable rating than the order of ranks although

this system is more tedious to construct and use. It cannot be used for periodic

employee’s ratings, as it does not make evaluation of any improvement in the

employees that might have been over a period of time.

Forced Distribution Method:

Some appraisers suffer from a constant error, i.e., they either rate all workers

as excellent, average or poor. They fail to evaluate the poor, average or

excellent employees clearly. The forced distribution system is devised to force

the appraiser to fit the employees being appraised into predetermined ranges of

scales. It has an advantage over the paired comparison system in that two or

more employees can be given equal ratings. This system is based on the

presumption that employees can be divided into five points scale of

outstanding, above average, average below average and poor. In this system,

the appraiser is asked to distribute the employees into these categories in such

a way that about 10% of the men are in group ‘outstanding’, 20% ‘above

average’, 40% ‘average’, and 10% ‘poor’.

This method obviously eliminates the room for subjective

judgment on the part of supervisors. This system is easy to understand and

administer. The objective of this technique is to spread out ratings in the form

of a normal distribution, which is open to criticism. Many times, this group is

comparatively smaller. As a matter of fact, forced distribution of rankings is

feasible for a large group.

Graphic Rating Scales:

Under this method, scales are established for a number of specific factors and

qualities. Five degree are established for each factor and general definitions

appear at points along the scale. Generally, the rater is supplied with a printed

form, one for each person to be rated. The selection of factors to be measured

on the graphic rating scale is an important point under this system.

There are two types:

1) Characteristics, such as initiative and dependability, and

2) Contributions, such as quantity and quality of work.

Since certain area of job performance cannot be objective measured, it is likely

that graphic scales will continue to use a mixture of both characteristics and

contributions.

Graphic scales impose a heavy burden upon the supervisor. He must report and

evaluate the performance of his subordinate on scales involving as many as

five degree on perhaps ten different factors. The main drawback of this system

is that the rater may be biased. However, one means of ensuring that the rater

has based his scoring upon substantial evidence is to leave space on the form

after each factor and require him to explain the reason for his rating. In effect,

he is asked to give example of the ratee’s behavior that justifies the assigned

rating. A supervisor may tend to rate him men high to avoid criticism from

them.

The graphic rating method is easy to understand and easy to use. It permits the

statistical tabulation of scores in terms of measures of central tendency, skew

ness and dispersion. It permits a ready comparison of scores among employees.

The scores presumably reveal the merit or value of every individual. However,

this method has certain serious drawbacks. There is an implication that a high

score of one factor can compensate for a low score on another. If a man scores

for attendance, attitude, cooperativeness, etc. Frequently, the rating tends to

cluster on the high side under this system. A supervisor may tend to rate his

men high so that they may receive high share of pay raises in some cases.

Check Lists:

It also consists of two techniques:

a) Weighted check list, and

b) Forced choice.

a) Weighted Check List:

Under this method, various statements are prepared in such a manner that they

describe various types and levels of behavior for a particular job. Each

statement is attached with a scale value. At the time of rating the employees,

the supervisor just collects and checks all the statements. After the weights and

values are attached to the individual traits, the rating up to this level is gathered

on the rating sheet. Then the weights are averaged and employee is evaluated.

The weighted check – the persons thoroughly acquainted with job and perfect

at preparing and weighing statements should prepare list. When this process is

over, rating is placed on separate cards. Then raters who actually observed the

accomplishment of the work sort these cards. They rank the employee from

poor to excellent. Weights are then assigned to the statements in accordance

with the way they are ranked by the raters.

Under this method, the supervisor is not allowed to accumulate vague

impressions as a basis for rating. Because of this, it compels the supervisor to

think in terms of very specific kinds of behavior. This method involves a

lengthy procedure of evaluating employees. It requires certain qualifications to

be met on the part of the supervisor regarding the job he is assigned to look

after. Moreover, this method is a relatively costlier affair. It puts more strain on

the financial resources of the organization particularly in terms of personnel

development time. Financial burden is further increased when diverse jobs are

evaluated, as a separate procedure must be established for each job.

b) Forced Choice:

This method is used particularly with the objective of avoiding scope for

personal prejudices. Under this method, the rater is forced to choose between

descriptive statements of seemingly equal worth describing the person in

question. Statements are chosen of both the sides (favorable as well as

unfavorable). For example, the following two pairs of statement from each pair

that is represented by supervisor.

a) Gives clear instructions to his subordinate.

b) Can be dependent upon to complete any job assigned.

c) Makes promises that he knows he cannot keep.

d) Shows favoritism to some employees.

The rater may feel that neither of the two statements in a pair is applicable, but

he must select the one that is more descriptive. Only one of the statements in

each pair is correct in identifying the better performances and this scoring key

must be kept secret from raters. In this way, bias removed from the appraisal

process. The main advantage of establishing this system of performance

appraisal is that it has greater objectivity than most other methods.

Forced – choice method is also not free from drawbacks. They are as follows:

Firstly, it is very expensive to install this system.

Secondly, this procedure involved is very lengthy and hence more time –

consuming.

Thirdly, it is difficult for a supervisor to discuss rating switch subordinates

because the personnel department scores the items.

Critical Incident Method:

A critical incident means a significant act by an employee exceeding or failing

any of the requirements of his job. It represents an exceptional behavior of an

employee at work, as for instance, Resisted the implementation of change;

Became upset over work; Refused to help a fellow worker; Suggested an

improvement in the work method’ Tried to get a fellow worker to accept the

management decision; Welcome new ideas.

This method requires every supervisor to record all such significant

incidents in each employee’s behavior, which indicate effective or successful

action and those, which indicate ineffective or poor behavior. These are

recorded in a specially designed notebook, which contains categories or

characteristics under which various behaviors can be recorded. Examples of

such type of job requirements of worker a are judgment, learning ability,

productivity, dependability, accuracy of work, responsibility and initiative.

Daily recording of these items seems to be essential because, otherwise, the

supervisor may forget the incidents with his subordinates.

Under the critical incident method, the supervisor is

supposed to refrain from passing overall judgments and concentrate upon

discussing facts as he sees them. Theoretically, this should provide a sound and

an objective basis for appraisal of performance of an employee. The critical

incident method is not a rating method, as it requires the supervisor to pay

close attention to what an employee is doing.

This method suffers from the defect that outstanding incident happens

so frequently that individual’s appraisal may not vary markedly between any

two time periods. It has been observed that most of the time the employees

have neither positive nor negative incidents. If the critical event does not

happens’ it will be difficult to rate an employee. Moreover, it may be difficult

for a supervisor to decide what is the critical or exceptional incident. Her

against the human bias may appear in recording the critical incident. To rectify

this defect, Gerald Whitlock designed a specimen checklist, which consists of a

number of behavior incidents, which are considered to be an example of

uncommonly, ineffective, or effective job behavior. The usual procedure in

constructing the specimen checklist is to collect behavior incidents from

certain experts in this area. The number of such performance behaviors ranges

from 80 to 150 incidents, equally divided between effective and ineffective

specimens.

Field Review Method:

Under this method, an expert from the personnel department interviews the

supervisors. The expert questions the supervisor to obtain all the pertinent

information on each employee and takes notes his notebook. Thus, there is no

rating form with factors or degrees, but overall ratings are obtained. The

workers are usually classified into three categories as outstanding, satisfactory

and unsatisfactory. The interviewer questions the supervisor about the

requirements of each job in his unit and about the performance of each man in

his job. He probes to find out only how a man is doing but also why he does

that way and what can be done to improve or develop him. The supervisor is

required to give his opinion about the progress of his subordinates, the level of

performance of each subordinates, his weaknesses, good points, outstanding

ability, promotion ability, and the possible plans of action in cases requiring

further consideration. The questions are asked and answered verbally.

The success of field review method depends upon the competence of

the interviewer. If he knows his job, he can contribute significantly to accurate

appraisal. Field review method relieves the supervisors of the tedious writing

work of filling in appraisal forms. It also ensures a greater likelihood that the

supervisors will give adequate attention to the appraisals because the personnel

department largely controls the process. Superficial judgment can be

eliminated if the appraiser probes deeply.

Criticism of Traditional Methods:

The general criticism of traditional performance appraisal systems is that they

are two subjective in nature because all of them are on personal judgment of

the rater. The personal judgment is always subjected to personal bias or

prejudice as well as pressure from certain other areas. The appraiser may not

be able to judge the competence of the employees because of lack of training.

Because of the judgment role of the supervisors under the traditional system,

performance ratings are frequently subject to a number of errors and

weaknesses, which are discussed below:

Halo Error: This type of error occurs when the rater allows one

aspect of a man’s character or performance to influence his entire evaluation. It

is the tendencies of many raters to let the rating they rating to one characteristic

excessively influence their rating on all subsequent characteristics. Many

supervisors tend to give an employee approximately the same rating on all

factors. The error can be recognized quite easily on factors scales. The rating

scale technique of performance appraisal is particularly susceptible to the halo

supervisor judge all of his subordinates on a single factor or trait before going

to the next. In this manner, he can consider all of the men relative to a standard

or to each other on each trait.

Central Tendency: This error occurs when the rater is in doubt about

the subordinates or has inadequate information about them or is giving less

attention and effort to the rating process. Because of these reasons, generally

the raters are reluctant to rate people at the outer ends of the scale. The rater

knows that he has to appraise his subordinates at periodic intervals but if he is

unfamiliar with some of the subordinates or does not have sufficient time to

devote to the rating process, he may play it safe by neither condemning nor

praising. So he may rate them ‘average’. It is possible for this type of rating

i.e., all average to be a true rating, but its probability is less than its frequency.

Leniency or Strictness: Some supervisors have a tendency to be easy

raters and others have a tendency to be harsh in their ratings. Lenient or easy

raters assign consistently high values or scores to their subordinates and strict

or harsh raters give consistently low ratings. Both the trends can arise from

varying standards of performance among supervisors and form different

interpretations of what they observe in employee performance.

Recent Behavior Bias: Often some raters evaluate persons on the

basis pf their performance in recent few weeks; average behavior is not

checked. Some employees being aware of this tendency show better results

when they feel that they are being observed and the report of their performance

is to be compiled soon.

Miscellaneous Biases: In many cases, the rater may give higher

ratings because he thinks that it would look bad for him if employees in the

other department received higher pay increases than his pay. Supervisors will

tend to rate their subordinates near the middle of the spectrum if their bosses

put pressure on them to correct the worker’s average rates or to get rid of the

subordinates. Some supervisors show bias against members of the opposite sex

or of another caste, religion or nationality. They also give higher ratings to

senior employees because they are too ready to admit that they have not

improved under their leadership. Many a times, a rater is influenced by

organizational positions and may give higher ratings to those holdings the

higher positions.

Many people have attacked the reliability and validity of

traditional systems on different grounds, but the fundamental criticism has

been founded upon the judgment role of the supervisor and the antagonistic

response of the subordinates. In a study of appraisal systems in General

Electric Co. USA, the investigator found that traditional approach of

performance appraisal resulted in the following responses:

a) Criticism arises from the very nature of the system.

b) Criticism has a negative effect upon achievement of goals.

c) Criticism increases antagonism and defensiveness, which lead to

interior performance.

d) Praise has little effect, one way or other.

In this study, ninety-two appraisal interviews based on traditional

measurements were analyzed. Those subordinates receiving above average

criticism showed less improvement in ensuring ten to twelve weeks than those

receiving less criticism. When the alternative behavioral approach was

introduced by one – half of the supervisors, differences in subordinates

response pattern remained unchanged. For the appraiser of behavioral

supervisor, all reported more favorable attitudes on such items as amount of

help received, respectability of their supervisors, ability of the supervisors to

plan, the extent to which their abilities were utilized, acceptance of

organization goals and value of the appraisal interviews. That is why it was

observed:

1) Coaching should be a day – to – day, not a once - a year activity.

2) Mutual goal setting not criticism improves performance.

3) Participation by the employee in the goals setting procedure helps

favorable results.

2) Modern methods

There are two important methods of performance

appraisal, which are used by the modern concerns. The first is management by

objectives, which represents result-oriented appraisal. The second is

behaviorally anchored rating scale, which is based on the behaviour of the

subordinates.

Management by objectives:

It was peter drucker who proposed goal setting

approach to performance appraisal, which he called “management by

objectives and self-control”. Douglas Mc. Gregor further strengthened this

approach. He was concerned with the fact that most traditional appraisal

systems involved rating of traits and personal qualities that he felt were highly

unreliable. Besides, the use of such trait ratings produced two main difficulties:

-

a) The manager was uncomfortable about using them and resisted

making appraisal.

b) It had a damaging effect on the motivation and development of the

subordinates.

Goal setting approach or “management by objectives” (MBO) is the

same as behavioral approach to subordinate appraisal, actually called “Work

planning and review” in case of General Electric Co., USA. Under this

approach, an employee is not appraised by his recognizable traits, but by his

performance with respect to the agrees goals or objectives. Thus, the essential

feature of this approach is mutual establishment of job goals. The application

of goal setting approach to performance appraisal involves the following steps:

1) The subordinate discusses his job descriptions with his superior and

they agree on the contents of his job and the key results areas.

2) The subordinate prepares a list of reasonable objectives for the coming

period of six to twelve months.

3) He sits with his superior to discuss the se targets and plans, and a final

set is worked out.

4) Check – points are established for the evaluation of progress, and the

ways of measuring progress are selected.

5) The superior and the subordinate meet at the end of the period to

discuss the result of the subordinate’s efforts to meet the targets mutually

established.

The goal setting approach is based on clear and time

bound objectives from the corporate level to the operative level. This approach

can be applied with great success if the performance appraisal programme

consists of the following elements:

i) Good job descriptions are available to help setting of goals for

different positions.

ii) Superiors have trust in the subordinates to establish reasonable goals;

and

iii) There is emphasis on problem solving rather than criticism of the

performance of the subordinates.

The goal setting approach has done away with the

judgmental role of the superiors in the appraisal of their subordinates. It has led

to greater satisfaction, greater agreement, greater comfort and less tension and

hostility between the workers and the management. This approach is

considerably superior to the traditional approach of performance appraisal. It

emphasizes training and development of individuals. It is problem-solving

approach rather than tell and sell approach. This approach has also got a built –

in device of self – appraisal by the subordinates because they know their goals

and the standards by which their performance will be measured.

The Goal setting approach suffers from the following limitations:

The subordinates can apply this approach only when the goal setting

is possible. It is doubtful if such a procedure can be applied for the blue color

workers.

This approach is not easy to administer. It involves considerable

time, thought and the superior and the subordinate. If the span of supervision is

quite large, it will not be possible for the superior to have discussion with each

and every subordinates for setting up mutually agreed goals.

This approach mainly emphasizes counseling, training and

development. It is argued that critical evaluation and modification to improve

are incompatible. But, in practice, it is not possible to forge the critical aspect

of performance appraisal.

This approach is appropriate for the appraisal of executives and

supervisory personnel who can understand it in a better way. Operative

workers cannot understand this approach and moreover, a vast majority of

them do not want to take initiative in setting their own goals.

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) are

designed to identify the critical areas of performance for a job, and to describe

the more effective and less effective job behavior for getting results.

Performance is evaluated by asking the rater to record specific observable job

behaviors of an employee and then to compare these observations with a

“behaviorally anchored rating scale”. As a result, the supervisor is in a position

to compare the employee’s actual behavior with the behavior that has been

previously determined to be more or less effective.

Proponents of BARS claim many advantages of this

approach. They argue that such a system differentiates among behavior,

performance, and results, and consequently is able to provide a basis for setting

developmental goals for the employee. Because it is job- -specific and

identifies observable measurable behavior, it is a more reliable and valid

method for performance appraisal.

Empirical studies of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales

(BARS) have provided a fertile ground for study by both theorists and

practitioners. The BARS experience has helped to clarify three major

controversies of the appraisal process. On was the issue of the rating content

(trait vs. job related). The second controversy involved the multidimensional

nature of performance. The administrative uses of appraisal had encouraged

rating systems to produce an overall measure of performance, which tended to

mark difference in performance in the key result areas (“performance

dimension”) critical to job results. The third controversy involved in the issue

of the most effective way to anchor the rating scales (numerically or

behavioral). By anchoring the scales behaviorally, the BARS approach was

expected to produce more valid and reliable results by reducing measurement

errors (leniency, halo effect, central tendency, etc.).

Designing an Appraisal Programme

Determining the Objective of ‘performance Appraisal.

Before any performance appraisal programme is

initiated, it is essential to determine its objectives. The objective of the

appraisal programme may be either to appraise the actual performance of

individuals to higher jobs or both. Sometimes, performance appraisal

programmes are associated with specific objectives like training and

development, transfer and promotion, increase in pay, etc.

Establishing Standards of Performance.

For effective rating of employees, it is necessary to

establish standard on performance against which their performance should be

compared. However, an approach that is more preferable is to establish, in

writing, definite standards of accomplishment, which the employee can

reasonably be expected to meet. Such a method will take it possible for both

supervisor and his subordinate to reach agreement on just what is expected in

terms of performance. It should be noted that performance standards are

relative to the group and the organization. Not only are the needs of each

organization different, but the talents of manpower also vary from organization

to organization. The expectation of management is also higher in some

organizations than in others.

Who is to do the Appraisal?

Generally, the appraiser is the immediate superior of the

man to be appraised. He is most familiar with the employee’s work and is in

contact with him and so he is considered to be able to appraise him well. But

there are certain limitations of appraisal by one person. That is why some

organizations try to obtain two or more ratings on each employee. But again

the difficulty may arise because the second rater may not have the necessary

contact with the individual who is to be rated. The possibility is the

constitution of a rating committee, which may consist of a number of

supervisors and specialists from personnel department and a representative of

the worker. The committee will rate each individual collectively. Some people

feel that employee should be allowed to rate themselves. When this is done,

their immediate superiors may offer their rating in conjunction with ratings.

Whosoever the appraiser may be, the subjectivity

invariably steps in. A well-adjusted person is less subject to projecting himself

into other than a poorly adjusted person and, therefore he is able to judge them

better. It is often assumed that qualified psychologists are more capable than

laymen of making unbiased judgments since they receive training in the

dynamics of the personality and also in the correct manner of making the

judgment.

Frequency of Appraisal

The frequency of appraisal differs from organization and

with the nature of duties performed. There are not spot appraisals, monthly,

quarterly, and six monthly or yearly appraisals. But most of the organizations

conduct yearly or half – yearly appraisals because more frequent appraisals

besides taking away time of the appraiser or raters, may create a sense of fear

amongst the ratees. Idea frequency is one, which fits into the objectives of the

older ones.

Designing of Forms

This is an important step in performance appraisal to design the

rating forms to be utilized in the programme. The forms should be related to

job families such as clerical, mechanical, sales, technical and supervisory. All

require a different evaluation form. Performance forms may be classified as

those involving comparative ranking and others involving the comparison of

each employee’s actual performance with predetermined standards. The first

category of forms is designed to evaluate employee performance for the

purpose of making wage adjustments, lay offs, promotions, etc. and second

category of forms is used to improve the performance of workers on their

present jobs.

Requirements of a Sound Performance Appraisal Programme

A sound system of performance appraisal must fulfill the following essentials:

1) The appraisal plan should be simple to operate and easy to understand.

When the appraisal system is complicated, employees may not understand it

fully and may look at the plan with suspicion. The plan should not be very

time-consuming.

2) The performance appraisal system should be performance based,

uniform and non – variable, fair, just and equitable. It should be ensured that

the appraisers are honest, rational and objective in their approach, judgment

and behavioral orientation.

3) The employees should be made aware of the performance in terms of

goals, targets, behavior, etc. expected of them. A personal between the

appraiser and the employee has to be developed to achieve mutual

understanding of the criteria of evaluation.

4) The appraisal plan should be devised in consultation with the

subordinates. This will increase their commitment to the plan and their

understanding of expected performance.

5) The appraisal plan should take into account the appraisal practices

prevailing in other units in the industry as well as the latest thinking on

performance appraisal. It should fit in the structure and operations of the

organization.

6) The top management must create a climate of reliable appraisal

throughout the organization. Goal – orientation, open communications, mutual

trust informal relationships, etc. are the basic elements of such a climate.

7) The appraisal plan should be designed to achieve specific objectives.

The objectives of the appraisal programme may be to evaluate current

performance on the job and to determine the potential for higher jobs. In some

cases, performance appraisal is linked with specific objectives like pay raise,

training, promotion, transfer, etc. The number of factors to be considered and

the data to be collected should be tailor-made to achieve the objective of the

appraisal.

8) The appraisers should be selected and trained properly so that they

have no personal bias and possess the necessary capabilities for objective

evaluation of employees. In order to ensure objectivity in appraisal, more

persons may rate an individual independently.

9) There should be provision of appeals against appraisals to ensure

confidence of the employees and their associations or unions. The results of

appraisal must be discussed with the rates so that they may get an opportunity

to express their feelings on their progress reports.

. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The main objectives of study is to: -

To study the process through which Performance Appraisal takes place in ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED.

To know that how much they are aware about the process?

How much they are satisfied with the process.

SCOPE OF STUDY

The Project given to me is to study Performance Appraisal in ALLIED

NIPPON LIMITED. The scope of Work includes interviewing Senior

Production Officers and finds the way Performance Appraisal is conducted in

ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED.

In this project, I interviewed the Senior Production Officers to find out

the way Performance Appraisal is conducted and ultimately made

recommendations to improve the process.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is the selection of an appropriate research method and

forming some guidelines according to which the research is carried out.

It consists of choosing pattern and a method of collection data,

sampling, tabulation and ultimately analysis of data to reach some

conclusions, on the basis of which some suggestions are given.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A research design or a structure is the process done before data

collection or analysis can commence. A research design is not just a work

plan. A work plan details what has to be done to complete the project but the

function of a research design is to ensure that the evidence obtained enables

us to answer the initial question as unambiguously as possible. In other

words, during designing the research we need to ask: given this research,

what type of evidence is needed to answer the question (or test the theory) in

a convincing way?

In order to design the research it was needed to have perfect design for

sufficient data collection from different data sources to meet the objective of

the study. For this study I used both the methods of data collection. For

collecting the primary data I used questionnaire filled by interview method

and I went through the available sources of data like company data base,

publications and Internet for getting the secondary data. This collection of

data, both primary and secondary helped me to meet my objective of the

proposed study.

RESEARCH APPROACH

For this study I used Exploratory research method and personally

visited the person selected as my sample for the study, randomly selected

from the population of the existing customer data base in the company, and

collected the required information in the form of data with the help of

questionnaire filled with personal interview and the company sources.

SAMPLING PLAN

This is the stage where the planning is done about the sample size and

sampling procedures. According to the sampling plan I opted the following

basis for study.

SAMPLE SIZE

The sample size means how many peoples should be interviewed in

order to get the primary data. In this research process the sample size was

100 (5% of the total population), which was selected on judemental sampling

basis.

SAMPLING PROCEDURES

I chose simple random sampling process for my research.

Data collection: -

(a) Primary data : - Primary data is the data collected specially for a

specific purpose.

The methods used for its collection are personal discussion &

questionnaire etc.

The method used in collecting primary data in my research was personal

discussion with the help of a questionnaire. In this I asked a set of

predetermined questions in a predefined order, the answers given by the

respondents were used to fill up the questionnaire.

Questionnaire: - A questionnaire was prepared which consisted of open-ended questions

with multiple choices. The questionnaire used was structured type of

questionnaire. It was prepared taking into account the factors, which were

to be analyzed to know the process of Performance Appraisal. The

questionnaire is attached in appendix at the end of the report.

This method was preferred as it is economical, given more information

and the response is very good.

(b) Secondary Data :

Secondary data consists of information that already exists

somewhere and was collected for another purpose, which may not be the

same as the purpose of research. Secondary data used here was the

performa of performance appraisal used in ALLIED NIPPON

LIMITED.

The secondary data provide a starting point for research and

offer advantage of low cost and ready availability.

DATA ANALYSIS

By having discussion with senior production officers of Allied Nippon

Limited and filling of the questionnaire, the data was collected which is

analysed as follows: -

1. Type of performance appraisal preferred

After analyzing the data, the results shows that 85% of the

senior production officers prefer quarterly performance appraisal and

15% prefer half-yearly performance appraisal.

100% -

80% -

60% -

40% - 20% -

Quarterly Half-yearly Monthly Annually

2. Senior’s satisfied by subordinate’s performance

After analyzing the data, the results shows that 85% of the senior

production officers feel that their seniors are satisfied with their performance

and 15% can’t say.

This analysis shows there is lack of appraisal by the

immediate seniors.

- YES- CAN’T SAY.

3. Satisfied with their own Performance

After analyzing the data, the results shows that 85% of the senior

production officers are satisfied with their own performance and 15% are not

satisfied with their own performance.

-YES-NO

This shows that 85% of the senior production officers are satisfied with

their own performance and 15% are not satisfied with their own performance.

This implies that satisfaction level has to be increased among senior

production Officers.

4. Performance appraisal improves performance

After analyzing the data, the results shows that 100% of the senior production

officers feels that performance appraisal do helps in performing better.

-YES -NO

Through this we come to know that process of performance appraisal

is coming out to be positive and it should be continued.

5. Information is submitted timely by the senior production officers to

their seniors

After analyzing the data, the result shows that 100% of the senior

production officers submit all the information timely to their seniors.

-YES -NO

This shows that all the senior production officers submit all the information timely to the seniors.

6. Adequate and fair chance provided to defend against adverse entries

in your appraisal

After analyzing the data, the results shows that 67% of the senior production

officers feel that they are provided with a chance to defend them against

adverse entries in their appraisal whereas 33% denies it.

- YES- NO

This shows that there is lack of chances provided to defend against adverse

entries in appraisal.

1. Reason for bad performance

After analyzing the data, the results shows that 16% of senior

production officers performed bad due to personal reasons, 16% of senior

production officers due to official reasons, 16% of senior production officer’s

due to other reasons and no bad performance from the rest of the 52% of

senior production officers.

100% -

80% -

60% -

40% - 20% -

Personal Official Others No Bad Performance

This shows that there are some reasons, which are required to be

rectified to improve performance.

8. Awareness of appraisal system.

After analyzing the data, the results shows that 67% of the senior production

officers are fully aware of the appraisal system and rest 33% are unaware of

this system.

- YES- NO

This shows that awareness about the performance appraisal system is to be

increased.

FINDINGS

Based on my analysis of data collected during my study in ALLIED

NIPPON LIMITED, SAHIBABAD, I have got the following

findings: -

1.) Performance appraisal in ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED,

SAHIBABAD, is done annually.

2.) For appraisal in Allied Nippon Limited, Sahibabad, a SELF-

APPRAISAL form is given to the staff members and they fill it

up. And then after according to their self-observation and

through the appraisal form filled by the staff members rating is

given to the members. Accordingly then incentives and

promotions are granted.

3.) In ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED, SAHIBABAD, at the majority

senior staff members submit all the information timely to their

superiors.

4.) In ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED, SAHIBABAD, there is lack

of proper knowledge among senior production officers about the

procedure followed in Performance Appraisal.

5.) There is lack of fair chances provided to defend yourself against

adverse entries in your appraisal.

6.) All senior production officers agree that performance appraisal

system helps them to perform better.

7.) There is lack of satisfaction level among the senior production

level officers regarding to their own work as they have monotony

at their work.

CONCLUSION

After collecting the information from the senior production officers

with the help of personal discussion, filling the questionnaire and

analyzing the data, I have derived the following conclusion –

In ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED performance appraisal is conducted

annually. Under this process, a self-appraisal form has been given and

senior production officers have to fill that form which throws light on

their basic achievements during the past accounting year.

After that the immediate boss who has been observing the

immediate subordinate throughout the year rates him according to the

self appraisal form filled and personal observation under following

factors-

a) Quality of work.

b) Quantity of work.

c) Job knowledge.

d) Dependability.

e) Innovation and creativity.

f) Ability to learn.

g) Attendance.

h) Reactions to criticism.

i) Discipline.

j) Customer relations.

k) Subordinate development.

The rating given is confidential and out of the knowledge of their

subordinates. Accordingly, promotions and incentives are granted to the

deserving ones.

Rating given to the senior production officers is done confidentially and

whatever information is been filled in the self-appraisal form is not cross-

questioned.

The sole objective for taking part in performance appraisal of Senior

production officers in Allied Nippon Limited is to be awarded with

promotions and incentives but the basic reason why performance appraisal is

conducted is to develop the performance and attitude.

Senior production officers of Allied Nippon Limited follow the procedure of

performance appraisal given by the senior managers because they have

monotony in their work and they have no time for any innovation or

creativity.

LIMITATIONS

According to research undertaken by me, and the results

obtained, following are the recommendations to improve the procedure of

performance appraisal followed in Allied Nippon Limited: -

1) Staff members should be provided with the training about performance

appraisal and they should be made very well aware about the thing that

this exercise can help them in developing their performance and attitude

which will help them on their own part at majority and company at

minority.

2) Senior-Subordinate meetings should be made very regular so that every

can keep his point in front without any hesitation and that will add to their

innovation and creation.

3) The process of performance appraisal should be made goal-oriented.

4) Staff members should be provided with the well-defined targets.

Recommendations

As we know “Performance appraisal is a systematic and objective way of judging the relative worth or ability of an employee in performing the task. Performance appraisal helps to identify those who are performing their assigned tasks and those who are not and the reasons for such performance.”

The company should go for the 360degree performance appraisal. Under this method the person whose performance is to be judged is in between and his peers, supervisor, head and the manager of the company is around him who rate the performance of the employee based upon certain predefined criteria’s.

The system is like:

360-degree Performance Appraisal

Head

The company should appraise the performance of the workers by giving them some incentives, which motivate them to work to their fullest capacity and to motivate them to work more and show good and better results.

For the top management of the company it should offer them holiday package, appraise performance by recognizing there work in meetings etc. this will help to raise their moral and they can work better. They don’t want financial help as they earn enough to maintain their status. They want their work recognition.

For the lower group the company can increase their wages, give them pension schemes, provide them the medical facilities etc because they want financial help from the company to insure their proper living.

The should keep changing the raters for the performance appraisal system from time to time so that they don’t become bias at anytime for any employee.

The method of the company should be changed periodically so that the employees have mo chance to complain for the method.

The criteria decided upon which the performance has to be rated should not be fixed it should be changed from time to time.

The standards of the rating should be very specific, clear and concise.

There should be the feeling of teamwork in the organization.

The system should be cost effective and it should suit the budget of the company.

Person whose performance to rate

Supervisors Peers

Manager

The performance, which is been measured, should be verifiable and

measurable afterwards also.

Above are few recommendations, which can be looked over while doing the performance appraisal of the company.

ANNEXURE

STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

NAME:

1 What type of performance appraisal you prefer?

Annually QuarterlyMonthly Half yearly

2 Are your seniors satisfied with your performance?

Yes No

3 Are you satisfied with your performance?

Yes No

4 If no do you think you can perform better?

Yes No

5 Does performance Appraisal help you in performing better?

Yes No

6 Do you submit information timely to your superiors?

Yes No

7 Do you get adequate and fair to defend your self against adverse entries in your appraisal?

Yes No

8 What actually comes as the reason for your bad performance? (if any)

Personal Official Other

9 Are you fully aware of the appraisal system followed in your company?

Yes No

10 Any suggestion to alter existing Performance Appraisal system of your company?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Human resources development -T.N. CHABBRA

2. Human resources development - V.S.P. RAO

(Text and Cases)

3. www.alliednippon.com