Summer Training Report

Summer Training Report On

Analysis of Performance Appraisal system Of Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Submitted by

SONAM SINGHRegistration No.-3510930138

M.B.A. Batch 2009-2011

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of Business Administration

Submitted To

Corporate Guide Academic GuideMrs. Aabha Mathur Ms. Ruhi Jain

Assistant of Personnel Manager SRM UniversityRecruitment and R&D, Department Delhi-Meerut RoadBharat Electronics Ltd. Modinagar

SRM UniversityGhaziabad Campus

Date

DECLARATION

I Sonam Singh, Registration no.-3510930138, MBA programme, SRM University, batch of 2009-2011 do hereby solemnly declare that this dissertation is an original work of mine and this has not been submitted to any other institute/University towards any other degree/diploma.

(Signature) (Date)

Acknowledgements

Preparing a project of this nature is an arduous task and I was

fortunate enough to get support from a large number of persons to

whom I shall always remain grateful. I would like to record my

gratitude to Bharat Electronics Ltd for allowing me to undertake

this project. I take this opportunity to thanks Miss Aabha Mathur,

Assistant of personal manager for providing me an opportunity to

work for Bharat Electronics Ltd.

I am also desirous of placing on record profound indebtedness to

Ms. Ruhi Jain, faculty member,for the valuable advice, guidance,

and precious time and support that she offered.

Last but not least, I would also like to thanks all the respondents for

give me their precious time and relevant information and experience,

I require which this project would have been different stories.

(Signature)

(date)

Contents

Chapter Topic Page No. Declaration Acknowlegments Certificate (by faculty) Certificate (by company) Executive Summary (not more than 5/6 pages)

1. A Brief Introduction to the area under Study

2 Company Profile

3 Objectives of the Study

4 Research Methodology

5

6 Conclusions Recommendtions Annexures (including research instruments – questionnaire etc.) Bibliography

Executive summary

Performance management is a vital activity in building and

maintaining an effective Management. This guide is intended to

provide an introduction to some of the critical aspects of

performance management.

Performance management can be broadly defined as-

The process of assessing the performance of an

individual(s) against

agrees criteria and standards to recognize achievements

and identify opportunities for improvement.

Taking the time to develop and use effective performance management is necessary because:

1.It will greatly assist in building a strong and respectful relationship between Employees and the Management.

2.Performance feedback and structured reviews are

critical in terms governance and organizational

effectiveness.

3.There is a trend towards more frequent feedback and coaching, and a inclusive approach to managing dynamic performance rather than measuring static tasks. 4. More focus is placed on behaviors and processes than on tasks.

5. Firms keep top talent through development programmes rather than financial rewards.

There is no single ‘best practice’ model of performance

management. The most important aspect to consider is that the

model or framework you choose matches the needs and culture

of your council. However, there is a set of reasonably consistent

steps in all appraisal or review processes that are listed in the

table below.

Step 1 Establish performance goals or objectives Clearly define what is expected in terms of outcomes and behaviors.

Step 2 Set standards and measures Clearly define what standard or level of performance is

expected for each goal and/or the way it will be assessed.

Step 3 Assess performance against agreed goals standards and measures

Step 4 Conduct the feedback discussion

Step 5 Capture agreed outcomes and future action …And the process then repeats itself with step 1 taking

place at the end of every appraisal or review to establish

performance expectations for the coming months.

There are also a number of other ‘critical success factors’ to keep in mind:

• Meaningful feedback must be specific, relate to the

performance criteria and assist in the process of defining future

action or goals.

• Providing relevant, open and honest feedback is critical to allow improvement.

• Be aware of the barriers to feedback – timing, setting, delivery,

relevance and objectivity.

• An ongoing performance management cycle, versus an

annual review, will assist in addressing issues and identifying

opportunities in a timely and meaningful manner.

Spend the time working to develop and use a clear and

effective performance management process and it will greatly

assist in building relationships and achieving council’s

objectives.

The research conducted was descriptive in nature. Performance

appraisal system of Bharat Electronics Ltd was surveyed to attain

results. The survey was conducted to analyze the performance

appraisal system of Bharat Electronics Ltd, to find Strengths and

drawbacks.

With this objective in mind, as survey was conducted in Bharat

Electronics Ltd. Personal interview method was used. Convenient

sampling was used as a mode of conducting the survey. Care was

taken that the respondents were also diversified as possible with the

entire Department being given equal weight age and the sampling

size being suitably divided among department. A sample size of

about 15 manager and 15 subordinates were taken for this purpose

from 5 departments. After survey was completed, the data was first

sorted, then analyze on chosen parameters. This analyzed data was

later converted into form of graphs such as pie chart bar graphs, etc.

This was to make result easily comprehensible by any one going

through the report.

This also made it easy to draw conclusion based on research and

provide a presentable format of report. Later on, all this information

was compiled in the form of presentable and highly comprehensible

report.

The important findings are:

1. Organizational and individuals goals are properly aligned.

2. Clearly define what standard or level of performance is expected for each goal.

3. There is no performance review meeting for an open one-on-one dialogue between the superior and subordinate.

4. There is lot of subjective elements in the performance appraisal system.

5. Bad relationship will affect the rating and lenient rating is given to the subordinates to provide something.

6. Managers have good coaching skills.

7. There is no training and counseling given to the managers that, how to rate subordinates?

8. The performance appraisal system is only a tool of giving promotion, pay increment, training, layoff, demotion, and dismissal only.

9. Continuous feedbacks to the subordinates are not giving, feedback are given only when the performance of subordinate is not acceptable.

10. No positive or recognition is given to the achiever.

BIntroduction

Performance management is currently being evaluated in terms of

its role in the context of globalization and other trends. Although

Performance management has undergone quite dramatic change in

the last 15 years or so, that change was associated with the long

overdue recognition of Performance management as an important

strategic consideration. Bharat Electronics Ltd is paying more

attention on employees performance and productivity as never

before in a bid to not only remain competitive, but to survive.

Increased competition, rapid change, reduce resource employee

expectation, have all combined in such a way that organization is

being expected to achieve more with less.

Bharat Electronics Ltd with committed to Quality, Productivity

and Innovation, wanted to direct its Human Resource towards

achievement of its Objectives.

Is objectives properly aligned and how to increase motivational level

of employees without financial incentives?

Bharat Electronics Ltd has commissioned this study to

analyze the performance appraisal system to find out the strength

and drawbacks of the performance appraisal system.

C

Objectives

BEL’s Objective

To be the market leader in defense electronics and in other chosen

field and product through motivating and developing human resource.

Project Objective

The objective of this report is to analyze the performance appraisal

system of Bharat Electronics Ltd and discover strengths and

drawbacks.

Sub-Objectives

To analyze the performance appraisal system on the basis of following factors.

1. Objectives of performance appraisal system.

2. Alignment of organization and individual goals.

3. Banking performance to compensation and promotion decision.

4. Objectivity of performance criteria’s

5. Willingness and ability of appraiser to evaluate appraises.

6. Employee’s development counseling training.

7. Providing feedback and coaching.

8. Performance review meeting and continuous feedback

DResearch Methodology

The research will be based on systematic research design to meet the objectives of study. Research design : Descriptive research

Research instrument : Personal interview in the from of Direct personal

investigation. The interviewer has to collect the information personally from source concern. This method of collecting information through personal

interview is carried out in a structured way. Interviews

involves the use set of predetermined question.Sampling

The sampling shall be selected from the officers involve in this field and will be

interviewed to gather the data related to the project study.

Sample size : 30

Sample units : Managers & Subordinates

Sample design : 3 managers and 3 subordinate from five departments

each.

Primary Data

Personal interview of managers and subordinates of Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Secondary Data

Executive annul files, Journals, books, Internet

Performance appraisal

The literature on performance appraisal and performance

management is, perhaps, the most extensive in HRM research. It is

also the most problematic, with organizations continually adapting,

modifying and re-inventing schemes to try and find one that works.

The measurement and/or judgment of performance is inevitable in

any organization. There are certain decisions which must be made,

and which require an assessment of performance, whether on a

subjective or objective basis. The following decisions are usually

based on a perception about performance. Managers have to decide

whether an employee:

should gain permanency after a trial period;

should be promoted;

should be given a merit raise in pay or a bonus;

should be made redundant;

should receive training and development towards further advancement.

These are all decisions that are personally important to

individuals and affect their motivation, self-worth, security and

livelihood. It is a “truism” that a decision can be no better than the

quality of the information on which it is based. It follows that if the

quality of information about performance is poor, then the decisions

made about performance will be poor and will engender resentment,

lowered morale and a sense of injustice, all of which are

dysfunctional.

It also follows that in poorly designed systems or informal

systems, where dysfunctional consequences are most likely to

occur, there will be no useful feedback to help employees improve

their performance, because no useful performance information is

generated. This is a classic “Catch-22” situation!

Because performance appraisal has a long history, most of

the theory and practice underpinning it was developed in a period of

relative stability, when employees expected long, secure tenure and

regular promotion. In this era, the primary means of organizing work

was through functional departments with strong boundaries and

individual task assignments based on job analysis.

The goals of performance appraisal were mostly related to the

individual and they may still be relevant for many organizations.

These goals were either concerned with evaluation and judgment or

with coaching and developing individuals. Even in companies where

teams were featured, performance appraisal still focused mainly on

individual evaluation.

The following points summarize the two types of goals:

Evaluation goals (judgmental)

validating selection techniques;

giving feedback so that people know where they stand;

developing valid data for pay and promotion decisions and communicating these;

assessing individual productivity and contribution;

guiding the managers in discharge and retention decisions and warning

Subordinates about unsatisfactory performance.

Coaching and developmental goals

counseling and coaching subordinates so they will improve performance and develop future potential;

developing commitment to the organization through career opportunities and

career planning;

motivating subordinates through recognition and support;

strengthening supervisor-subordinate relations;

diagnosing individual and organizational problems;

identifying training needs.

Although there were, and still are, many variations of performance system measures,

figure 7 outlines the three main approaches to performance measurement.

What people what people what people Are Achieve Do

What people are describes the oldest approach to performance

evaluation, which was based on personal characteristics (traits) and

perceived competencies. Terms like initiative, energy and drive,

adaptability, responsibility, leadership and productivity were common

on forms known as “trait rating scales”. Managers and supervisors

Characteristics Competencies

Results/ Outputs

Behavior/ Processes

Competencies MBO BARS

were required to rate employees on a numeric (there are other types

of scales) scale from low to high or on broad descriptors, such as

unsatisfactory to excellent. There were a number of problems with

this approach.

First, none of the descriptors of the traits were defined, and hence

there was no common nderstanding of what they meant. This

resulted in highly subjective reviews, which were neither reliable nor

valid. Second, because of the subjectivity and lack of descriptors

that defined meaning, raters could not provide meaningful feedback

to employees to help them improve perceived deficiencies in

performance. This made both supervisors and subordinates distrust

and basically resent the process.

What people achieve was popularized by the term “management by

objectives” (MBO), coined by Peter Drucker in 1954. MBO is a

results-oriented system that measures employees’ performance by

what they achieve. This system is used extensively with sales

representatives, workers on piece-rate systems and others whose

output can be measured individually. This includes managers if they

have specific goals. A results-oriented system is probably the most

objective form of performance measurement where it is appropriate.

However, a results – only performance measurement system has a

number of potential problems. First, and most important, is that

many jobs do not have discrete, measurable outcomes. They have a

high level of task interdependency, which means that more than one

individual is responsible for an outcome. This is also true for groups

and teams. Second, results-focused performance measurement

tends to recognize and reward outcomes at the expense of process.

In many cases, the way that a job is done is just as important as the

outcome. For instance, after-sales service may be just as important

as selling in terms of building and retaining a customer base, but

service may be ignored in a system that only rewards sales.

A third potential weakness is that results-focused performance

measurement does not always provide useful feedback if results are

not good. Processes, how things get done, are better described by

behaviors than by results. For these reasons, if a results-based

system is to be used, it is wise to build in behavioral measures as

well, which is always possible.

What people do refers to performance appraisal systems that are

based mainly on behavioral criteria. These are derived through

some form of job-, work-, or role analysis that describes and defines

desirable behaviors for how work is performed. As such, in its pure

form, performance measurement based on behavior is concerned

with processes rather than end results. However, the two concepts

are not mutually exclusive and should be combined in an appraisal

system where results can be clearly identified and measured. The

strength of behavioral measures is that they are defined in sufficient

detail to provide a common understanding to both raters and ratees

as to what is meant by a measure and what represents poor or good

performance. On this basis, feedback can recognize good

performance and help to correct inadequacies. In essence,

behaviours are anchored by descriptions of behaviour.

For example, the job of a university professor is usually assessed on

the criteria of teaching, research, university and community service.

One important aspect of teaching is classroom presentation. The

following points could be used to evaluate classroom presentation:

speaks in a clear expressive manner that avoids a dull monotone;

delivers lectures at a pace students can follow;

explains complex ideas clearly with appropriate illustrations;

invites questions and feedback from the audience;

maintains eye contact with the audience;

uses attractive audio-visuals to introduce subject matter;

provides class notes/ handouts to supplement lectures.

All the above points are measurable by student evaluations, observation and examination of materials.

Some form of performance measurement is inevitable in all

organizations because decisions have to be made that require

some judgment about performance. In the absence of a formal

system, subjective judgments will be made because there is no

common understanding about what constitutes performance. This

practice will not only produce unjust and inequitable decisions, but is

also wide open to legal challenge.

We have discussed three broad approaches to current and past

practice. Trait-based systems with undefined criteria have largely

disappeared, partly because of their dismal record in courts of law

on questions of unfair dismissal and other forms of disciplinary

action. The other two approaches represent a wide variety of current

practice. Table 12 (Banks and May, 1999) summarizes typical

practice.

Table 12. The typical approach to assessment

Element DescriptionEvaluation criteria

Element Description

Structure

Unit of analysis

Content

Measurement method

Evaluation criteria

Specificity of criteria

Evaluation frequency

Who evaluates

Focus of evaluation

Feedback process

Appraiser’s role

Follow up

A set of performance dimensions derived from an organizational analysis as well as a job analysis

Tasks and activities defined in behavioral terms

Important and critical aspects of the job as identified through the organizational and job analyses

A rating scale calibrated from “low” to “high” effectivenessDescriptors that anchor different points along the rating continuum Specific (for example, “constructs an expert presentation with all relevant facts in their appropriate order”)

A formal evaluation conducted several times a year (e.g. monthly, quarterly, or at the conclusion of assignments or projects); informal evaluation perhaps almost daily

Everyone who had an opportunity to observe and evaluate performance; canincorporate multiple sources of feedback

Comparison between performance expectations (e.g. personal goals, performance standards) and actual job performance (e.g. typical job behaviors, performance outcomes) Feedback meeting between appraiser and appraisee whenever either party desires; appraiser shares observations and relates them to performance criteria, appraisee seeks clarification on the observations or on the criteria

To understand the performance criteria and to help the appraisee understand how his or her performance fits within the criteria; also to look for ways appraisee can improve performance

To understand the performance criteria and to help the appraiser understand how his or her performance fits within the criteria; also to look for ways he or she can improve performance Further observation and feedback on performance; development of plans for further improvement, including training and motivational intervention

Table 12 highlights a number of factors that may not be compatible

with the changed circumstances brought about by globalization.

Because of its focus on the individual through job analysis,

traditional performance measurement rarely included broader

organizational criteria (Banks and May, 2000). In theory, this was

believed to occur through a cascade flowing downward from

strategic plans at the corporate level to operating units, sub-units

and the individual. There are two reasons why this generally did not

happen.

First, performance measurement was usually static rather than

dynamic, that is, it captured, at one point in time, a summary of a

whole year’s work in terms of behaviors and outcomes. Second,

because of their focus on the individual rather than the organization,

performance interviews tend to concentrate on reaching agreement

about individual performance and where improvement may be

needed (Banks and May, 2000). This may be exacerbated by strong

departmental boundaries, in which departmental goals predominate

over organizational goals.

Table 12 highlights several variables that have changed from

the 1960s-1970s to the 1980s-2000. These changes bring into

question the effectiveness of current practice outlined in the table.

Stable and independent work practices were mainly

procedural and observable. Stable work relationships underpinned

many performance appraisal practices. Jobs were fairly well defined.

Managers’ spans of control were relatively small, enabling them to

delegate work and oversee outcomes. These conditions no longer

prevail.

Organizations have changed from tall hierarchies of

authority to flatter, decentralized structures where managers have

much wider spans of control, employees may

be geographically dispersed and work practice may not be easily

overseen.

The nature of work has changed from individual, function-based jobs, to team-based, process-oriented jobs, and other non-traditional work arrangements such as home workers, contract workers and alliance workers. These contingent workers are less familiar to

management, they may have little or no commitment to the organization and may not care about performance improvement.

The traditional ways of motivating and rewarding performance, such as promotionand job security, are less available than in previous eras and new ways must be found to realign employees’ focus to the factors that produce business success in the new era.

Performance management

The performance appraisal practices listed in table 12 and the

changes to that environment clearly demand a re-think and

adaptation of the traditional approaches to performance

assessment. The demands on HRM to do this are both challenging

and paradoxical. On the one hand we ask fewer employees to do

more with fewer resources, to do it faster and at a higher level of

quality. On the other hand, we ask them to accept less job security,

to manage their own career and be principally responsible for their

own professional

development.

One of the main strategies to accomplish this transition is to

move from performance measurement to performance management.

Performance management includes a broader set of management

practices than traditional performance appraisal. It moves from the

individual management of an employee’s performance over the last

year, to an approach, which connects individual performance with

organizational performance.

Performance measurement thus becomes something more

than just a personal report card made once or twice a year. Rather it

becomes a continuous dialogue that provides feedback about

performance issues, accomplishments and how the individual

contributes to organizational goals. Two things differentiate

performance management from performance measurement. The

focus shifts from static, individual tasks that are measured at fixed

points in time, to a fairly continuous assessment of individual

employees’ roles and how they relate to goal accomplishment. Thus,

performance assessment is transformed from a tool of evaluation

and review to one that moulds performance through continuous

feedback.

Table 13 highlights the major elements of performance management

and provides a useful

contrast to the traditional approach shown in table 12.

Table 13. Major elements of performance management

Element Description

Structure

Unit of analysis

Content

Measurement method

Evaluation criteria

Specificity of criteria

Evaluation frequency

Who evaluates

Focus of evaluation

Feedback process

Appraiser’s role

Appraisee’s role

Follow up

A set of performance dimensions derived from an organizational analysis as well as a job analysis

Tasks and activities defined in behavioral terms

Important and critical aspects of the job as identified through the organizational and job analyses

A rating scale calibrated from “low” to “high” effectiveness

Descriptors that anchor different points along the rating continuum

Specific (for example, “constructs an expert presentation with all relevant facts in their appropriate order”) A formal evaluation conducted several times a year (e.g. monthly, quarterly, or at the conclusion of assignments or projects); informal evaluation perhaps almost daily

Everyone who had an opportunity to observe and evaluate performance; canincorporate multiple sources of feedback

Comparison between performance expectations (e.g. personal goals, performance standards) and actual job performance (e.g. typical job behaviors, performance outcomes)

Feedback meeting between appraiser and appraisee whenever either party desires; appraiser shares observations and relates them to performance criteria, appraisee seeks clarification on the observations or on the criteria

To understand the performance criteria and to help the appraisee understand how his or her performance fits within the criteria; also to look for ways appraisee can improve performance To understand the performance criteria and to help the appraiser understand how his or her performance fits within the criteria; also to look for ways he or she can improve performance

Further observation and feedback on performance; development of plans for further improvement, including training and motivational intervention

The essence of performance management is that it is a broader

approach to managing performance in a dynamic environment

towards the accomplishment of organizational goals. The idea is to

help employees see the connection between their personal

performance and organizational success. This concept is an integral

part of the notion of “goal alignment” and MBO. The concept behind

those approaches was a cascade effect where strategic goals were

translated into more specific operational goals for units, subunits and

individuals. This was supposed to connect individuals with the

strategic goals of the organization so that they could see the impact

of their own behaviours. This generally did not work for the reasons

discussed above.

In this era organizations were fairly tall and work was largely

organized by functions. The translation through several levels of

hierarchy tended to lose any real meaning for individuals who could

only remotely relate to distant goals. The functional unit in this

instance was the more immediate focus. Within the functional unit

individuals pursued static tasks, defined through job analysis that

had more immediacy for individual, as this was the basis of their

rewards. The lack of frequent feedback also contributed to this

disconnectedness, with one or two meetings a year being more like

a ritual to be endured, rather than a continuous dialogue focused on

performance. The actual goals were very much the same, that is, to

connect individual performance with organizational performance in

such a way that individual could understand the impact of their

actions.

How does performance management connect individual

performance with organizational performance so that individuals can

understand the impact of their actions? The following points

summarize the discussion:

organization structures have become flatter, bringing the top and bottom much closer together;

organizational goals are now much more visible to individuals;

work is organized around interacting processes where the consequences of an

individual’s actions are more visible; work is defined dynamically in terms of processes rather than discrete, static tasks;

rewards are more of a by-product of effective work than the focus of appraisal;

managers see performance management as the focal point of their job rather than an administrative add-on that interrupts their work.

PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The eight major purposes pointed out by Ivancevich and Matteson

(1996) earlier are listed below, the first four are more in line with

judgmental orientation and the remaining four have a developmental

orientation focus.

1. Provide a basis for reward allocation, including raises, promotions, transfers, layoffs, and so on.

2. Identify high potential employees.

3. Validate the effectiveness of employee selection procedures.

4. Evaluate previous training programs.

5. Facilitate future performance improvement.

6. Develop ways of overcoming obstacles and performance barriers.

7. Identify training and development opportunities.

8. Establish supervisor-employee agreement on performance expectations.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROBLEMS

1. Paperwork: Systems demand documentation and reporting.

2. Formality: Formal evaluation is inhibiting; managers dislike being judges of careers social distance is

counterproductive . 3. Outcomes are ignored: “Personalities” still rewarded, politics override performance criteria.

4. Performance measured by proxy : Performance not consistently observed or measured; characteristics rated are NOT related

to productive performance.

5. “Just-above-average”: Reluctance to rate people “poor” or outstanding.

Most people are rated “Just above average” – a

impossible result.

6. Incomplete coverage: Appraisal schemes must be applied to ALL and employees perceived as FAIR to all.

7. Ill-informed appraisals : Manager/supervisors not trained in appraisal of behavior, not familiar with performance measurement.

8. Context problems : How can individual performance be evaluated uniformly in varied and different contexts; environments/situations or philosophies and objectives.

9. Performance criteria : What constitutes “THE STANDARD”; standards and measurements often erroneous, misidentified,

wrongly emphasized etc.

10. Evaluator bias: Individual managers biases, values and prejudices can influence and distort

open communications and judgments. Poor communication skills and strong ego drives

create false appraisals. Evaluator bias creates lack of consistency despite “uniform” criteria.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

Ability is enhanced: Strengths, assignments and changes can be

understood and utilized.

Motivation : Reassurance and confirmation of encouragement. Appraisals should create new enthusiasms and commitments.

Communications : Improved understanding, feedback and openness

can be achieved between boss and subordinate. Greater rapport and respect.

Goal clarity : Common purpose and objectives can be mutually established. Wasted effort and counter-productive activities can be eliminated.

Career objectives : Job changes can be guided and career aspirations

are clarified.

Career development : Promotions, pay evaluations and training needs

can be discussed and assessed, counseling given and agreed directions targeted.

Some common flaws in all systems

Whatever appraisal system is used, if the standards are vague, the procedure will suffer from one of two main flaws:

A. The Halo EffectThe halo effect is the tendency of the boss to hang a halo over the rating of a

“favoured” employee. This can happen for a variety of reasons:

1. Effect of past recordBecause people have done good work in the distant past, their performance is

assumed to be OK in the recent past too. Their good work tends to carry over

into the current rating period.

2. Compatibility

There is a tendency to rate people who we find pleasing in manner and

personality higher than they deserve. Those who agree with us, nod their heads

when we talk, or even better, make notes of our words, get better ratings than

their performance justifies.

3. Effect of recencyThe person who did an outstanding job last week or yesterday can offset a

mediocre performance over the rest of the review period by this single act.

4. One strong asset

The glib talker, the person with the impressive appearance, the one with the

advanced degrees, or the graduate of the boss’s own university gets a more

favourable rating than the subordinate lacking these often irrelevant attributes.

5. The blind spot effect

This is the case where the boss does not see certain types of defects because

they are just like his/her own. The boss who is a broad strategic thinker may not

appreciate a detail man for example.

6. The high potential effect

We judge employees’ paper records rather than what they have achieved for the organization.

7. The no complaint bias

Here the appraiser treats no news as good news. If the subordinate has no

complaints everything is terrific. The employee who pesters the boss but gets the

job done is rated lower than the silent solitary dud.

B. The hypercritical or Horns effect

This is the reverse of the halo effect -the tendency to rate people lower than the

circumstances justify. Some specific causes of this are the following:

1. The Boss Is A PerfectionistWith expectations so high, the boss is more often disappointed and so rates people lower than they deserve.

2. The Subordinate Is Contrary

Here the boss vents private irritation with the employee's tendency to disagree

with him or her too often on too many issues.

3. The Odd-Ball Effect

Despite all the lip service to nonconformity, it all too seldom finds its way into

practice when appraisal time comes around. The odd ball, the ~ maverick, and

the nonconformist get low ratings simply because they are "different."

4. .Membership In A Weak Team

A good player on a weak team will end up with lower ratings than one playing on

a winning team.

5. The Built-by-Association'-Effect

The company they keep will often judge people who are not really known. If they

hang out with a frivolous crown or work for the wrong boss, they are due for

some reductions in rating.

6. The Dramatic-Incident Effect

A recent goof can wipe out the effect of years of good work and give a person a

low rating on the latest appraisal.

7. The Personality- Trait Effect

People who are too cocky, too brash, too meek, too passive, or otherwise, lack

some trait the boss associates with "good" subordinates will suffer in their rating

accordingly.

8. The Self-Comparison Effect

People who don't do the job as their bosses remember they did it when they held

that job will suffer more than those whose jobs the bosses are not too familiar

with.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REVIEW PROCESS

A. Performance Appraisal Review Process

Divisions and Department Heads (or designees) should use standardized

employee performance appraisal forms (sample attached). These forms should

include different sections in which the supervisor can record the employee’s job-

specific duties and responsibilities for the period of time covered by the

performance appraisal. The performance appraisal form should also include

additional sections for general comments regarding the employee’s performance,

the employee goals and objectives for the coming year, and the employee’s

comments. In addition, the performance appraisal should include spaces for the

signatures of the employee, the supervisor, and the next reviewing level. The

supervisor should prepare the performance appraisal in “final draft” and schedule

a date and time within which to meet and discuss with the employee his or her

performance appraisal. The “final draft” is intended to allow for employee

comments and input regarding information about his or her performance of which

the manager or supervisor may be unaware. Alternatively, division or

departments, at their discretion, may elect to have employees submit self-

assessments prior to preparing the final performance appraisal and conducting

the performance appraisal meeting.

B. Performance Appraisal Meeting

The performance appraisal meeting and discussion between the employee and

his or her supervisor should take place in person. It is also strongly

recommended that the meeting be based on an interactive exchange wherein the

employee is encouraged to offer comments, ask questions, and/or make

suggestions, as appropriate. In cases where there are performance deficiencies,

it is recommended that supervisors identify the specific performance areas that

need improvement, provide the employee with feedback and advice regarding

how to correct such deficiencies, inform the employee of the measurement

criteria to be used in determining a satisfactory level of performance, and give

the employee a timeframe within which to improve his or her performance. In

addition, supervisors may, at their discretion, develop improvement plans,

provide special performance appraisals, schedule weekly follow-up meetings,

and/or offer suggestions for additional training and other resources, as needed.

Performance appraisals are non-disciplinary in nature, here appropriate, the

source of any information solicited or received and used by the supervisor in the

performance appraisal may be identified to the employee upon her/his request.

CONDUCTING THE PERFORMANCE MEETING

1. Put the employee at ease by creating a sincere and open atmosphere for joint

discussion.

2. Establish the purpose of the discussion. Advise the employee what you would

like to accomplish during the meeting.

3. Review the employee’s overall job requirements and responsibilities. Going

over the job description with the employee allows you to discuss the work that

the employee does on a daily basis. If the two of you disagree on the relative

importance of specific job aspects, it will come out now, and it will also give you

the opportunity to discuss any problems the employee is having performing the

various job responsibilities.

4. Review the performance objectives and goals established during the last

performance meeting with the employee.

(A) Discuss objectives/goals that have been reached. How has that improved

the employee’s skills and performance?

(B) Discuss objectives/goals that need further work. What obstacles have

prevented the employee from reaching any objectives? Decide if time

frames set for reaching the objectives need to be adjusted.

5. Provide recognition for desirable behavior, especially since the last review. Let

employees know how much you value and appreciate their work.

6. Ask for the employee’s views on problems, suggestions for changes,

improvements, etc. (A) Do not interrupt the employee’s commentary. If the

employee is upset, let him/her blow off steam. Be a good listener.

(B) Thank the employee for his/her input. If the meeting has included

discussion of major concerns about the quality of the employee’s

performance, express confidence that the two of you can successfully

work through the difficulties together.

7. Outline one or two areas of performance where improvements are needed and

ask for the employee’s suggestions.

(A) Do not unload—keep the meeting as upbeat and positive as possible but be

honest and accurate.

(B) Avoid using subjective, vague or overly broad descriptions such as “poor

attitude” or “no initiative.” Give specific, objective comments or examples.

Examples of Subjective Comments Example of Objective

Comments

Lacks customer orientation Does not greet customers

quickly

Chronically absent Absent six days in last month

Does not care about quality Has an error rate of 10%

Lacks interest in the work Missed the due date for

assignment

(C) Be consistent. If an issue (weakness of performance) was mentioned on

the previous performance appraisal, it should be mentioned again if it is

still an issue. An omission may assume the problem has been resolved.

Conversely, if there has been improvement since the last appraisal,

acknowledge it.

8. Problems that are not related to work performance, such as absenteeism or

tardiness generally should be handled, as they occur, not as part of the annual

performance appraisal. If it appears that the problems may be related to personal

or family medical issues, refer the employee to Human Resource Services so

a determination may be made as to whether the Family Medical Leave Act

may apply.

9. Outline and discuss action plans for improvement with the employee. Let the

employee know what behavior you expect, whether you desire to reinforce

positive behavior or make changes. Encourage the employee to make as

many suggestions for self-improvement as possible. Include training or

development plans when appropriate. Se t a realistic timeline for improvement

—if you need assistance, consult with Human Resource Services.

10. Discuss whether the employee’s ultimate career objective as identified at

his/her last performance review remains the same or has changed. If it has

changed, how will this affect the objectives that have already been set?

11. Ask the employee if there are any remaining items on the Discussion Guide

that they would like to address.

12. Set new career objectives for the upcoming year. Discuss what the employee

needs to learn to reach these objectives and how the employee can obtain

the knowledge and experience needed.

(A) Assign responsibility for reaching these goals. Let the employee know to

what extent you will help him/her and what the employee must do

independently.

(B) Decide together on a first step that will start the employee towards

reaching a tangible goal.

13. Be prepared to discuss the employee’s concerns regarding wage increases,

promotional opportunities, etc. Be as honest as possible—do not set unreachable

expectations.

14. Summarize the appraisal meeting interview and review any objectives/goals

set for performance improvement. Attempt to obtain an acknowledgment

from the employee that indicates there is a clear and mutual understanding and

agreement.

Bring the interview to a close by:

(A) Commenting on the positive aspects of the employee’s performance;

(B) Providing a word of encouragement;

(C) Offering assistance;

(D) An invitation for formal discussion anytime the employee wishes.

DOCUMENTING JOB PERFORMANCE

Documenting workplace behavior, both positive and negative, for all employees

will assist you in the performance appraisal process more than anything else you

can do. In addition, documentation provides the examples you need to discuss

performance issues or concerns with an employee. In the event an employee’s

performance does not improve, documentation is critical to the progressive

disciplinary process.

1. A Critical Incident File should be established by the supervisor for every

employee supervised.

This file should contain both positive and negative information about the

Employee’s performance.

Documenting observed performance (who, what, when, where, how) takes

the subjective judgment factor out and enables you to base your evaluations on

specific, objective, job-related behaviors.

Allows you to be specific when meeting with an employee to discuss job

performance.

Examples can help the employee focus on past behavior and clarify future

expectations.

2. Documentation provides accurate reflections of what a person did or did not do

on the job over a period of time. It eliminates the need to remember details for

a year or more.

3. Documentation allows you to focus on the issue at hand, including the

employee’s behavior, and not focus on the employee personally.

4. Documentation of continued poor performance provides support for the

progressive disciplinary process.

5. Notes from the critical incident file are kept by the supervisor and are not part

of the employee's personnel file in Human Resource Services. They can,

however, be used as documents during the investigation of any subsequent

complaints made by the employee.

COACHING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

Through coaching, you can actively involve employees in the problem-solving

process and encourage them to take responsibility for their own professional

development and success on the job. This will not only improve productivity but

will also build job satisfaction and motivation as employees begin to participate in

decisions that affect their job performance.

The coaching process can be broken into three main segments:

planning and preparation; conducting the coaching session; and action-planning and follow-up.

Within each segment are a number of individual steps, as defined below:

Planning and Preparation

Step 1: Clarify your expectations.

(a) State your expectations in terms of behaviors—specific, observable actions that can be measured.

(b) Describe specifically what kind of behavior you want—or don’t want—

someone in the employee’s position to demonstrate.

(c) Make a list of the performance behaviors you hope the employee will change

before you begin your session so that you will be ready to discuss them.

Step 2: Observe the employee’s performance.

(a) Focus on specific behaviors that can be measured and changed.

(b) Don’t just make note of what the employee is doing wrong. Keep track of

what the employee is doing right so that you can build on his/her strengths

during the coaching session.

(c) Determine the priority of the behaviors that the employee needs to improve.

Don’t try to work on everything at once; select the behaviors that are most

important for the employee’s success and concentrate on them first. You can

work on other behaviors in future coaching sessions.

Step 3: Analyze the problem.

(a) What aspects of the employee’s performance are unsatisfactory?

(b) Is it worth my time to coach in this situation?

(c) Does the employee know my expectations?

(d) What obstacles are there to meeting those expectations? Are extenuating circumstances preventing the employee from doing his or her best?

(e) What negative or positive consequences follow performance?

(f) Could the employee change if he/she wanted to?

Step 4: Plan your strategy or approach for the coaching session.

(a) Plan how to present the information to the employee in the most effective manner.

(b) Adapt your coaching method to the employee’s personality.

Conducting the Coaching Session

Step 1: Create a comfortable coaching environment.

(a) Choose an appropriate time and place for coaching. If possible, select a location in which you can sit next to the employee rather than across a desk.

(b) Establish rapport with the employee and clearly state the purpose for the meeting.

Step 2: Describe the performance problem and your expectations for performance.

(a) Begin by describing the performance problem you identified in your observation of the employee, and compares the employee’s current performance to your expectations.

(b) Describe employee performance in precise, objective terms, such as speed/rate, quantity, accuracy, thoroughness, and timeliness.

Step 3: Encourage employee self-assessment. (a) Give the employee a chance to evaluate his/her own performance.

Employees will be much more willing to participate actively in the coaching

session if they have a chance to describe their own side of the situation.

Hearing the employee’s perspective will also help you determine what

extenuating circumstances could be affecting his/her performance.

(b) If employees are hesitant to offer their own ideas about their performance,

ask open-ended questions that start with the words, “who,” “what”, “where,”

“when,” “why,” and “how.”

(c) To be fully effective, a coach’s open-ended questions must be paired with

active listening techniques. Listening involves keeping an open mind and

interpreting, evaluating, and reacting to what the employee says.

Step 4: Agree on the nature of the problem and the employee’s role in it.

(a) In order for coaching to be successful—and to determine whether it is needed

at all—you and the employee must agree on the nature of the performance

problem and the employee’s role in it.

(b) If you don’t agree with the employee’s view of the situation, you will need to

provide more detailed feedback on performance to help the employee

acknowledge the problem and take responsibility.

(c) If you are persuaded that the problem lies outside the employee, then this

might be a good time to arrange for further training or some other option.

Step 5: Explore alternative solutions.

(a) After you and the employee have agreed on the nature of the problem, the

two of you can collaboratively explore solutions to it.

(b) The employee’s involvement in the problem-solving process will lead to a

better solution, which in turn will lead to better performance and improved

productivity for your entire team.

(c) Encourage the initiative, independence, and self-expression necessary for

successful collaboration through indirect influence. Indirect influence consists

of four basic techniques: accepting feelings, developing ideas, giving praise

and encouragement, and asking open-ended questions.

(d) Provide detailed feedback to the employee regarding your performance

observations.

Step 6: Agree on a solution to the problem.

(a) As the employee and you collaborate on a specific solution, keep in mind that

your solution must be realistic and workable in order to succeed. State your

solution in terms of behaviors that the employee can perform and that you can

observe and measure rather than in terms of attitude or emotions.

(b) You can help your employee choose the best solution by asking open-ended

“What if…?” questions to help the employee identify possible barriers to

enacting the solution.

Action-Planning and Follow-up

Step 1: Create an action plan.

(a) Once you and the employee have agreed on a workable solution, ask the

employee to outline a plan for putting the solution into action. Then ask the

employee to state it verbally.

(b) Developing an action plan will not only give the employee direction for

making the solution a reality, but it will also help build employee commitment

to seeing the solution work.

Step 2: Monitor employee progress.

(a) After you and the employee have agreed on an action plan, schedule a time

when you can meet and discuss the employee’s progress. Schedule your

follow-up meeting far enough in the future that the employee will have time to

put the solution into practice but not so far off that he/she will begin to think

that you’ve forgotten about the matter.

(b) During the time period between, make note of what you observe, both the

behaviors you want to reinforce and the behaviors that need further

improvement. Record specific examples of each that you can share with the

employee during the follow-up session.

Step 3: Provide follow-up coaching.

(a) Like your original coaching session, your follow-up coaching session will

give you a chance to provide the employee with feedback on what you have

observed about the employee’s performance and give the employee a chance

to describe any barriers he/she may have encountered.

(b) You can also provide the employee with informal follow-up coaching as you

observe his/her performance. Informal follow-up coaching is most effective if

done immediately after you have observed the behavior in question.

Graphic Rating Scales

The first known method of graphically representing an employee’s performance

emerged from the disenchantment about the fairness of a seniority-based system

for promotions and raises. In 1922, Paterson developed, and published, what he

called the graphic rating scale. The scale was a straight line for each dimension

of performance to be measured with adjectives placed underneath the line to

indicate level of proficiency. However, these labels were not anchors of any kind,

they were simply guides. The rater was free to place a check mark anywhere

along the continuum he felt best evaluated the ratee on that dimension. To

translate this check mark into a score, a stencil was placed over the line,

indicating a corresponding numerical value for the rater’s evaluation. The rater

would repeat this procedure for all of the dimensions for a specific employee.

Paterson (1922) felt this method had several advantages over other methods of

evaluation. First, the procedure is very simple. All the rater is required to do is

place a check mark on a line indicating performance on a certain dimension.

Secondly, the rater can make a precise judgment about a worker’s performance.

The rater is not restricted in his responses and is not forced to place the ratee in

a category or class. Finally, the rater is freed from quantitative terms such as

numbers to describe a worker’s performance. Paterson felt that these

quantitative terms influenced a rater’s judgment. With this method, the rater can

evaluate performance without numbers biasing his judgment.

The reaction to this method of ratings was overwhelming. Graphic rating scales

rapidly grew in popularity. Within 30 years of Paterson’s publication, the graphic

rating scale was the most popular method for assigning merit-based ratings in

organizations. Ryan (1958) observed that the graphic rating scale was used in

almost any organizational activity where it was necessary to evaluate an

individual’s performance. Over the years, with the advent of new methods of

ratings, popularity of the graphic rating scales has declined somewhat. However,

it still continues to be one of the most widely used and distributed methods for

evaluating performance

The reason why this method still retains its popularity more than 75 years

after its inception is most likely due to its many advantages. To begin with,

graphical rating scales are very simple. They are easily constructed and

implemented, and they are a cost- effective method of evaluating employees. In

comparison, other methods of evaluating performance are very expensive and

require a more complex development process. Another advantage of graphical

rating scales is that the results from this method are standardized This means

that once the employees have been evaluated, comparison can be made to

other ratees for the purposes of disciplinary action, feedback and development

promotions and advancement decisions, etc. Also, graphical rating scales have

the advantage of being appealing to the actual evaluator, or rater. Some

research has demonstrated that raters actually prefer to rate using graphic rating

scales due to their simplicity and ease of rating. Raters are typically more

reluctant to use a rating method

that is rather complex and involved. Ease of development, simplicity of use,

relatively little expense, and generalizablity across ratees all make for a method

of evaluation that is attractive to organizations. As originally proposed by

Paterson, a graphic rating scale was a check mark, or

evaluation, made on a continuous line. However, this began to change very

rapidly. Soon, graphic rating scales were being scored on computers used by

researchers to make their jobs easier. Instead of using continuous lines,

however, researchers were designing scales with anchor points along a

continuum. Each anchor was given a certain value to facilitate entry into the

computer. Limiting answers to a set number of anchor points (e.g., five, seven or

nine) on a line replaced answering on a continuum. Instead of a graphic rating

scale, this format could have been more appropriately labeled a ‘forced interval’

format. For better or for worse, this new format was soon being referred to as the

“traditional” graphical rating scale format.

Graphic rating scales are relatively simple to develop. The first step is to

use job analysis to identify and define the most important and most relevant

dimensions of job performance to be evaluated It is also recommended that after

relevant dimensions have been identified, they should be carefully refined to

echo exactly what facets of job performance the rater wants to measure.

Following this, the rater should decide how many scale points, or anchors,

are needed on the rating scale. [This begs the question of whether anchors are

needed at all (However, Barrett, Taylor, Parker, & Martens (1958) conducted a

study on clerical workers in the Navy that helps to resolve this issue. In reviewing

different rating formats to measure performance, he found that anchored scales,

on average, are more effective than scales without anchors.] Bendig (1952a,

1952b) conducted studies with students who were to rate the performance of

their college teachers. He found that increasing the anchoring on the rating

scales led to increased reliability of the scale. It was assumed, for a while at

least, that more anchors lead to better ratings. However, other research disputes

this claim. Lissitz and Green (1975) conducted a Monte Carlo study that

investigated this matter. They noted that previous studies concerned with the

number of anchor points on graphic rating scales have advocated either one

specific number or no specific number of anchor points. They felt that deciding

the proper number of points on a scale is based on the objectives and purpose of

the study. However, they did suggest that 7 points are

optimal for a scale, but the increase in reliability begins to level off after 5 points.

The idea that a smaller number of scale points (for example, seven as compared

to twelve or fifteen) is preferable is a sentiment echoed by other researchers.

McKelvie, (1978) investigated the effects of different anchoring formats by having

students rate personality characteristics of certain groups of people. His results

were consistent with those of Lissitz and Greene (1975).

Once the number of scale points has been decided, the scale developer

should decide the format of the anchors. Anchors can either be numerical,

adjectival, or behavioral in nature. French-Lazovik and Gibson (1984) claimed

that both verbal (behavioral and/or adjectival) and numerical anchors are

preferable when anchoring a rating scale. Barrett et al. (1958), however,

demonstrated that behavioral anchors tend to clearly be more effective than

numerical or adjectival ones. Other research has also arrived at the same

conclusion. Jacobs (1986) notes that this is most likely because these types of

anchors communicate more clearly, to the raters, what each point on the scale

represents. (In fact, it was interest in these behavioral anchors that spawned

research into a new type of rating format, which will be discussed in more detail

later in this paper.) However, it should be cautioned that anchors could become

too complicated. Barrett et al. (1958) found that scale effectiveness decreased

when too much information was included in the anchors. The extra information

seems to confuse the rater and interfere with the rating process. There is also

evidence that reliability does not necessarily increase for scales with more

specifically defined levels. However, there is a general consensus that behavioral

anchors are preferable to adjectives or numbers. In general, it seems that when

constructing graphic rating scales, one should make sure to have approximately

seven anchor points that are behavioral in nature, taking care not to include too

much information in any one anchor. Graphic rating scales are not without their

critics or criticisms. Although their use was very popular and widespread, graphic

rating scales were not subjected too much empirical testing until the years

following World War II. However, it became clear very quickly that problems

existed with graphic rating s cales. Questions were raised, and many researchers

soon became concerned with how these problems could impact the effectiveness

and appropriateness of graphic rating scales’ widespread use in organizations.

One of the problems with graphic rating scales that quickly became

apparent after their introduction is the so-called ‘halo effect.’ When examining

graphic ratings of performance, Ford (1931) found that there was a tendency for

raters to give similar scores to a ratee on all dimensions of performance. To rate

a worker in this manner would be the equivalent of rating the worker on one

single scale, as opposed to many different scales that measure different aspects

of work performance. Other researchers also discovered this problem. Soon,

there was a great deal of literature documenting the problem of halo when using

graphic rating scales. More current literature has also documented the problem

of halo, indicating that it continues to be a pervasive problem with graphic rating

scales. For a while, it was thought that halo could be eliminated, or at least

attenuated, by training. By warning raters of this pitfall associated with the

graphic rating scales, scores would contain less halo, and the ratings would be

more appropriate. However, research has shown this not to be the case. Some

have proposed the alternative of statistical correction to compensate for halo.

However, this process, also, seems to lack promise. Halo has traditionally been

considered a serious problem for the effectiveness of an appraisal system.

Organizations typically use performance evaluations to make some sort of

decision about a worker and his job. When evaluating a person, the organization

attempts to measure the worker on several different criteria. In this way, the

worker, with the help of the organization, is able to be aware of his strengths and

can target areas for improvement. Halo eliminates the variance between

measurements of different performance dimensions. The person scores similarly

across all dimensions and, thus, is unable to know which areas are strengths and

which areas should be targeted for development.

In addition to halo, a leniency bias also plagues the use of graphic rating

scales. Leniency is characterized by the tendency of a rater to be generous in his

evaluation of an employee’s performance across all dimensions of performance

and across all ratees. Like halo, leniency has been well documented as a source

of error when using graphic rating scales

Leniency presents a problem for organizations in the following way.

Performance appraisals are used to establish variance between the performance

levels of employees. Typically, these evaluations are used so that some merit-

based decision can be made about the employees for the purposes of raises,

promotions, benefits, etc. These evaluations could also be used for employment

decisions, deciding which employees should be terminated due to poor

performance or which employees should be kept in an era of downsizing and

layoffs. Leniency eliminates the variance between employees, making it very

difficult, if not impossible, to make organization al decisions based on the

measurement of employees’ performance.

New research, however, challenges the traditional notion of associating

these so-called rating errors with poor judgements of worker performance. One

of the first scientists to challenge the traditional conception of leniency and halo

error was Borman (1979). He noted that the literature of the time supported the

idea that most performance ratings were probably contaminated by error (e.g.,

halo, leniency), thereby rendering inaccurate ratings of employees. However, the

results from his study failed to support this notion, and he suggested that an

increase in accuracy was not as strongly correlated with a decrease in rating

errors as once believed.

Over time, greater numbers of researchers began to realize the danger of

equating “rating error” with a lack of accuracy. Murphy & Balzer (1989) found that

the average correlation between rating errors and measures of accuracy was

near zero. Based on the data, they felt that rating errors were not very likely to

contribute to the decrease in rating accuracy. Jackson (1996) also found

evidence that the point of maximum accuracy for a task does not necessarily

coincide with the lowest measures of rating errors. Some researchers went on to

claim that any relation (high, low, or zero) could be empirically found between

accuracy and rating errors. Nathan & Tippins (1990) were even so bold as to

claim that ratings errors might actually contribute to an increase in accuracy.

Gradually, performance appraisal researchers were beginning to realize

that rating errors are not reliable or consistent indicators as to the effectiveness

of performance ratings despite what was thought in the past. The traditional

conception that leniency and halo were only measures of error was wrong. A

more plausible conceptualization was that these “rating errors” actually contained

some true score variance, not just error. Regardless, the traditional criticism of

the graphic rating scale’s susceptibility to these “errors” no longer holds the same

concern that it once did. There are other problems associated with graphic rating

scales besides the traditional problems of halo and leniency. Graphic rating

scales have also been accused of having problems associated with validity, poor

inter-rater agreement, and personal biases of a rater. Though important, these

other problems associated with graphic rating scales are not as prevalent in the

research literature and have not traditionally been attributed the same level of

importance and influence as halo and leniency.

DEFINITION

What do we mean by performance management? It can refer to many aspects

of monitoring, reviewing and addressing performance issues within an

organization. For this introduction we define performance management broadly

as:

th e process of assessing the performance of an individual against

agreed criteria and standards to recognize achievements and identify

opportunities for improvement.

WHY BOTHER?

Performance management should be an ongoing process and clearly link

strategic objectives to specific actions. It will also ensure that people are

accountable for their performance and clearly understand the

expectations. Performance management contributes greatly in developing and

retaining your people – your most valuable resource. Relevant and structured

feedback provides the opportunity to recognize and reward good performance

and identify performance shortfalls to assist in a development and improvement

process.

CRITICAL STEPS

The challenge in deciding what performance management process to use is

that there is not a single ‘best practice’ model. The approach or model you use

must match the needs and culture of your council now. There is, however, a set

of consistent steps in most effective models. The key steps in assessing

performance with the following sections providing more detail about each step.

Step 1 Establish performance goals or Objectives

Step 2 Set standards and measures

Step 3 Assess performance against agreed goals standards and measures Step 4 Conduct the feedback discussion

Step 5 Capture agreed outcomes and future action.… and the process then repeats itself with step 1 taking place at the end of everyappraisal to establish performance expectations for the coming months.

Step 1: Establish Performance Goals or ObjectivesIt is impossible to review or assess performance if you are not clear on the critical

objectives for the individual. It is also difficult for any of us to perform to the level

expected and achieve if we do not know what the expectations are. Ideally these

individual performance objectives are established and agreed upon by

Management and the employees at the start of the review period. They should

reflect or align clearly with:

• The goals or objectives in your corporate or community plan;

•Management’s values if you have defined them;

• The performance criteria listed in the Employee’s contract.

Examples of an individual performance objectives or measures may be:

1. Accept and achieve the medium-long term goals and key strategies contained

in the business Plan, through the development and full implementation of annual

Business Plans.

2. Deals equally and promptly with all employees’ concerns regardless of their nature.

Note: there may be different terms used for these individual performance

objectives or goals, such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Key

Performance Objectives (KPOs), Key Result Areas (KRAs). Make sure you

understand the terms used and what they refer to.

Step 2: Standards and Measures

Once the performance objectives or indicators are established the next step is to

determine what standard of performance is required and what measures will be

used. For some this process may be familiar through involvement in developing

corporate or community plans and associated performance indicators. For

qualitative performance measures, such as behaviors like ‘developing effective

relationships with councilors’, you may need to rely on observation or judgment.

It is still important to provide a scale to use to make the assessment. If you are

using a rating scale, which can be numeric or descriptive, it is recommended the

documents or process be structured to encourage supporting comments. It is

difficult to understand what performance issue is or what needs to change if the

feedback is simply “you got 3 out of 10”. With more measurable objectives it is

possible to clearly describe what standard will be expected and how

performance will be assessed. While this can be time-consuming in developing,

the benefits are that there is little confusion about expectations and the

method of assessment. The following table provides an example of this:

Objectives (Or goal)

Expected performance (Or standard)

Method of Assessment (Or measure)

1. Achievement of Capital Works program

90% of Capital Works Program is completed.

Audit of performance byexternal auditor.

2. Demonstrates a service culture to the community and considers all requests promptly and impartially.

(a)Increase in communitysatisfaction by 10%.(b)Improvement in response rate to customercomplaints.

(a) Annual CommunitySatisfaction Survey.(b)Customer Service dataand reports.

Step 3: AssessmentThe process of assessment is determining the gap between the expected

outcomes and actual performance. This difference may be in the positive

direction when performance exceeds expectations or may be where performance

has fallen short of expectations. The method of assessment may incorporate one

or several components with some examples listed in the following list: -

• Self-assessment where the person being reviewed reports, whether verbally or

in writing, on their performance against the performance criteria.

• Review of relevant performance data – for example, achievement against

corporate plan objectives, community satisfaction surveys, staff climate surveys,

or financial performance against set targets.

• Surveys or questionnaires completed by the individuals the position reports to,

in this instance all managers or a committee.

• 360o feedback tools where direct reports, councilors and others provide

feedback either by completing surveys or through a structured interview process.

A primary objective with assessment is to increase objectivity and reduce

subjectivity. There will usually be some aspects of performance that are more

challenging to assess objectively. Examples of these performance areas would

be judgments relating to behaviors, for example effective leadership or

developing relationships. One approach to reducing the impact of personal bias

is through involving all councilors in the assessment process rather than just a

committee.

These assessments form the basis for the performance feedback. If a number of

assessment approaches have been used, or more than a few individuals

contributed, then the information may need to be consolidated. You may choose

to use an external consultant to do this for you. Pulling all the feedback together

will streamline the process and identify overall trends. Consolidation of

assessment data will also assist in prioritizing the issues to be discussed in the

feedback process.

Step 4: Feedback The assessment process is meaningless if it is not used to provide direct

feedback. Face-to-face feedback that is structured around the performance

objectives and criteria establishes the starting point for change and improvement.

It also provides the opportunity to celebrate and recognize achievements and

what is working well. It is also important to ensure that performance related

feedback is objective and relates directly to the CEO’s performance in their role.

Using the structure of the performance criteria and a well thought out process will

greatly assist in this regard. When providing feedback clearly indicate which

performance ‘expectation’ it relates to and provide examples of specific situations

to ensure your meaning is clearly understood. It may be desirable to have a third

party facilitate the performance review process, however, you will add great

value by providing the feedback yourself. In normal circumstances be brave

enough to give feedback directly and verbally rather than rely on a facilitator or

third party to deliver the message. Once you have gained the confidence and

skills to do this you will be greatly contributing to developing and maintaining that

highly effective relationship of openness and trust. When providing feedback

schedule sufficient time and prioritize it in everyone’s diary– this is an important

conversation and shouldn’t be rushed. Don’t keep canceling or delaying the

feedback conversation as the message this sends is that the process is not

valued or seen as important.

It is also important to make sure the feedback discussions are captured in

writing. This valuable information will summarize what has and hasn’t worked

and ideas for the future and will greatly assist maintaining and improving

performance.

Step 5: Future Action/Outcomes

Capturing the outcomes of the review process and the agreed actions to address

performance shortfalls is another critical step in the process. Developing an

action plan based on the feedback greatly facilitates the process of improvement

and change.

Elaborate on feedback by developing and agreeing upon a strategy or set of

actions that will overcome the issues raised and leads to improvement. This is

often a difficult task but to start this process it is useful to ask –

“What will this look like when it is done well? What needs to change – is it a system or a behaviour? How can we assist and support this change or required action?”

Producing a summary of the feedback and outcomes is also important if this is

the annual and formal performance review. This documentation will provide an

accurate record of the assessment given and any required actions. It will also

provide a useful starting point for future performance assessments and ensure

the process of improvement is continuous and meaningful.

OPEN AND HONEST

Unfortunately providing open and honest feedback is often avoided or found to

be the most difficult part of a performance discussion. Think about your own

experiences of giving and getting feedback, in the workplace or any other

situation. How often have you avoided or put off addressing a performance

issue? How often have you taken the time to clarify your expectations?

We all often find it easy to critically appraise the performance of an individual or

an organization from a distance. It is generally observed that providing face-to-

face feedback relating to performance is found to be extremely difficult. Some of

the common concerns that stop people avoid giving ‘warts and all’ feedback are:

• Fear of hurting an individual’s feelings; • Anticipating an angry or violent response; • Fear of ruining a good relationship; and • Feeling unqualified or lacking in sufficient experience to provide

feedback.

Honest feedback given in a constructive and positive way is highly valued by

most people. Feedback is even more valued when it is linked to determining

ways to address the performance shortfall. A further advantage of this approach

is that people who receive honest and open feedback are also more likely to do

the same in return.

BARRIERS TO FEEDBACK

There will always be a number of situations or factors that hold back the flow of

feedback in both directions. Consider the following ‘barriers’ before you speak

and you will find that when you do communicate it will be more effective and

better received.

1. Timing – is the moment appropriate and have you allowed sufficient time for a

meaningful and productive discussion?

2. Location /setting – is the environment and setting intimidating or overly

formal and prohibitive to open and honest communication?

3. Delivery – is the communication style, wording conducive to feedback being

taken on board? Keys to success here are that verbal feedback,

provided face to face by you, couched in constructive terms and supported with

specific examples will always be much better received.

4. Relevance – Is the feedback related to the individual work performance,

based on specific experience and something that they can personally

address?

CYCLE OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

Unfortunately for many organizations, performance feedback for executives is an

annual affair. This approach does little to build a team and encourage regular

and useful conversations about challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Waiting for an annual performance review also can allow performance ‘molehills’

to become ‘mountains’ by the time they are addressed. This situation will also

make the process of change particularly challenging if not impossible. There are

a number of simple strategies to encourage regular performance conversation.

The success of each of these will be in part determined by the commitment of all

involved and the current relationships between managers and executives.

However, you may find it useful to consider one of the two following approaches:

• Schedule and commit to a regular time, perhaps quarterly, for managers

and to executives have a performance ‘discussion’ using the performance

objectives or criteria developed for the annual review.

• Use performance discussions to seek feedback on your own performance

managers as and what you can do differently to make a positive difference.

• Conduct formal performance reviews twice a year, not annually, to allow

achievements or shortfalls to be discussed more immediately.

PERFORMANCE BASED COMPONENT OR NOT

The debate over whether to include a ‘performance based’ component within the

salary package f senior executives continues within the local government sector.

This ‘at risk’ or bonus component is determined by assessment of performance

against an agreed set of objectives or performance criteria. While there appears

to have been a shift in local government, both in Australia and overseas, away

from this approach, there is still support in the private sector for performance-

based incentives.

Research indicates that performance based approaches can be successful when:

• Bonuses are clearly linked to performance with clear goals;

• The bar is raised each year;

• Bonus awarded against the established targets using the agreed

framework;

• Achievement is celebrated and recognized in other non-financial ways.

An ‘at risk’ component usually refers to a proportion of an officer’s salary that is

based on achieving the agreed level of performance and is therefore ‘at risk’ if

performance should drop. The term bonus usually refers to payment of additional

remuneration when performance exceeds specific objectives and goals.

A performance based model can add value and drive improvement when:

1. The bonus is clearly linked to specific goals that clearly align with

strategic

objectives.

2. Specific and clear benchmarks are set to assess performance against these

goals.

3. There is a specific and established formula or method used to determine whether a bonus should be awarded and the amount that is used.

Supervisor’s Tips for Effective Performance Appraisals

1. Planning Performance

Develop performance plans that are accurate, measurable, attainable,

reasonable, and allow for performance above the fully successful level.

Describe standards in terms of quality, quantity, timeliness and/or method

of work. Focus on expected results and outcomes and ensure that

expectations are aligned with agency/unit strategic goals and objectives.

Avoid duty statements. Standards should tell the employee how well they

must perform in order to meet the fully successful level.

Involve employees in the development of performance plans.

Be timely in setting performance plans in place.

Revise plans if performance expectations change during the rating cycle.

Be prepared to explain to employees how they can exceed their standards.

Communicate to employees that "Fully Successful" performance is good

performance…work is at the expected level of performance and is of good

quality, quantity, and accomplished within established time frames.

Ensure that plans are consistent and equitable with in your unit.

Establish meetings with employees to set plans in place. Clearly

communicate expectations and clarify generic or vague standards. To the

extent possible, ensure employees understand expectations.

2. Monitoring Performance

Continuously monitor and provide performance feedback often during the

rating cycle.

Maintain written records of feedback and specific accounts of employee

performance during rating cycle.

Conduct timely mid-year reviews.

Inform employees of performance falling below last formal appraisal of

performance. Performance should not be a surprise at the end of the rating

cycle.

Notify your Employee Relations Specialist immediately when performance

problems begin.

Ensure continued accuracy of performance plans.

3. Developing Performance

Develop performance through use of an Individual Development Plan

(IDP), i.e. formal training, developmental assignments, coaching,

mentoring, etc.

Encourage teamwork, employee ideas, and improvement in processes,

involvement in committees, and other innovation.

Coach and mentor employees, help them succeed in their positions.

4. Rating Performance

Consider your own observations of performance, feedback from others and

accomplishment reports when preparing your ratings of record.

Consider results, outcomes, and relevant facts when rating performance,

not personalities and other subjective factors…Stick to the standards!

Discuss a rating of record with an employee only after you obtain

Reviewing Official approval.

Notify your ER Specialist for guidance if you plan to rate an employee

below the fully successful level.

Ensure that ratings of record are fair and equitable within your unit.

5. Rewarding Performance

Recognize outstanding accomplishments and achievements of employees

during the rating cycle through the use of monetary and non-monetary

awards, and nomination for Agency/Departmental awards programs and

external award programs announced by the Human Resources Division.

Reward employees for true accomplishments and achievements. Reward

results, outcomes and impact.

Recognize high performance at the end of the rating cycle. Reward

employees soon after accomplishments, achievements or results have

occurred…. be timely.

Seven Stupid Things Human Resource Departments Do To Screw Up Performance Appraisals

Stupid Thing #1: Focusing on and stressing the paperwork and forms.

We can understand why human resource people want some sort of paper trail related to performance appraisal. But when the emphasis on the forms and paperwork overshadows the real purpose of doing appraisals, then huge amounts of resources are wasted. When HR departments focus on getting the forms done, that's exactly what they get. Forms done. If that's all this is about, hire a monkey to do it. Any fool (no insult to the monkey) can tick off boxes on a form and send it on.

Stupid Thing #2: Believing that a ratings based form of appraisal will serve as protection against lawsuits by employees.

Big mistake. If you are caught speeding, do you think the court is going to accept as evidence a policeman's statement that "On a scale of 1-5 the driver was a 4?" I don't think so. But HR departments believe that THEIR form is going to withstand legal scrutiny. It's not. It's too subjective and too vague. This desire for false security is one reason HR folks feel they need to pressure managers to get the forms done. At least until their first lawsuit.

Stupid Thing #3: Using an automated system

This is a new development. You can purchase software that automates the performance appraisal process. What it does is it takes a lousy paper process, then makes it a lousy computerized process, so now we go much faster pretending we are doing something useful.

Performance appraisal is an interpersonal communication process. Even between two people, it's often not done well. Automating the process is a waste of money and time, and HR departments that go that route are doing charitable work for the vendors of the software.

It's bad enough we mechanize a human process using paper forms. Now we can take it one step further. Heck, now managers never have to speak to staff. This is progress?

Stupid Thing #4: Undertraining or mis-training managers in the process

Take some HR folks. They design some new forms, and a new way of doing performance appraisals. They print out some basic instructions, print out some forms, and distribute them to managers. The assumption is managers will know the purpose goes much further than "getting the forms done".

That's not going to happen. If the HR folks yell and scream, they probably WILL get the forms back, but not much more. Managers need extensive training, not only regarding the nuts and bolts of the appraisal process, but about the why's and interpersonal parts of it. Without that, one gets an empty paper chase (while people pretend it is a useful way to expend energy).

Stupid Thing #4: Not training employees

Why would you train employees in their role in the appraisal process. First, because the only way it works is when employee and manager work together, in partnership. Both manager and employee need to hold the same understanding about why they are doing appraisal, how it will be done, and what is expected.

Very few organizations offer anything but a superficial orientation to the appraisal process. That's because they see it as something done TO employees. It isn't, except of course when the HR department treats it as something done to employees. Then managers will probably do it that way.

Stupid Thing #5: Thinking pressuring managers to get the forms in is productive.

One reason managers procrastinate with respect to doing appraisals is that they don't see the point, or see it as a waste of time. There are other reasons, too. Most can be dealt with by using flexible approaches that take into account the needs of managers. Unfortunately, a good many HR departments believe it's just a question of ordering, yelling, coercing or begging managers to get them done.

That doesn't address the reasons why managers aren't doing them. If they felt they were useful, they would do them. The key to getting them done is to make them useful. Unless of course the HR folks want to spend their days ordering, yelling coercing and begging.

Stupid Thing #6: One size fits all fantasy

Imagine the difficulty for HR staff if every manager used a different form, or different method. How would you keep track? How would you file them? We can understand the desire to standardize the forms across a company.

But if you think about it, does it make sense? Can we evaluate a teacher in the same way as we evaluate the school custodian? Do we evaluate a baseball umpire the same way we evaluate a baseball player? Of course not. But still, HR departments expect managers to use a single tool for everyone, often a rating form. This kind of inflexibility addresses a filing problem. Is that why we do appraisals? To make it easier for the HR department? No, we do it to improve performance.

Stupid Thing #7: Playing the appraisal cop.

Unfortunately, HR and personnel departments get stuck with the responsibility of getting appraisals done by managers. Perhaps it isn't their fault, but it is a strong indicator that the system being used is or has failed. How come?

In a properly functioning system, each manager is assessed on a number of things, one of which will be their fulfillment of the performance management and appraisal function. The responsibility lies with management. If a manager is not carrying out the responsibility, it is his or her boss that should be evaluating the manager. It's a cascading process. No appraisal system is going to work until each manager's boss makes it clear that getting it done is going to be a factor in the manager's own appraisal.

HR departments shouldn't be appraisal cops If anyone is to do that, it should be the manager's boss. Anything less is going to be a waste of time and effort

G DATA ANALYSIS & IN TERPRETRATION

The data collected from the primary source (through collection of the responses

to the interviews) was assembled, sorted selected and analyzed. The analysis of

data is as under.

Managers

Q.1 Do you feel that organization and individual goals are specifically aligns?

Q2.Did you get training or counseling about performance appraisal?

Among the managers 86.67% managers say “yes” and 13.33% of managersare “No” say about alignment but no one “cannot say” .

Q.3 Do you feel that there should be training or counseling is given about the performance appraisal?

Q4. Do you provide your subordinates ongoing feedback on performance?

Out of total manager surveyed 66.67% say “No” that they get training about performance appraisal, 20% “Cannot Say” and 13.33% say “Yes” they get training.

Among the managers 80% of managers say “Yes”, 13.33% “Cannot Say” and 6.67% of managers say “No” that they like to get training or counseling.

Q5. Do you give feedback immediate after evaluation of performance of the subordinate?

From the survey conducted 26.67% of manager say “Yes”, 53.33% of say “No” and 20% of say “Cannot Say” that they give continuous feedback.

Out of the total manager covered 33.33% say “yes”, 60% of manager say “ No”And 6.67% “Cannot say” about the immediate feedback to the subordinates.

Q6. Do you give positive feedback or recognition to subordinates for their achievements?

Q7. Do you give negative feedback, when subordinate’s performance is not acceptable?

Among the managers 33.33% of managers say “Yes”, 60% of managers say “No” and 6.67% of managers “Cannot Say” about recognition to employees.

Q8 Is relationship affects the rating?

Q9. Is rating is effected by the emotional pressure and give lenient rating to the subordinate to provide them something?

Out of total managers covered 80% of managers say “yes” and 20% of managers say “No” that they give negative feedback when subordinates are not performing well.

Among the managers, 60% of managers say “Yes”, 13.33 say “NO” and 26.67%Of manager “Cannot Say” that relationship affect rating.

Among the managers 66.67% 0f managers say “yes”, 6.66% say “No” and 26.67% “Cannot Say”.

Q10. Do you willing to perform of performance appraisal?

Q11. Is there any specific time is given to you to devote on each appraisal form?

From the survey conducted, 80% of managers say, “Yes” and 20% of managers say “No” that they willing to perform the duty of performance appraisal.

Among the managers 46.67% of managers say “Yes” and 53.33 of managers say “No”.

Q12. Dose the appraisal form easy to fill?

13 If the rating is scored on the on computer network (BELNET). Dose it make your job easy?

Among the managers covered, 53.33% of managers say, “yes” 33.33 managers, says “No” and 13.34% “Cannot Say” that forms is easy to fill.

Out of total managers 80% of managers say “Yes”, 6.67% say “NO” and 13.33 “Cannot Say”.

Q14. Dose there is any performance review program in which you and your superior discuss the performance?

Among the managers 40% of managers say “Yes” and 60% of managers say “No”.

Subordinates

Q1. The daily task you get is specific, Meaningful, Achievable, Reliable, and Timely.

Q2. Is performance appraisal directly affecting the promotion and pay increment?

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say “Yes”, 6.67% of employees say “No” and 13.33 of employees “Cannot Say”.

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say “Yes”, and 20% of employees “Cannot Say”.

Q3. Do you get continuous feedback from your superior about your performance?

Q4. Do you get positive feedback or recognition for your achievements?

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 20% of employees say “Yes”, 66.67% of employees say “No” and 13.33 of employees “Cannot Say”.

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 13.33% of employees say “Yes”, 80% of employees say “No” and 6.67%of employees “Cannot Say”.

Q5. Dose there is any performance review program in which you and your superior discuss the performance?

Q6. Maintain an affective, viable working relationship with superior affect rating?

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 26.67%of employees say “Yes”, and 73.33% of employees “No”.

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say “Yes”, and 20% of employees “Cannot Say”.

Q7. Dose superior show leniency in given rating to ensure that subordinate get something?

HConclusion

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say “Yes”, and 20% of employees “Cannot Say”.

The data analysis and its interpretation lead to the following conclusion.

Alignment of organization and individual goals. Strategic plan of the

Bharat Electronic Ltd is objectively broken down into annul operating

plans at the unit level, and is further broken down to team and individual

goals /KRA (Key result area).Bharat Electronic Ltd does not measure “

what goals are achieved, but also force on how goals are achieved.

Bharat Electronic Ltd spends substantial resources in linking the

strategy plan to individual/ KRAs.

Nature of goals /KRA are specific, Meaningful, Achievable, Reliable,

and Timely.

Managers rating are inherently subjective and this subjectivity only

increase because the appraisals are linked to financial incentives such

as merits pay raise. Managers are often lenient on the appraisal in

order to ensure that the employees get something.

When ask most employees, and they told that appraisal are more about

the increment they going to receive or not receive rather than real

performance management system. The performance appraisal is

“annual ritual” and treated it as nothing more than an exercise to fill up

countless form. The subordinate already know the kind of increment

that the top management would allow and employees try to tailor their

appraisal to justify the predetermined increment.

Apart from deciding increment or promotion, performance appraisal

system also find out the common set of weaknesses on which

employees have to be trained, have to improve the performance of

under performers.

At the end of the appraisal process, employees not given an instant

feedback on their performance and the aspect in which they feel more

improvements can be made. The employee gets feedback only when

their performance is not acceptable and they do not get any recognition

or positive feedback. The management gives reason for it that if they do

that the employees put pressure through Trade Union to increase their

salary and other rewords.

Managers are feeling, the need of training or counseling about the

performance appraisal.

No performance review meeting programmes in the end of the period to

discuss the performance of the employee and the employee don’t able

to know their rating.

I

Recommendations

The only way to improve corporate performance is by motivating

employees to put in their best efforts. This means recognizing their

contribution in a way that is meaningful to them, reword system of

the BEL is very good, but to ensuring that rewards and recognition

together result in higher returns on human investment.

The training BEL need to build skills for effective performance

feedback in the manager by give them training.

E-enabled performance management system: Bharat Electronics

Ltd can use its BELNET for performing various task of performance

appraisal, e.g., it can use BELNET for filling the appraisal form

online. There is lot of software on the performance appraisal, which

perform or make easy to perform task. It is also save time and help

in cutting the cost.

There should performance reviews done in BEL. There should an

open one-on-one dialogue between the superior and subordinate.

An atmosphere of trust is imperative for such a dialogue.

I suggest giving recognition to achiever is motivating the employees.

A employees, who have perform well, recognition keeps them doing

well. If the good work is not recognized, it creates frustration.

FCompany’s profile

Corporate Motto, Mission and Objectives

The passionate pursuit of excellence at BEL is reflected in a reputation

with its customers that can be described in its motto, mission and objectives:

CORPORATE MOTTO

“Quality, Technology and innovation.”

CORPORATE MISSION

To be the market leader in Defense Electronics and in other chosen fields andproducts.

CORPORATE OBJECTIVES

To become a customer-driven company supplying products at competitive prices at the expected time and providing excellent customer support.

To achieve growth in the operations commensurate with the growth of professional electronics industry in the country.

To generate internal resources for financing the investments required for modernization, expansion and growth for ensuring a fair return to the investor.

In order to meet the nation’s strategic needs, to strive for self-reliance by indigenization of materials and components.

To retain the technological leadership of the company in Defense and other chosen fields of electronics through in-house research and development as well as through Collaboration / Co-operation with Defense/National Research Laboratories, International Companies, Universities and Academic Institutions.

To progressively increase overseas sales of its products and services. To create an organizational culture which encourages members of the

organization to realize their full potential through continuous learning on the job and through other HRD initiatives.

Manufacturing Units:

BANGALORE (KANARATAKA)

BEL started its production activities in Bangalore on 1954 with 400W high

frequency (HF) transmitter and communication receiver for the Army. Since then,

the Bangalore Complex has grown to specialize in communication and

Radar/Sonar Systems for the Army, Navy and Air force.

BEL’s in-house R&D and successful tie-ups with foreign Defense companies and

Indian Defense Laboratories has seen the development and production of over

300 products in Bangalore alone. The Unit has now diversified into

manufacturing of electronic products for the civilian customers such as DoT,

VSNL, AIR and Doordarshan, Meteorological Dept., ISRO, Police, Civil Aviation

and Railways. As an aid to Electorate, the unit has developed Electronic Voting

Machines that are produced at its Mass Manufacturing Facility (MMF).

GHAZIABAD (UTTER PRADESH)

The second largest Unit at Ghaziabad was set up in 1974 to manufacture

special types of radar for the Air Defense Ground Environment Systems (Plan

ADGES). The Unit provides Communication Systems to the Defense Forces and

Microwave Communication Links to the various departments of the State and

Central Govt. and other users. The Unit’s product range included Static and

Mobile Radar, Tropo scatter equipment, professional grade Antennae and

Microwave components.

PUNE (MAHARASHTRA)

This Unit was started in 1979 to manufacture Image Converter Tubes.

Subsequently, Magnesium Manganese-dioxide Batteries, Lithium Sulphur

Batteries and X-ray Tubes/Cables were added to the product range. At the

present the Laser Range Finders for the Defense services.

MACHILIPATNAM (ANDHRA PRADESH)

The Andhra Scientific Co. at Machilipatnam, manufacturing Optics/Opto-

electronic equipment was integrated with BEL in 1983. the product line includes

passive Night Vision Equipment, Binoculars and Goggles, Periscopes, Gun

Sights, Surgical Microscope and Optical Sights and Mussel Reference Systems

for tank fire control systems. The Unit has successfully diversified to making the

Surgical Microscope with zoom facilities.

PANCHKULA (HARYANA)

To cater the growing needs of Defense Communications, this Unit was

established in 1985. Professional grade Radio-communication Equipment in VHF

and UHF ranges entirely developed by BEL and required by the Defense

services are being met from this Unit.

CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)

In 1985, BEL established another Unit at Chennai to facilitate manufacture

of Gun Control Equipment required for the integration and installation and the

Vijay anta tanks. The Unit is now manufacturing Stabilizer Systems for T-72

tanks, Infantry Combat Vehicles BMP-II, Commander’s Panoramic Sights & Tank

Laser Sights are among others.

KOTDWARA (UTTER PRADESH)

In 1986, BEL STARTED a unit at Kotdwara to manufacture

Telecommunication Equipment for both Defense and civilian customers.

Focus is being given on the requirement of the Switching Equipment.

TALOJA (MAHARASHTRA)

For the manufacture of B/W TV Glass bulbs, this plant was established in

collaboration with coming, France in 1986. The Unit is now fully mobilized to

manufacture 20’’ glass bulbs indigenously.

HYDERABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH)

To coordinate with the major Defense R&D Laboratories located in

Hyderabad, DLRL, DRDL and DMRL, BEL established a Unit at Hyderabad in

1986. Force Multiplier Systems are manufactured here for the Defense services.

Joint Ventures:

BE-Delft Electronics Limited

BE-Delft Electronics Limited, Pune, the first joint venture of the company

with Delft Instruments, Holland and UTI was established in the year 1990 for

conducting research, development and manufacture of Image Intensifier Tubes

and associated high voltage power supplies for use in military, security and

commercial systems. Its products include night vision goggles and binoculars,

night vision weapon sights and low light level input applications.

GE BE Private Limited

GE BE Private Limited, Bangalore, a JV with General Electric Medical

Systems, USA has been established in 1997-98 for manufacture of High End

Routing Anode Medical Diagnostic X-ray tube called CT MAX, which is used in

CT Scanners. The joint venture unit will also establish a reloading facility for X-

ray tubes and will also market the conventional X-ray tubes made at Pune Unit of

BEL. South East Asia markets are addressed by this joint venture.

BEL- Multitone Private Limited

A joint venture between Bharat Electronics and Multitone Electronics Plc,

UK has also been established in Bangalore in 1997-98 to manufacture state-of-

art Mobile Communication for the workplace. Multitone invented paging in 1956

when it developed the world’s first system to serve the “life or death” environment

of St. Thomas Hospital, London. With the strength of Bharat Electronics in the

Radio Communications fields and the technology of Multitone, in the field of

Radio Paging, the joint venture company is in a position to offer tailor made

solution to the Mobile Communication needs at workplace in various market

segments.

Customer Profile & BEL Product Range

Equipment

DefenseArmy Tactical and Strategic Communication

Equipment and Systems, Secrecy Equipment, Digital Switches, Battlefield Surveillance Radar, Air Defense and Fire Control Radar, Opto-Electronic Instruments, Tank Fire Control Systems, Stabilizer Systems, Stimulators and Trainers.

Navy Navigational, Surveillance, Fire Control Radar, IFF, SONAR Systems, Torpedo Decoys, Display Systems, EW Systems, Simulators, Communication Equipment and Systems.

Air Force Surveillance and Tracking Raiders,

Communication Equipment and Systems, IFF and EW Systems.

Non-Defense

Para-Military Communication Equipment and Systems.Space Department Precision Tracking Radar, Ground

Electronics, Flight and On-board Sub-Systems.

All India Radio MW, SW &FM Transmitters.Doordarshan (TV Network)

Low, Medium and High Power Transmitters, Studio Equipment, OB Vans, Cameras, Antennae, Mobile and Transportable Satellite Uplinks.

NCERT TV Studios on turnkey Basis for Educational Programs.

Department of Telecommunication

Transmission Equipment (Microwave and UHF) and PCM Multiplex, Rural and Main Automatic Exchanges, Flyaway Satellite Terminals, Solar Panels for Rural Exchanges.

Videsh Sanchar Nigam and other Corporate Bodies Civil Aviation

MCPC VSAT, SCPC VSAT, Flyaway Earth Stations. Hub Stations, Up/Down Converters, LNA Modems.

Civil Aviation Airport Surveillance Radar, Secondary Surveillance Radar.

Meteorological Department

Cyclone Warning and Multipurpose Meteorological Radar.

Power Sector Satellite Communication Equipment.Oil Industry Communication Systems, Radar.Forest Departments, Irrigation & Electricity Boards

Communication Systems.

Medical & Health Care Clinical and Surgical Microscope with Zoom, Linear Accelerators.

Railways Communication Equipment for Metros, Microwave Radio Relays and Digital Microwave Radio Relays.

1.2.1 Components

Defense Transmitting Tubes, Microwave Tubes, Lasers, Batteries, Semiconductors-Discrete, Hybrid and Circuits.

Non-DefenseAll India Radio, Doordarshan (TV Network), Telecommunications and Civil Industries

Transmitting Tubes, Microwave Tubes, and Vacuum Tubes.

Entertainment Industry B/W TV Tubes, Silicon Transistors, Integrated Circuits, Bipolar and CMOS, Piezo-Electric Crystals, Ceramic Capacitors and SAW Filters.

Telephone Industry Integrated Circuits, Crystals.Switching Industry Vacuum Interrupters.Instrumentation Industry Liquid Crystal Displays.

Medical & Health Care X-ray Tubes.

Systems/Network

Identity Card Systems Software, Office Automation Software, LCD On-line Public Information Display Systems and Communication Networks / VSAT Networks.

Financial Performance

BEL has a unique history of profit making Public Sector Enterprise right

from its inception. There have been events of decrease in turnover and profit

after Tax due to reasons beyond reasonable control of the company. But the

company’s strength lies in its capability to combat the threats, for example US

Embargo on exports to BEL.

BEL hopes to generate 25 per cent increase in turnover with a 15 per cent

rise in net profit in the current fiscal year over the previous. Corrective measures

against western sanctions have been undertaken, which are likely to translate

into higher turnover and profitability. The company is putting all efforts to

minimize the effect of the restrictions by early establishments of alternative

arrangements. The Defense Research Laboratories and Academic Institutions

are also being persuaded with for indigenization of certain special category of

devices and components. The company is also opening an office in Singapore to

procure components from Asian markets. Thus in the long run the restrictions will

prove as blessings resulting in self-dependence and better profit margins.

Also several R&D projects with long gestation periods will go into

commercial production during the current fiscal.

BEL GHAZIABAD UNIT

Formation :

In the mid 60’s, while reviewing the Defense requirement of the country, the

government focused its attention to strengthen the air Defense system, in

particular the ground electronics system support, for the air Defense network.

This led to the formulation of a very major plan for an integrated Air Defense

Ground Environment System known as the plan ADGES with Prime Minister as

the presiding officer of the apex review committee .At about the same time,

Public attention was focused on the report of the Bhabha committee on the

development and production of electronic equipment. The ministry of Defense

immediately realized the need to establish production capacity for meeting the

electronic equipment requirements for its plan ADGES.

BEL was then inserted with the task of meeting the development and production

requirement for the plan ADGES and in view of the importance of the project it

was decided to create additional capacity at a second unit of the company.

In December 1970 the Govt. sanctioned an additional unit for BEL. In 1971, the

industrial license for manufacture of radar and microwave equipment was

obtained, 1972 saw the commencement of construction activities and production

was launched in 1974.

Over the years, the unit has successfully manufactured a wide variety of equipment needed for Defense and civil use. It has also installed and commissioned a large number of systems on turnkey basis. The unit enjoys a unique status as manufacture of IFF systems needed to match a variety of primary raiders. More than 30 versions of IFF’s have already been supplied traveling the path from vacuum technology to solid-state to latest microwave component system.

Product Range

The product ranges today of the company are:

Radar System

3-Dimensional High Power Static and Mobile Radar for the Air Force.

Low Flying Detection Radar for both the Army and the Air force.

Tactical Control Radar System for the Army.

Battlefield Surveillance Rader for the Army.

IFF Mk-X Radar systems for the Defense and export.

ASR/MSSR systems for Civil Aviation.

Radar & allied systems Data Processing Systems.

Communications

Digital Static Tropo scatter Communication Systems for the Air

Force.

Digital Mobile Tropo scatter communication System for the Air Force

and Army.

VHF, UHF & Microwave Communication Equipment.

Bulk Encryption Equipment.

Turnkey communication Systems Projects for Defense & civil users.

Static and Mobile Satellite Communication Systems for Defense.

Telemetry /Tele-control Systems.

Antennae

Antennae for Radar, Terrestrial & Satellite Communication Systems.

Antennae for TV Satellite Receive and Broadcast applications.

Antennae for Line-of-sight Microwave Communication Systems.

Microwave Component

Active Microwave components like LNAs, Synthesizer, and Receivers etc.

Passive Microwave components like Double Balanced Mixers, etc.

Most of these products and systems are the result of a harmonious

combination of technology absorbed under ToT from abroad, Defense

R&D Laboratories and BEL’s own design and development efforts.

Organization:

The operations at BEL Ghaziabad are headed by General Manager with

Additional / Deputy General Manager heading various divisions as follows:

Design & Engineering Divisions

Development and Engineering-R

Development and Engineering-C

Development and Engineering – Antenna .

1. Equipment Manufacturing Divisions

Radar

Communication

Antenna

Systems

Microwave Components

2. Support Divisions

Material management

Marketing & Customer Co-ordination

Quality Assurance & Torque

Central Services

PCB & Magnetics

Information Systems

Finance & Accounts

Personnel & Administration

Management Services.

Design & Engineering

The pace of development and technological obsolescence in their field of

electronics necessitates a strong Research and Development base. This is more

important on the area of Defense Electronics. BEL Ghaziabad has since its

inception laid a heavy emphasis on indigenous research and development. About

70% its of manufacture today relate to items developed in-house. For the

development and production of the Mobile Torpo scatter System and the

equipment, BEL was awarded the Gold Shield for Import Substitution.

Design facilities are also constantly being modernized and substantial

computer-aided design facilities are being introduced including installation of

mini- and microcomputers and dedicated design application. About 170 graduate

and post-graduate engineers are working on research and indication of the

importance R&D has in BEL’s growth.

Three Design and Engineering group are product based viz. Communication,

Radar and Antenna. These divisions are further divided into different

departments to look after products of a particular nature. each of them has a

drawing office attached to them, which are equipped with latest drafting and

engineering software. The PCB layout and PCB master making is done at CADD

Center. A central Records & Printing section takes care of the preserving the

engineering documents and distribution thereof. Most of the engineering

documents are available online.

Equipment Manufacturing Divisions

As a supplier of equipment to the Defense services and professional users,

strict adherence to specifications and tolerances, has to be in-built into the

design and manufacturing process. For this BEL Ghaziabad has well defined

standards and processes for as well as manufacturing and testing activities.

Activities are divided into various departments like Production Control, Works

Assembly, and QC WORKS. The manufacture and control of production is

through a central systems , BELMAC, BEL’s own homegrown ERP system.

Apart from conventional machines, BEL Ghaziabad has been equipped

with several repeat occurrences and increased throughput. A separate NC

programming cell has been set up to develop the programs for execution on the

CNC machines.

Microwave Component Group

Frequencies greater than 1 GHz are termed as Microwaves.

Microwaves Integrated Circuits (MIC) used extensively in the production of

subsystems for Radar and Communication equipment constitutes a very vital part

of the technology for these systems and is generally imported. Owing to the

crucial and building block nature of the technology involved, BEL is currently

setting up a modern MIC manufacturing facility at a planned expenditure of Rs. 2

crore. When in full operation, this facility will be the main center for the MIC

requirements of all the units of the company.

The manufacturing facilities of hybrid microwave components available at

BEL, Ghaziabad includes facility for preparation of substrates, assembly of

miniaturized component viz. directional couplers, low noise amplifiers, phase

shiftier, synthesizers etc. involves scalar as well as vector measurements. For

this state of the network analysis are used.

Material Management

Material Management division is responsible for procurement, storage

handling, issue of purchased parts as well as raw materials required to

manufacture various equipment and spares. It also takes care of disposal of

unused or waste material.

The division is divided into purchase, Component store, Raw material

store, Chemical store, Custom Clearance Cell, Inventory management &

disposal.

Marketing and Customer Co-ordination

This division is responsible foe acquisition and execution of customer

orders and customer services. Marketing department looks after order

acquisition. Commercial department looks after order execution. Shipping takes

care of packing and dispatch of material to customer.

Quality Assurance & Torque

In the area of professional Defense electronics, the importance of Quality

and Reliability is of utmost importance. BEL has therefore established stringent

processes and modern facilities and systems to ensure product quality- from the

raw material to the finished product. IGQA, Environmental Labs, Test Equipment

Support and QA departments are grouped under this division.

All material for consumption in the factory passes through stringent inward

goods screening in IGQA department before being accepted for use.

Subsequent to manufacture and inspection, the end product is again put

through a rigorous cycle of performance and environmental checks in

Environmental Labs.

The testing, calibration and repair facility of test Instruments used in the

factory is under the control of Test Equipment Support. All the instruments come

to this department for periodic calibration.

Quality Assurance department facilitates ISO 9000 certification of various

divisions. All production divisions of BEL Ghaziabad are ISO9000 certified. The

microwave division is ISO9001 certified whereas the remaining three division viz.

Radar, Communication and Antennae are also ISO9002 certified.

Central Services

Central services Division looks after plant and maintenance of the estate

including electrical distribution, captive power generation, telephones, transport

etc.

PCB Fabrication & Magnetics

PCB Fabrication, Coil and Magnetic, Technical Literature, Printing Press

and Finished Goods are the areas under this division.

Single sided PCB blanks- having circuit pattern on one side of the board

and double sided- having circuit pattern on both sides of the board are

manufactured in house. However, Multi-layered PCBs, having many layers of

circuit, are obtained from other sources.

Magnetic department makes all type of transformers & coils that are used

in different equipment. Coils and transformers are manufactured as per various

specifications such as number of layers, number of turns, types of windings, gap

in core, dielectric strength, insulation between layers, electrical parameters,

impedance etc. laid down in the documents released by the D&E department.

Information Systems

IS Department is responsible for BEL’s own home grown manufacturing

and control systems called BELMAC .It comprises of almost all modules a

modern ERP systems but is Host and dumb terminal based.

Finance & Accounts

The F&A division is divided into Budget & Compilation, Cost and Material

Accounts, Bills Payable, Bill Receivable, Payrolls, Provident Fund, Cash

Sections.

Personal & Administration

There are at present about 2300 employees at BEL Ghaziabad, of which

more than 400 are graduate and postgraduate engineers.

P&A Division is divided into various departments like Recruitment,

Establishment, HRD, Welfare, Industrial Relations, Security and MI Room.

Personal & Administration

Recruitment

Establishment

HRD

Welfare

Security and MI Room.

Management Services

This department deals with the flow of information to or from the company.

It is broadly classified into three major sub-sections – Management Information

System, Industrial Engineering Department and Safety.

P.C.B. FABRICATION

P.C.B. stands for Printed Circuits Board. It’s an integral part of the Electronics equipment as well as all the components are mounted on it. It consists of the fiberglass sheet having a layer of copper on both sides.

Types of PCBs

1. Single Sided Board : Circuits on one side.2. Double Sided Board: Circuit on Both sides.3. Multi-layer Board : Several layers are inter-

-Connected through metal- -izationRaw material for PCB’s

Most common raw material used for manufacturing of PCBs is copper cladded

glass epoxy resin sheet. The thickness of the sheet may vary as 1.2, 2.4 and

3.2mm and the standard size of the board is 610mm to 675mm.

Operation in process

Following steps are for PCB manufacturing:-

CNC Drilling

Drill Location

Through Hole Plating

Clean Scrub and Laminate

Photo Print

Develop

Cu electroplate

Tin electroplate

Strip

Etching and cleaning

Tin Stripping

Gold plating

Liquid Photo Image able Solder Masking (LPISM)

Photo print

Develop

Thermal Baking

Hot Air leaving

Non Plated Hole Drilling

Reverse Marking

Sharing & Routing

Debarring & Packing

P.C.B. is a non-conducting board on which a conductive board is made. The base material, which is used for PCB plate are Glass Epoxy, Bakelite and Teflon etc.

Procedure for through hole metallization

Loading-Cleaner-Water Rinse-Spray Water-Rinse-Mild Etch-Spray Water-Rinse-Hydrochloric Acid-Actuator-Water Rinse-Spray Water-Rinse-Accelerator Dip-Spray Water- Rinse- Electrolyses Copper-Plating-Plating- Spray water-Rinse-Anti Tarnish Dip-Hot Air Drying- Unloading.

After through whole metallization, photo tool generation is done which is followed by photo printing. In this the PCB is kept b/w two blue sheets and the ckt. is printed on it. A negative and positive of a ckt are developed. To identify b/w the negative and positive, following observation is done. If the ckt. is black and the rest of the sheet is white, it is positive otherwise negative.

Next, pattern is done. The procedure for pattern plating follows :

Loading- Cleaner- Water rings- Mild etch- Spray- Water Rinse-Electrolytic- Copper plating- Water rinse- Sulfuric acid-Tin plating- Water rinse- Antitarnic dip- Hot air dry- Unloading.

To give strength to the wires so that they can not break. This is done before molding. Varnishing is done as anti fungus prevention for against environmental hazard.

After completion of manufacturing proceeds it is sent for testing. This is followed by resist striping and copper etching. The unwanted copper i.e. off the tracks is etched by any of the following chemicals. After this tin is stripped out from the tracks.

After this solder marking is done. Solder marking is done to mark the tracks to get oxidized & finally etch. To prevent the from getting etched & making the whole circuit unfunctional done.

There are three types of solder marking done in BEL.

Wet solder mask : Due to some demerits this method is totally ruled out. The demerit was non alignment which was due to wrong method applied or wrong machine.

Dry pin solder mask: Due to wastage of films about 30% this method is also not used now.

Liquid photo imaginable solder mask (LPISM): In this first presoaking is at 80 degree Celsius for 10 to 20 minutes. Next, screen preparation is done . the board is covered by a silk cloth whose mesh is T-48. The angle to tilt of the board is 15 degree to 22.5 degree. The ink is Ink preparation : Ink + Hardener

71 % : 29 %

150 gms : 300gms

+

Butayae solo solve 50gms/kg.

Ink preparation-

It uses:-Ink-----100gm

Catalyst----10% of total weight

Reducer-----10% of total weight

The catalyst is used as binder and prevents the following, while reducer is used as thinner. The three things are then fully mixed.

For wash out, following procedure takes place.

Water-Lactic acid-Water-Bleaching power-Water-caustic Soda-Water-Air dry-TCE.

After wash out, final baking for one hour at the temp. Of 20 degree C is done. After this shearing or routing is done which is followed by debarring and packing.