Termiii_hrm_performance Management and Appraisal Methods_a Comparision of Iocl and Ril

7/29/2019 Termiii_hrm_performance Management and Appraisal Methods_a Comparision of Iocl and Ril

1/25

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND

APPRAISAL METHODS:

A COMPARISION OF IOCL AND RIL

HRM PROJECT

Group 9

Arnab Guha Mallik 7

Atul Sharma 7Bishnu Dokania 7

Ekta Poddar 8

Hersh Kenkare 9


2/25

Higher pay consisting of perks and tax

benefits

- Laid back attitude because of assured

promotions after definite time period

- Job Security

- Inefficient working

Motivated employees

Performance linked pay enhances

competition

Job insecurity

Preconceptions regarding Private

Companies Preconceptions regarding PSUs

Disinvestment Privatization

Higher Productivity

(IPCL- Reliance Case)

Better Management and

Employee Satisfaction

This has Resulted in:

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY


3/25

Performance Management System

Performance

Differentiation

Performance Li

Incentives

Performa

Ownersh

Transparency, Uniformity &

Process EfficiencyAlignment of Individual &

Organization Goals

INCREASEDCOMPETITIVEN Better performance of privat

players

Attractive alternatives

Development of

Human Resources

INDUSTRYOUTLOOK Deregulation of fuel prices

Volatility in crude oil prices

WHY PMS?


4/25

VISION OF ePMS

A robust, transparent performance measuringsystem to reward according to individual/

small team performance, suitably

differentiating higher performance, based on

well defined performance measures


5/25

Objective PSUs Private Companies

Objective Questionable Questionable but in chec

Transparent Yes Yes

Aligned to business needs Questionable Yes

Robust

Easy to use and manage Yes Yes

Continuous Assessment Yearly Half Yearly

Timely execution of process No Yes

Differentiation among employees Questionable More Effective

The following table shows the objectives that a Performance Management Syste

sets out to achieve and how the two companies compare with regards to these.

OBJECTIVES OF e-PMS


6/25

Performance Planning

Mid Year review

feedbackFeedback and Review

April - June

Octo

April

Ongoing monthly reviewand feedback

Final PerformanceAppraisal

April-May

Appraisee Appraiser ReviewerCountersig

Office

Facilitator

ePMS at IOCL


7/25

KRAsCompetency

Skills

Potential Values

ePMS

COMPONENTS OF ePMS


8/25

KRAs


9/25


10/25

COMPETENCY SKILLS


11/25

VALUES


12/25

POTENTIAL


13/25

HI grades

DEF gradesKRA

55%

Competency

20%

Value

10%

Potential

15%

KRA

45%

Competency

20%

Value

15%

Potential

20%

G grade

KRA

50%

Competency

20%

Value

15%

Potential

15%

ABC grades

KRA

60%

Competency

15%

Value

10%

Potential

15%

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL


14/25

Self AppraisalCross checking

by appraiser

Cross checking

by reviewer

Final score by

countersigning

officer

Evaluatio

feedba

PMS Calculation Sheet

DGM Level

KRA Weight Rating Stretch Individual KPI Score

50% (weight * rating * stretKPI 1 20% 3.5 0.85 0.595

KPI 2 30% 4.7 0.75 1.058

KPI 3 40% 4.2 0.95 1.596

KPI 4 10% 2.0 0.60 0.120

KPI Score 3.369

Competency Weight Rating Individual Competency S

20% (weight * rating)Competency 1 33% 3 0.990

Competency 2 33% 4 1.320

Competency 3 33% 3 0.990

Competency Score 3.300

Values Weight Rating Individual Values Sco

15% (weight * rating)Values 1 33% 4 1.320

Values 2 33% 3 0.990

Values 3 33% 4 1.320

Values Score 3.630

Potential Weight Rating Individual Potential Sc

15% (weight * rating)

Potential 1 33% 4 1.320

Potential 2 33% 5 1.650

Potential 3 33% 4 1.320

Potential Score 4.290

Overall score 3.532

Overall Score= (KPI rating * KPI weight + Competency rating * Competency weight + values rating * Valu

weight + Potential rating * Potential weight )

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

OUTPUTS OF EPMS


15/25

Overall Score Performance Points

awarded for

promotion

1 to 1.999 Significantly

below

expectations

20

2 to 2.999 Moderately

belowexpectations

25

3 to 3.849 Just meets

expectations

30

3.85 to

4.349

Very Good 40

4.35 to 5.00 Outstanding 45

Final Score

Calcu

of

Prom

Promotion needs 85 points ahappen only after 3 years up

Grade F and 2 years after tha

Employees are awarded 30 p

graduation and 5 points per

experience

Score over 3 years is average

OUTPUTS OF EPMS

OUTPUTS OF EPMS


16/25

Overall Score Performance Points

awarded for

promotion

1 to 1.999 Significantly

below

expectations

20

2 to 2.999 Moderately

belowexpectations

25

3 to 3.849 Just meets

expectations

30

3.85 to

4.349

Very Good 40

4.35 to 5.00 Outstanding 45

Final Score

Calcu

of

Prom

Promotion needs 85 points ahappen only after 3 years up

Grade F and 2 years after tha

Employees are awarded 30 p

graduation and 5 points per

experience

Score over 3 years is average

OUTPUTS OF EPMS

ISSUES IN PMS


17/25

Performance

Management SystemImplementation

Design

The GM HR practically has a cap of the number of people

to be promoted at every level, every yearHe uses these caps to manipulate the promotions, not

giving due importance to performance, which in turn are

manipulated to suit promotions.

Design

Performance not co

reflected in Rating

Promotions

Implementation

Insignificant gap between satisfactory and outstanding

performance

Promotion only after minimum three years of service andsome lower cap of points- making the whole system

redundant

Lack of Motivation tEfficiently

ISSUES IN PMS

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES


18/25

PMS form not filled

up until the mid of

the year.

Employees have no

goals, hence no

direction of work

Fails the purpose of

PMS

Delay in Goal

Setting

Effectively no mid

term review- just a

formality

Employees have no

idea about their

current standing orhow off target they

are.

Absence of

continuous

assessment

Weights and stre

manipulated due

appraiser- apprais

rapport

Sometimes passe

unchecked by the

reviewer

Manipulation

during Goal

Setting

Reviewer cann

due considerat

core job

HR acts only as a

facilitator, lesser

involvement

Few HR personnel;

number of employees

per HR is very high

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS


19/25

IOCL RelianceThe outcome of the Perform

Appraisal is ACTUALLYused

Reward Systems and Develop

Purposes

Proper Mid Year Review is

and employees are given pr

feedback

Goals are set right in th

beginning of the year, result

more focus

Lack of Job Security mak

employees more accountabl

efficient

No minimum cap for promo

Differentiating Factors

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

DISCONTENTMENT? AND WHY?


20/25

Designing of

Questionnaire

Survey of IOCL and

Reliance Employees

Analysis of

Employee Responses

DISCONTENTMENT? AND WHY?

FACTOR ANALYSIS (IOCL)


21/25

The 3 circled points in the scree

refer to 3 factors which explain

80.695% variance in employee

motivation

These are:-

1. no significant difference betw

outstanding and average perfor

2. lack of transparency

3. manipulation in performanceappraisal by the counter signing

FACTOR ANALYSIS (IOCL)

FACTOR ANALYSIS (RELIANCE)


22/25

FACTOR ANALYSIS (RELIANCE)

The 2 circled points in the screen pl

refer to 2 factors which explain 86.1

variance in employee motivation

These are:-

1. no significant difference betwe

outstanding and average perform

2. lack of transparency

The absence of the 3rd factor i.e. manipul

performance appraisal by the counter sigis because promotion is purely merit base

reliance whereas in IOCL only a fixed no.

promoted every year

WHAT HR HAS TO SAY


23/25

WHAT HR HAS TO SAY

Frankly, the workload on our emp

is so high that if we dont make thelike we care, we would have n

employees. Our PMS aims at rewa

the best performing employees wi

any restrictions. Periodic traini

programmes to address skill

development also boost employmorale.

- Prasad Gavankar, Senior Manager

RIL, NMD

The ePMS has resulted in reducing individual

biases in the appraisal process but the fact that

only a certain number of people can be promoted

to a certain grade reduces its benefits. We have 5

HR personnel looking after the ePMS of 1200

officers so you can understand the constraints on

our side. The appraisers and reviewers need to

take more initiative in ensuring that the process is

smooth and fair. Also the training programmes

that we initiate are quite useless as managerssend employees who are free or less critical to

their units for these. Thus skill development is

hindered.

-Anannya Narain DM Employee Relations (DMER), IOCL,

PR

RECOMMENDATIONS


24/25

Greater involvement of HR in the performance appraisal

process

Alignment of recruitment process with needs ofperformance management

Review of the way outputs of PMS are used in promotion

Strict adherence to timelines and mid year review

RECOMMENDATIONS


25/25

THANK YOU

Termiii_hrm_performance Management and Appraisal Methods_a Comparision of Iocl and Ril

Documents