Date post: | 03-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | vipul-verma |
View: | 185 times |
Download: | 6 times |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERTITLE
PAGE NO
ABSTRACT 2
1INTRODUCTION
1.1 Profile of an organization3
2OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
17
3 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 18
4SCOPE OF THE STUDY
19
5RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
20
6DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
23
7FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
83
8 CONCLUSION86
9SUGGESTION 87
10
ANNEXUREQuestionnaireBibliography
88
1
ABSTRACT
The study entitled “A Study on effectiveness of performance appraisal system at
Eureka Forbes Limited”.
Performance Appraisal is not an important or easy management task and it should be
an once a easy management task and it should be an once a year event. The reason they
conduct Performance Appraisal in the first place in that they believe in accomplishing
two things.
Help employees to understand the quality of their current performance and
identify what they must to do to improve it. Motivate employees to improve their
performance.
Project objectives are ;
To examine the effectiveness of performance appraisal given to the employer
To understand the performance appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes
Limited.
To ascertain the awareness level among the employees about the performance
appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes
To confirm with the employees opinion about the performance appraisal system
To ascertain the ways and means to improve the performance appraisal at Eureka
Forbes Limited
To improve the overall performance of the organization
To know the satisfactory level of the employer about performance appraisal
2
1.INTRODUCTION
Appraising the performance of individuals, groups and organizations is a common
practice of all societies. While in some instances the appraisal processes are structured
and formally sanctioned, in other instances they are an informal and integral part of daily
activities. Thus, teachers evaluate the performance of students, bankers evaluate the
performance of creditors, parents evaluate the behavior of the children, and all of us,
consciously or unconsciously evaluate our own actions from time to time.
“Performance appraisal” has been identified as one of the most complex of
man-management activities. It is often a difficult and emotion laden process.
Performance appraisal has become part of organizational life. Every organization has
some kind of evaluating the performance of its personnel.
“Performance appraisal” or “Merit rating” is one of the oldest and universal
practices of management. This approach resulted in an appraisal system in which the
employee’s merits like initiative, dependability, personality etc were compared with
others and ranked or rated.
HISTORY
During and after World War I, systematic performance appraisal was quite
prominent. Credit goes to Walter Dill Scot for systematic performance appraisal
technique of “man-to-man rating system” (merit rating). It was used for evaluating
military officers. Industrial concerns also used this system during 1920s and 1940s for
evaluating hourly paid workers. However, with the increase in training and management
development programs from 1950s, management started adopting performance appraisal
for evaluating technical, skilled, professional and managerial personnel as a part of
training and executive development programmes. With this evolutionary process, the
3
term merit rating had been changed into employee appraisal or performance appraisal.
MEANING
Performance Appraisal is a method of evaluating the behavior of employees in the
work spot, normally including both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of job
performance. Performance here refers to the degree of accomplishment of the tasks the
make up an individual’s job. It indicates how well an individual is fulfilling the job
demands. Often the term is confused with effort, which means performance is always
measured in terms of results.
“Performance appraisal” is a systematic evaluation of present and potential
capabilities of personnel and employees by their superiors, superior’s superior or a
professional from outside. “It is a process of estimating or judging the value, excellent
qualities or status of a person or thing.”
DEFINITION
1 According to ‘Flippo’ (1998), “Performance appraisal is the systematic periodic
and an impartial rating of an employees excellence in matters pertaining to his
present job and his potential for a better job”
2 According to ‘C. Higel’ (1973), “The performance appraisal is the purpose of
evaluating the performance and qualification of the employees in terms of the
requirement of the job for which he is employed, for the purposes of
administration including placement, selection for promotion, providing financial
rewards and other actions which require differential treatment among the
members of a group as distinguished from action affecting all members equally”.
3 According to ‘N.K. Rowland’ (1970), defines “performance appraisal is the
process of assessing the performance and progress of an employee or of a group
4
of employees on a given job and his potential for future development.”
CHARACTERISTICS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
According to ‘Gupta C.B’ “The main characterisistics of performance appraisal are as
follows.’’
1. Performance appraisal is a process of consisting of a series of steps.
2. It is a systematic evaluation of employee’s strength and weakness in terms of the
job.
3. Performance appraisal is a scientific or objective study. Formal procedures are
used in the study. The same approach is adopted for all jobholders so that the
results are comparable.
4. It is an ongoing or continuous process where in the evaluations arranged
periodically according to a definite plan.
5. The main purpose of performance appraisal is to secure information necessary for
making objective and correct decisions on employees.
OBJECTIVES OF APPRAISAL
a) To identify areas for further training needs.
b) To help determine promotions and transfers.
c) To reduce grievances and
5
d) To improve job performance
The appraisals were found useful particularly for
a) Promotions
b) Helping the supervisors know their employees.
c) Helping the workers to know their progress.
d) Wage and salary administration.
e) Training and development
Who will appraise?
The appraiser may be any person who has through knowledge about the job
content, contents to be appraised, standard of contents and who observes the employee
while performing a job.
Typical appraisers are…
Supervisor, peers, subordinates, employees themselves, users of services and
consultants.
When to appraise?
Information appraisals are conducted whenever the supervisor or personnel
managers feel it necessary. However, systematic appraisals are conducted on a
regular basis.
6
STAGES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
1. At the first stage, performance standards are established based on job description
and job specification.
2. The second stage is to inform these standards to all employees including
appraisers.
3. The third stage is following the instructions given for appraisal measurement of
employee performance by the appraisers through observations, interview, records
and reports.
4. The fourth stage is finding out the influence of various internal and external
factors on actual performance of the employee and others.
5. The fifth stage is comparing the actual performance with the standards and
finding out the deviations.
6. The sixth stage is communicating the annual performance of the employee and
other employees doing the same job and discuss with him about the reason for
positive or negative deviations.
7. The seventh stage is suggesting necessary changes in standards, job analysis, and
internal and external environment.
8. The eighth stage is follow-up of performance appraisal report.
7
NEED AND PURPOSE OFPERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Performance appraisal is needed in order to;
1. Provide information about the performance ranks basing on which decisions regarding
salary fixation, confirmation, promotion, transfer and demotion.
2. Provide feedback information about the level of achievement and behavior of
subordinate. This information helps to review the performance of the subordinate,
rectifying performance deficiencies and to set new standards of work, if necessary.
3. Provide information which helps to counsel the subordinate.
4. Provide information to diagnose deficiency in employee regarding skill, knowledge,
determine training and development needs and to prescribe the means for employee
growth provides information for correcting placement.
5. To prevent grievances and in disciplinary activities.
PURPOSE
Performance appraisal aims at attaining the different purposes. They are
a. To create and maintain a satisfactory level of performance.
b. To contribute to the employee growth and development through training, self and
management development programmes.
c. To help the superiors to have a proper understanding about their subordinates.'
d. To guide to job changes with the help of continuous ranking.
e. To provide fair and equitable compensation based on performance.
f. To facilitate for testing and validating selection tests, interview techniques through
comparing their scores with performance appraisal ranks
g. To provide information for making decisions regarding lay off, retrenchment etc.
h. To ensure organizational effectiveness through correcting employee for standard and
8
improved performance, and suggesting the change in employee behavior.
METHODS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
There are several methods and techniques used for evaluating employee
performance. These may be classified into two broad categories as stated by
C.B.Gupta (1998)
1. Traditional methods
2. Modern methods
TRADITIONAL METHODS
“Traditional method” envisages the following: -
1. CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
A confidential report is a report prepared by the employee’s immediate
superior. It covers the strength and weakness, main achievements and failure,
personality and behavior of the employee. It is descriptive appraisal used for
promotions and transfers of employees.
2. FREE FORM OR ESSAY METHOD
Under this method, the evaluator writes a short easy on the employee’s
performance on the basis of overall impression. The description is expected to be
a factual and as concrete as possible. An essay can provide a good deal of
information about the employee especially if the evaluator gives examples of each
one of his judgment.
9
3. STRAIGHT RANKING METHOD
In this technique, the evaluator assigns relative ranks to all the employees
in the same work unit doing the same job. Employees are ranked from the best to
the poorest on the basis of overall performance. The relative position of an
employee is reflected in this numerical bank.
4. PAIRED COMPARISON METHOD
Each employee is compared with all the others, in pair one at a time. The
number of times an employee is judged better than the others determine his rank.
Comparison is made based on overall performance. The number of comparisons
to be made can be decided based on the following: N (N-1)/2. Where N is
the number of person to be compared.
5. FORCED DISTRIBUTION METHOD
In this technique, the rate is required to distribute his rating in the form of
a normal frequency distribution. This method eliminates the rate bias of central
tendency. It helps to reduce bias involved in straight ranking and paired
comparison.
6. GRAPHIC RATINGS SCALE METHOD
The rater is given numeric scale indicating different degrees of a particular
trait. The rate is given a printed form for each employee to be rated. The form
contains several characteristics relating to the personality and performance of
employees. Intelligence, quality of work, leadership skills, judgment etc are some
of the characteristics. The rater records his judgment on the employee’s trait on
the scale. The numerical points given are added up, to find out his overall
10
performance standing in the group.
7. CHECK LIST
A checklist of statements that describe the characteristics and performance
of employee in his job. The rater checks to indicate if the behavior of an employee
is positive or negative to each statement. The performance of an employee is
rated on the basis of number of positive checks.
8. CRITICAL INCIDENT METHOD
In this method supervisor keeps a written record of critical (either good or
bad) events and how different employees behaved during such events. The rating
of an employee depends on his positive/negative behavior during these events.
9. GROUP APPRAISAL METHOS
Under this method, a group of evaluators assess the employees. This group
consists of the immediate supervisor of the employee, other supervisor having
close contact with the employee’s work, head of the department and a personnel
expert. The group determines the standards of performance for the job, measures
actual performance and offer suggestions for improvement in future.
10. FIELD REVIEW METHOD
In this method a training officer from the personnel department interviews
line supervisors to evaluate their respective subordinates, the interview prepares
in advance the questions to be asked. By answering these questions the
supervisors gives his opinion about the level of performance of his subordinate,
the subordinate work progress, his strength and weakness, promotion potential
etc. the evaluators takes detailed notes of the answers which are then approved by
the concerned supervisor. These are then placed in the employee personnel
11
service file.
MODERN METHODS
1. Appraisal by results MBO
This method has been evolved by “Peter Drucker”. MBO is potentially a
powerful philosophy of managing and an effective way for operationalising the
evaluation process.
MBO can be described as a “Process whereby the supervisor and subordinate
managers of an organization jointly identifies its common goals, define each
individuals major area of responsibility in terms of results expected of him and
use these measures as guides for operating the unit and assessing the contributions
of each of its members.
2. Assessment centre method
The assessment centre concept was initially applied to military situations
by Simoniet in the German Army in the1930 and the war office selection board of
the British Army in the year 1960s. The purpose of this method and is to test
candidate in a social situation. Assessments are made to determine employee
potential for purpose of promotion.
3. 360 degree performance appraisal
The appraisal may be any person who thorough knowledge about the job
has done by contents to be appraised. Standards of contents and who observes the
employee while performing a job. The 360 degree feedback is understood as
systematic collection of performance data on an individual or group, derived from
a number of stakeholders-the stakeholders being the immediate supervisors, team
12
members, customers, peers and self.
FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
According to Chakraborthy (1978) performance appraisal should be done with
caution. It is always advisable to make a preliminary survey of the following constraints
within which the employees of an organization are working.
1. Environmental constraints.
These are several environmental constraints, which may outside the control of
worker and to ignore this fact in judging his performance would be unjust. For example.
The quality of raw material in an organization may deteriorate over a period or the
machinery may break down unexpectedly. As a result, both productivity and quality may
suffer. But if selection of materials and maintenance of machinery are done at higher
levels in the organization the performance appraisal of the worker should not be affected.
2. Organizational leadership
The style of the top leadership of an organization should also be looked into. It is
nature of leadership at the top, which determines largely the loyalty and commitment of
employees to the goals of an organization for better performance. Employees at every
level become highly performance conscious. Performance appraisal under such
conditions is liked by everybody but in opposite conditions it is considered as an
imposition.
3. Interdependence of sub-systems
Since every organization is a big system composed of a number of interdependent
sub-systems, the success or failure of any one sub-system has got to be interpreted in the
context of all other sub-systems to which it is related. For example, the sub-standard
output of the production department may be due to the poor quality of purchases made by
13
the purchasing Department or the trouble may be at some higher level sub-systems where
planning for the production and purchase departments has been done.
It is precisely because of this interdependence of sub-systems that suggestion is
often made to start performance appraisal from the apex. This leads to more systematic
and logical cause-and-effect tracing of performance at all levels within the organization.
4. Organizational structure
Initiative, drive and innovation thrive best in a flexible structure. These qualities
do not receive encouragement in a rigid structure. This is because in this type of
structure the authority to approve innovation is often place several levels above the
people who innovate. This makes the proposal pass from person to person and robs the
information reaching the ultimate decision-makers of much of its logic and
understanding. What is needed is a direct relationship between the doer and approver.
No matter how strategically wise or strong a boxer is if he has to call New Delhi to clear
each punch during his fight in Udaipur, he is doomed. In rigid structures, ponderous
planning and controls make people give up innovating and become resigned and bitter.
Rather than beg for the acceptance of their innovative ideas they take their ideas and
creativity home and become dead wood at work.
ETHICS OF APPRAISAL SYSTEM
In any performance appraisal, due consideration must be given to the ethics of appraisal,
failing which many organizational problems may crop up and the very purpose of appraisal may be
defeated. M.S. Kellogg has suggested following do’s and don’ts.
1. Do not appraise without knowing why the appraisal is needed.
2. Appraise based on representative information.
3. Appraise on the basis of sufficient information
4. Appraise on the basis of relevant information
14
5. Be honest on your assessment of all the facts you have obtained.
6. Do not write one thing and say another.
7. In offering an appraisal, make it plain that this is only your personal opinion of the
facts as you see them;
8. Pass on appraisal information only to those who have good reason to want it;
9. Don’t imply the existence of an appraisal that has not been made
Do not accept another’s appraisal without knowing the basis on which it was
made.
PERFROMANCE APPRAISAL IN EUREKA FORBES LTD.
Performance Appraisal is not an important or easy management task and it should be
an once a easy management task and it should be an once a year event. The reason they
conduct Performance Appraisal in the first place in that they believe in accomplishing
two things.
1. Help employees to understand the quality of their current performance and
identify what they must to do to improve it.
2. Motivate employees to improve their performance.
Effective performance Appraisal has 3 basic components.
1 Planning (performance)
2 Managing (performance)
3 Appraising (performance)
1. PERFORMANCE PLANNING
It is the process of identifying desired performance and gaining employees
commitments to perform the organization expectations.
15
Performance planning clearly identifies the expected results as well as the behavior
and skills which are expected to demonstrate performance planning clearly identifies the
expected results as well as the behavior and skill which are expected to demonstrate,
provide a specific action plan and aimed at a clear target.
2. PERFORMANCE MANAGING
This is daily process of working towards the performance expectations established in
the planning phase together manager and employee review the employee’s performance
on a periodic basis.
3. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
It is both the beginning and the end poi9nt of performance management. The analysis
of past performance provides the basis for planning next years expectations and at the
same time it “close the loop” of the current cycle.
During this, employees come to know where they stand and what is expected of them
and what they need to achieve in the next performance period. The design also come to
know what results it can expect from their employees and what resource like training and
development, and counseling are needed to help than to achieve the desired results more
effectively.
16
2.OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of performance appraisal given to the employer
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
To understand the performance appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes Limited.
To ascertain the awareness level among the employees about the performance appraisal system adopted at Eureka Forbes
To confirm with the employees opinion about the performance appraisal system
To ascertain the ways and means to improve the performance appraisal at Eureka Forbes Limited
To improve the overall performance of the organization
To know the satisfactory level of the employer about performance appraisal
17
3.LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
While answering the questionnaire, respondents discussed with colleagues this would have influenced the original opinion of the respondents.
The study was conducted only in Eureka Forbes Limited and with in HR and Marketing Department. Hence limiting the scope of the finding only to Eureka Forbes Limited.
The respondents had a language barrier.
This study is also subject to sampling errors.
Since the data was collected using a questionnaire; there is a possibility of ambiguous replies or omission of replies.
18
4.SCOPE OF THE STUDY
o The study has been conducted with respect to effectiveness towards performance
appraisal system existing in the organization.
o This study is useful to know the strength and weakness of appraisal. Therefore,
the management can update the system with necessary changes.
o These finding of the study can be used for conducting further study.
o This study helps in giving suggestion to improve the efficiency of the
organization.
19
5.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
The aim of the study is to find out the level of awareness among the employees
about the performance appraisal system adopted in the organization and also to confirm
with their opinion about the system. Hence, it was decided to adopt the descriptive
research design for the purpose of the study.
UNIVERSE AND SAMPLE
The first step in developing any sample design is to clearly define the set of objects,
technically called as the universe.
At Eureka Forbes over 3000 employees are working. These 3000 employees were
considered as the universe and from these 200 respondents of HR Department were
considered as the samples.
TOOL OF DATA COLLECTION
A Structured questionnaire was used for collection of data. The questionnaire
contained questions on the following aspects:
1. Personal data
2. Knowledge and awareness on Performance appraisal system
3. Opinion on performance appraisal system
4. Suggestions
20
PRE-TESTING
In order to ascertain the validity of the tool of data collection. Viz., Questionnaire, a
pretesting was done by the researcher with ten of the respondents from the universe.
This pretesting was essential to find out the parts of the questionnaire, which was
lacking perfection. The exercise done in this regard is of real use for the researcher to
give the final touches to the questionnaire before taking it for final data collection.
Since the number of units in the universe was limited, the researcher decided to
include those ten units taken for pre-testing in the sample.
SOURCES OF DATA
On one hand since the study focuses on the components of Performance Appraisal
System, it was needed to seek the help of secondary sources of data, i.e., Books, articles,
to arrive at conceptual clarity of performance appraisal system.
On the other hand, the study was also concerned with finding out the level of
awareness prevailing among the employees about the performance appraisal system, the
primary sources of data i.e., the end users are taken into consideration.
DATA COLLECTION
The data collection was done in the month of February 2009. The researcher
personally went to the organization and collected the data from the respondents on the
basis of availability. Even though it was a questionnaire, the researcher had to personally
be with the respondents to give necessary clarifications with regard to the doubts raised
by the respondents on the different questions included in the questionnaire.
21
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The data was checked, edited and tested. The data was processed using a
computer package termed as Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The table
work has been created according to the respective headings as in questionnaire.
This was done to summarize the raw data to and to convert it into statistical
tables. Charts and tables have been used to highlight certain findings.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Through the study on the Performance Appraisal System the researcher has
made an attempt to study the different aspects of the appraisal system adopted at Eureka
Forbes.
The researcher also seeks to assess the awareness level among the employees
about the appraisal system adopted and their opinion on the same. Through this, the
researcher would find out the areas, which needs improvement in the present appraisal
system.
22
6.DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
TABLE NO. 1
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE
S. No Age (in years) No. of Respondents Percentage
1 21-30 22 11%
2 26-30 64 32%
3 31-40 82 41%
4 Above 40 32 16%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents by their age. It is seen that (41%)
most of the respondents fall under the age group of 31- 40 years. Of the left 59%, 32%
fall under the age group of 26-30 years. Where as 11% of the respondent fall under the
age group of 21-30 years and 16% fall under the age group of Above 40 years.
23
CHART-1
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE
11%
32%
41%
16%
No. of Respondents
21-3026-3031-40Above 40
24
TABLE NO. 2
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR SEX
S. No Sex No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Male 136 68%
2 Female 64 32%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 2 shows the distribution of the respondents by their sex. According to the
table it is clear that majority (68%) of the respondents are males. The remaining 32% are
females. Thus, it is clear that a majority of the respondents are males.
25
CHART-2
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR SEX
Male; Percentage; 68%
Female; Percentage; 32%
Percentage
Percentage
26
TABLE NO. 3
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DEPARTMENT
S. No Department No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Human Resources 48 24%
2 Marketing 106 53%
3 Administration 46 23%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 3 shows the departments in which respondents are placed. It is seen that
more than half (53%) of the respondents are in the Marketing department. Nearly one
fourth (24%) of the respondents are in the HR department and an equal percentage (23%)
are in the administration-oriented department.
27
CHART-3
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DEPARTMENT
Human Resources; Percentage; 24%
Marketing; Per-centage; 53%
Administration; Percentage; 23%
Percentage
Percentage
28
TABLE No. 4
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
S. No Educational
qualification
No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Up to 12th standard 34 17%
2 Diploma 40 20%
3 Under graduation 78 39%
4 Post graduation 48 24%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 4 shows that most of the respondents about (39%) have completed their
under graduation, about one fourth (24%) of the respondents have completed their post
graduation, about one fifth (20%) have done their diploma. and others about (17%) have
finished up to or below the twelfth standard.
29
CHART-4
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
Up to 12th standard; Percentage; 17%
Diploma; Percentage; 20%
Under graduation; Percentage; 39%
Post graduation; Percentage; 24%
Percentage
Percentage
30
TABLE NO. 5
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DESIGNATION
S. No Designation No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Executive 56 28%
2 Worker 90 45%
3 Staff 54 27%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 5 gives the designation of the respondents. It is inferred that most (45%) of
the respondents came under the worker category where as nearly one third (28%) of the
respondents come under the executive category and an almost equal percentage (27%)
come under the staff category.
31
CHART-5
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR DESIGNATION
Executive; Per-centage; 0.28; 28%
Worker; Per-centage; 0.45;
45%
Staff; Percentage; 0.27; 27%
Percentage
ExecutiveWorkerStaff
32
TABLE NO. 6
RESPONDENT BY THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
S. No Experience (years) No. of Respondents Percentage
1 0 – 3 52 26%
2 3 - 5 56 28%
3. Above 5 92 46%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 6 shows the years of experience of the respondents. From the table it is
inferred that most (46%) of the respondents have more than 5 years of experience .One
third (28%) of the respondents have 3 to 5 years of experience and an almost equal
percentage (26%) have up to 3 years of experience.
33
CHART-6
RESPONDENT BY THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
0 – 3; Percentage; 26%
5-Mar; Percentage; 28%
Above 5; Percentage; 46%
Percentage
Percentage
34
TABLE NO. 7
RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON CONCEPT OF
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
S. No Awareness on PAS Number of respondent Percentage
1. Yes 200 100%
2. N0 0 0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 7 shows the distribution of respondents by their awareness on the concept
of performance appraisal system. This table clearly shows that all (100%) the
respondents are aware of the concept performance appraisal system.
35
CHART-7
RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON CONCEPT OF
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Yes; Percentage; 100%
N0; Percentage; 0%
Percentage
Percentage
36
TABLE NO. 8
AWARENESS ON ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM AT
EUREKA FORBES
S. No Opinion No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Yes 192 96%
2 No 8 4%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 8 shows the distribution of the respondents by their awareness on the
established performance appraisal system at Eureka Forbes. The table shows that a very
great majority (96%) of the respondents are aware of the established performance
appraisal system at Eureka Forbes. The rest 4% of the respondents are not aware of the
above system. Thus, the table clearly shows that most of the respondents are aware of the
system.
37
CHART-8
AWARENESS ON ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM AT
EUREKA FORBES
Yes; Percentage; 96%
No; Percentage; 4%
Percentage
Percentage
38
TABLE NO. 9
RESPONDENTS BY THE TIME (STAGE) AT, WHICH THEY CAME TO
KNOW ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM
AT EUREKA FORBES
S. No Stage No. of respondents Percentage
1. Joining 39 19.5%
2. Induction 41 20.5%
3. Later stage 120 60.0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 9 gives the time at which the respondents came to know about performance
appraisal system at Eureka Forbes. It is interpreted that more than half (60%) of the
respondents came to know about the performance appraisal system in the later stage. One
fifth (19.5%) of the respondents came to know about the system at the time of joining and
an equal percentage (20.5%) at the time of joining.
39
CHART-9
RESPONDENTS BY THE TIME (STAGE) AT, WHICH THEY CAME TO
KNOW ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM
AT EUREKA FORBES
Joining; Percentage; 0.195; 20%
Induction; Percentage; 0.205; 21%
Later stage; Percentage;
0.6; 60%
Percentage
JoiningInductionLater stage
40
TABLE NO. 10
RESPONDENTS BY THE SOURCE OF COMING TO KNOW ABOUT THE
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM
S. No Source No. of respondents Percentage
1. Supervisor 59 29.5%
2 Colleagues 22 11%
3. Own initiates 10 5%
4. HR Department 109 54.5%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 10 gives the source through which the respondents came to know about the
performance appraisal system. It is seen that majority (54.5%) of the respondents came
to know about the system through the Head of the department. Where as nearly one third
(29.5%) of the respondents came to know about the system through their supervisor, an
almost one tenth (11%) through the colleagues and only 5% of them came to know
through their own initiates.
41
CHART-10
WHO DOES THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Supervisor; Per-centage; 30%
Colleagues; Per-centage; 11%
Own initiates; Percentage; 5%
HR Department; Percentage; 55%
Percentage
Percentage
42
TABLE NO. 11
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THEIR NEED FOR PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM
S. No Need for PAS No. of respondents Percentage
1. Yes 200 100%
2. No 0 0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 11 shows the opinion of the respondents on their need for the performance
appraisal system. It is seen that all (100%) of the respondents see the need for
performance appraisal system.
43
CHART-11
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THEIR NEED FOR PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM
Yes; Percentage; 100%
No; Percentage; 0%
Percentage
Percentage
44
TABLE NO. 12
RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON THE PERIODICITY OF APPRAISAL
ADOPTED AT EUREKA FORBES.
S. No Periodicity No. of respondent Percentage
1. Quarterly 0 0%
2. Half-yearly 0 0%
3. Annually 192 96%
4. No idea 8 4%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Through the secondary source, it is understood by the researcher that the appraisal
at Eureka Forbes is done on an annual basis. To confirm the respondent’s awareness on
the periodicity of the performance appraisal system was analyzed. It is seen from Table
12 that the appraisal done in Eureka Forbes is annual and this that almost all the
respondents are quite aware of the periodicity of appraisal.
45
CHART-12
RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ON THE PERIODICITY OF APPRAISAL
ADOPTED AT EUREKA FORBES.
Quarterly; Per-centage; 0%
Half-yearly; Per-centage; 0%
Annually; Per-centage; 96%
No idea; Percentage; 4%
Percentage
Percentage
46
TABLE NO. 13
RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ABOUT THE PERSON APPRAISING THE
PERFORMANCE
S. No Awareness about
appraiser
No. of respondent Percentage
1. Immediate supervisor 37 18.5%
2. H.O.D. 130 65.0%
3. HR Department 33 16.5%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 13 gives the awareness of the respondents about the person appraising their
performance. It is seen that most (65%) of the respondents are aware that their Head of
the department does the appraisal while nearly one fifth (18.5%) of the respondents are
aware that their immediate supervisor does the appraisal and an almost equal percentage
(16.5%) are aware that their Human resource department does the appraisal on their
program.
47
CHART-13
RESPONDENTS AWARENESS ABOUT THE PERSON APPRAISING THE
PERFORMANCE
Immediate supervisor; Percentage; 0.185; 19%
H.O.D.; Percentage; 0.65; 65%
HR Department; Percentage; 0.165;
17%
Percentage
Immediate supervisorH.O.D.HR Department
48
TABLE NO. 14
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM IN THE ORGANISATION
S. No Existing system No. of Respondents Percent
1. Simple 180 90%
2. Complex 5 3.5%
3. No idea 15 6.5%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 14 gives us the opinion of the respondents on the existing performance
appraisal system. Most of the respondents (90%) feel that the system is simple where as a
few (3.5%) of them feel that it is complex and only (6.5%) says that they have no idea.
49
CHART-14
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM IN THE ORGANISATION
Simple; Percentage; 90.00%
Complex; Percentage; 3.50%
No idea; Percentage; 6.50%
Percentage
Percentage
50
TABLE NO. 15
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE NATURE OF PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE EUREKA FORBES
S. No Nature No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Fully objective 114 57%
2. Fully subjective 16 8%
3 Partly objective and
partly subjective
70 35%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 15 gives the respondents opinion on the performance appraisal system.
From the above table it is found that more than half (57%) of the respondents feel that it
its fully objective where as about one third (35%) of the respondents feel that it is partly
objective and partly subjective and nearly one tenth (8%) of the respondents feel that it is
subjective.
51
CHART-15
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE NATURE OF PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE EUREKA FORBES
Fully objective; Percentage; 57%
Fully subjective; Percentage; 8%
Partly objective and partly subjective; Percentage; 35%
Percentage
Percentage
52
TABLE NO. 16
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY IN IDENTIFYING EMPLOYEES
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS
S. No Extent of opportunity No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Very large extent 11 5.5%
2 Large extent 123 61.5%
3. Some extent 63 31.5%
4. Not at all 3 1.5%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 16 gives the respondents opinion on the extent to which the appraisal
system provides opportunity in identifying the employees’ strength and weakness. It is
inferred that a majority (61.5%) of the respondents say that it provides opportunities to
identify the strength and weakness to a large extent. About one third (31.5%) of the
respondents say that opportunities are provided to some extent and a few (5.5%) say that
it provides opportunities to a very large extent. A very few (1.5%) say that the
performance appraisal system does not provide them with any opportunity.
53
CHART-16
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY IN IDENTIFYING EMPLOYEES
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS
Very large extent; Percentage; 5.50%
Large extent; Percentage;
61.50%
Some extent; Percentage;
31.50%
Not at all; Per-centage; 1.50%
Percentage
Percentage
54
TABLE NO. 17
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON EXTENT TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DISCOVERING EMPLOYEES POTENTIAL
S. No Discovering potential No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Strongly agree 16 8%
2 Agree 160 80.0%
3. Neither agree nor disagree 0 0%
4. Disagree 22 11%
5 Strongly disagree 2 1%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 17 shows that a great majority (80%) of the respondents agree that the
performance appraisal system helps in discovering the employees potential and about one
tenth (8%) of the respondents strongly agree that the performance appraisal discovers
employees potential and an almost equal percentage (11%) disagree and (1%) of them
strongly disagree with the same.
55
CHART-17
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON EXTENT TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN DISCOVERING EMPLOYEES POTENTIAL
Strongly agree; Percentage; 8.00%
Agree; Percentage; 80.00%
Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;
0.00%
Disagree; Percentage; 11.00%
Strongly disagree; Percentage; 1.00%
Percentage
Percentage
56
TABLE NO. 18
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM IN COMMUNICATING TOP MANAGEMENT PLANS GOALS TO
STAFF
S. No Opinion of the Respondents No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Strongly agree 26 13%
2, Agree 146 73%
3. Neither agree nor disagree 0 0%
4. Disagree 28 14%
5. Strongly agree 0 0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 18 gives the opinion of the respondents on the scope of performance
appraisal system in communicating the top management plans and goals to the staff. It is
seen that most (73%) of the respondents agree that the performance appraisal system is
helpful for communicating the top management plans to the staff. About one tenth (13%)
of the respondents strongly agree that performance appraisal system is helpful for
communicating top management goals to the staff and an almost equal percentage (14%)
disagree with the same.
57
CHART-18
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM IN COMMUNICATING TOP MANAGEMENT PLANS GOALS TO
STAFF
Strongly agree; Percentage; 13%
Agree; Percentage; 73%
Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;
0%
Disagree; Percentage; 14%
Strongly agree; Percentage; 0%
Percentage
Percentage
58
TABLE NO. 19
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE PAS IN IDENTIFYING THE EMPLOYEE
DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS.
S. No Opinion of the respondent No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Strongly agree 47 23.5%
2. Agree 150 75%
3 Neither agree nor disagree 0 0%
4. Disagree 3 1.5%
5. Strongly disagree 0 0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 19 shows opinion of the respondents on the use of the performance
appraisal system in identifying the employee developmental needs. It is observed that
majority (75%) of the respondents agree that performance appraisal system provides
opportunity in identifying the employees’ developmental needs. About one fifth (23.5%)
of the respondents strongly agree and the remaining few (1.5%) of the respondents
disagree that the performance appraisal system provides opportunity in identifying the
employee’s developmental needs.
59
CHART-19
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE PAS IN IDENTIFYING THE EMPLOYEE
DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS.
Strongly agree; Percentage; 24%
Agree; Percentage; 75%
Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;
0%
Disagree; Percentage; 2%
Strongly disagree; Percentage; 0%
Percentage
Percentage
60
TABLE NO. 20
RESPONDENTS BY THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING FEED BACK FROM
THE APPRAISER
S. No Possibility of Feedback No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Yes 187 93.5%
2. No 13 6.5%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 20 gives the opinion of the respondents on the possibility of getting
feedback from the appraiser. It is seen that most (93.5%) of the respondents say that there
is a possibility of getting a feedback from the appraiser while nearly one tenth (6.5%) say
that there is no possibility of getting a feedback.
61
CHART-20
RESPONDENTS BY THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING FEED BACK FROM
THE APPRAISER
Yes; Percentage; 0.935; 94%
No; Percentage; 0.065; 7%
Percentage
YesNo
62
TABLE NO. 21
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT OF FEEDBACK THEY GET
FROM THE SUPERVISOR.
S. No Extent of feedback Number Percentage
1. To a great extent 86 43%
2. To some extent 58 29%
3. Not at all 56 28%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 21 gives the opinion of the respondents on the extent of feedback from the
supervisor. It is seen that about two fifth (43%) of the respondents say that they receive
feedback to a great extent while nearly one third (29%) of the respondents say that they
receive feedback to some extent and an equal percentage (28%) say that they do not
receive feedback at all.
63
CHART-21
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE EXTENT OF FEEDBACK THEY GET FROM
THE SUPERVISOR.
To a great ex-tent; Series1;
0.43; 43%
To some extent; Series1; 0.29; 29%
Not at all; Series1;
0.28; 28%
Chart Title
Extent of feedbackTo a great extentTo some extentNot at all
64
TABLE NO. 22
RESPONDENTS SATISFACTION TOWARDS FEEDBACK GIVEN ON
DISCUSSION WITH THE SUPERVISOR
S. No Discussion on
feedback
Number Percentage
1. Fully 40 20%
2. Partly 103 51.5%
3. Not at all 57 28.5%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 22 gives the opinion of the respondents on the extent of discussion with the
supervisor about the feedback One fifth (20%) of the respondents say that it its fully
satisfactory and about half (51.5%) says that it is partly satisfactory. Nearly one third
(28.5%) say that the nature of discussion with the supervisor is not there at all.
65
CHART NO. 22
RESPONDENTS SATISFACTION TOWARDS FEEDBACK GIVEN ON
DISCUSSION WITH THE SUPERVISOR
Fully; Percentage; 20.00%
Partly; Percentage; 51.50%
Not at all; Per-centage; 28.50%
Percentage
Percentage
66
TABLE NO. 23
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AWARENESS ABOUT THE CRITERIA
ADOPTING FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM
S. No Respondents
awareness
Number Percentage
1. Very large extent 7 3.5%
2. Large extent 56 28.0%
3. Some extent 127 63.5%
4. Not at all 10 5.0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 23 gives the awareness of the respondents on the criteria adopted for
performance appraisal system. It is seen that most (63.5%) of the respondents have
awareness to a large extent and nearly one third (28.0%) of the respondents have
awareness to some extent. A very few 3.5 % have awareness to a very large extent and a
few (5%) do not have any awareness on criteria for the performance appraisal system.
67
CHART-23
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AWARENESS ABOUT THE CRITERIA ADOPTING
FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM
Very large extent; Percentage; 4%
Large extent; Percentage; 28%
Some extent; Percentage; 64%
Not at all; Per-centage; 5%
Percentage
Percentage
68
TABLE NO. 24
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON HIGH QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW
DISCUSSION
S. No Opinion Number of
respondents
Percentage
1 Strongly agree 13 6.5%
2. Agree 143 71.5%
3. Neither agree nor disagree 37 18.5%
4. Disagree 7 3.5%
5. Strongly disagree 0 0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 24 gives the opinion of the respondents on the nature of performance
review discussion. The analysis shows that most (71.5%) of the respondents agree that
the nature of performance review discussion is good while a few (6.5%) strongly agree to
it. Nearly of fifth (18.5%) neither agree nor disagree to the above statement while a very
few (3.5%) do not agree to the statement.
69
CHART -24
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON HIGH QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW
DISCUSSION
Strongly agree; Percentage; 6.50%
Agree; Percentage; 71.50%
Neither agree nor disagree; Percentage;
18.50%
Disagree; Percentage; 3.50% Strongly disagree;
Percentage; 0.00%
TOTAL; Percentage; 100.00%Percentage
Percentage
70
TABLE NO. 25
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM FOR THE PART OF GROWTH AND LEARNING.
S. No Growth and learning Number of
respondents
Percentage
1. Strongly agree 17 8.5%
2, Agree 150 75.0%
3. Neither agree nor disagree 20 10.0%
4. Disagree 13 6.5%
5. Strongly disagree 0 0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 25 gives the opinion of the respondents on the extent to which the
performance appraisal system facilitates growth and learning. It is inferred that most
(75%) of the respondents agree that the performance appraisal system facilitates growth
and learning and nearly one tenth (8.5%) strongly agree to it. One-tenth (10%) neither
agree nor disagree to the above said statement, while a few (6.5%) disagree to the
statement.
71
CHART-25
RESPONDENTS OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM FOR THE PART OF GROWTH AND LEARNING.
Percentage
Percentage
72
TABLE NO. 26
RESPONDENT OPINION ON BENEFIT OF PERFORMACNE APPRAISAL
S. No Beneficiaries Number of
respondents
Percentage
YES NO
1. Employees 200 0 100%
2. Employer 200 0 100%
3 Organization 200 0 100%
Inference:
Table 26 gives the opinion of the respondents on the benefits of the performance
appraisal system for the employee, employer and the organization. It is inferred that all
the respondents (100%) agree that the performance appraisal system benefits the
employee, employer and the organization to a great extent.
73
CHART NO. 26
RESPONDENT OPINION ON BENEFIT OF PERFORMACNE APPRAISAL
Employees; YES; 100% Employer; YES; 100%
Organization; YES; 100%
Employees; NO; 0 Employer; NO; 0 Organization; NO; 0
YESNO
74
TABLE NO. 27
RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION FROM HR DEPARTMENT
S. No HRD DEPARTMENT SHOULD
PROVIDE
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
PERCENTAGE
1. Guidelines and Introduction 80 40%
2. Only Introduction 57 28.5%
3. Only Training 47 23.5%`
4. Better Feedback 16 8.0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 27 gives the expectation of the respondents from the HR department. It is
observed that out of the two hundred respondents, two fifth (40%) of them prefer the
guideline and introductory course. Nearly one third (28.3%) of them prefer guideline and
introductory course and a few (8.3%) of them prefer better feedback from the appraiser.
75
CHART-27
RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION FROM HR
DEPARTMENT.
PERCENTAGE; 40.00%
PERCENTAGE; 28.50%
PERCENTAGE; 0.00%
PERCENTAGE; 8.00%
HRD DEPARTMENT SHOULD PROVIDEPERCENTAGE
76
TABLE NO. 28
RESPONDENTS EXPECTATON ON NATURE OF PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM
S. No Expectation Number of
respondents
Percentage
1. A more effective PAS should link
promotion and individual
development
140 70.0%
2 A more effective PAS should link
only promotion
60 30.0%
3. A more effective PAS should link
neither promotion nor individual
development
0 0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 28 gives the expectation of the respondents on the nature of performance
appraisal system. It is observed that out of the 200 respondents, most (70%) of them
prefer both promotion and individual development where as one third (30%) of them
prefer only promotion.
77
CHART-28
RESPONDENTS EXPECTATON ON NATURE OF PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL SYSTEM
A more effec-tive PAS
should link promotion
and individual development; Percentage;
0.7; 70%
A more effec-tive PAS
should link only promo-
tion; Per-centage; 0.3;
30%
Percentage
A more effective PAS should link promotion and individual de-velopmentA more effective PAS should link only promotionA more effective PAS should link neither promotion nor individual development
78
TABLE NO. 29
RESPONDENTS PREFERENCE ON THE FREQUENCY OF PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL
S. No Preferred
frequency
Number of respondents Percentage
1. Monthly 57 28.5%
2. Quarterly 106 53.0%
3. Annually 37 18.5%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 29 gives the preference of the respondents on the frequency of the use of
performance appraisal system. It is observed that out of the 200 respondents, more than
half (53.0%) of them prefer that the performance appraisal should be conducted once in
three months and nearly one third (28.5) of them prefer to use it on a monthly basis.
79
CHART-29
RESPONDENTS PREFERENCE ON THE FREQUENCY OF PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL
Monthly; Per-centage; 0.285;
28%
Quarterly; Percentage; 0.53; 53%
Annually; Percentage; 0.185; 19%
Percentage
MonthlyQuarterlyAnnually
80
TABLE NO. 30
RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION TOWARDS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM
S. No Focus area Number of
respondents
Percentage
1. Team work along with individual
performance
143 71.5%
2. Only teamwork 41 20.5%
3. Only individual performance 16 8.0%
TOTAL 200 100%
Inference:
Table 30 shows the expectations of the respondents towards the performance
appraisal system. It is observed that out of the 200 respondents, most (71.5%) of them
prefer teamwork along with individuals where as one fifth (20.5%) of the respondents
prefer only team performance and a few (8.0%) of the respondents prefer only individual
performance.
81
CHART- 30
RESPONDENTS EXPECTATION TOWARDS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM
Team work along with indi-vidual performance; Per-
centage; 0.715; 72%
Only teamwork; Percentage; 0.205; 21%
Only individual performance; Percentage; 0.08; 8%
Percentage
Team work along with individual performanceOnly teamworkOnly individual performance
82
7.FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter talks about the major findings of the study entitled “A Study on
effectiveness of performance appraisal system at Eureka Forbes Limited”. The findings
from the study are as given in this chapter.
A majority of the respondents in the organization fall between the age group of 31 years
to 40 years while a lesser percentage of the respondents fall under the category of 21
years - 30 years of age (Refer table 1).
Among the respondents majority of them (68%) are males while the remaining
(32%) are females. (Refer table 2)
A majority of the respondents (53%) belong to Marketing departments (Refer table 3)
Among the respondents about 39% of them have had their collegiate education (Refer
table 4)
Most (45%) of the respondents came under the worker category where as nearly one
fourth of the respondents come under the executive category. (Refer table 5)
It has been found that a majority (45%) of the respondents has more than 5 years of
experience. (Refer table 6)
From the data it has been found that all (100%) the respondents are aware of the concept
of Performance Appraisal System (Refer table 7)
It is found that majority of the respondents (96%) are aware of the performance appraisal
system in the organization. (Refer table 8)
From the data, it is found that most (60%) of the respondents have come to know about
the Performance Appraisal System only when the exercise was undertaken for the first
time in their career at Eureka Forbes ltd. and not before that. (Refer table 9)
It is seen that majority (54.5%) of the respondents came to know about the system
through the Head of the Department. Where as nearly one fifth of the respondents came
to know about the system through immediate supervisor. (Refer table 10)
83
It is seen that all (100%) of the respondents see the need for Performance Appraisal
System. (Refer table 11)
Almost all the respondents are aware of the periodicity of appraisal (i.e.) one year. (Refer
table 12)
Most (65%) of the respondents are aware that their Head of the Department does the
appraisal. (Refer table 13)
It is found that the most of the respondents (90%) feel that system is simple where as a
few of them feel that it is complex. (Refer table 14)
More than half of the respondents (57%) feel that the Performance Appraisal System
adopted at Eureka is fully objective. One third feels that it is partly objective and partly
subjective and few of the respondents feel that it is subjective. (Refer table 15)
Majority (61.5%) of the respondents say that Performance Appraisal System provides
opportunities to identify the strength and weakness of the employees to a large extent.
About one third of the respondents say that opportunities are provided to some extent
only. (Refer table 16)
Among the respondents a great majority of them agree that Performance Appraisal
System helps discovering the employee’s potential and about one tenth of the respondents
disagree with the same. (Refer table 17)
Most of the respondents (73%) agree that the Performance Appraisal System is helpful
for communicating top management plans to the staff where as about one tenth of the
respondents disagree with the same. (Refer table 18)
Majority (75%) of the respondents feel that Performance Appraisal System provides
opportunity to identify the employee’s developmental needs. (Refer table 19)
Majority (93.5%) of the respondents say that there is a possibility of getting feedback
from the appraiser while nearly one tenth (6.7%) say that there is no possibility of
getting feedback. (Refer table 20)
Majority of the respondent (43 %) say that they receive feedback to great extent and
about (29%) say that they receive feedback to a some extent while a (28 %) say that they
do not receive feedback at all (Refer table 21)
Majority of the respondents (51.5%) say that they partly discuss, about one fourth
(28.5%) say that they never discuss with the supervisor and (20%) of the respondents say
that they discuss with the supervisor about the feedback. (Refer table 22)
Most (63.5%) of the respondents have awareness to a some extent about criteria for
performance appraisal and nearly one third of the respondents have awareness to large
84
extent where as few (5%) do not have any awareness on the criteria for the performance
appraisal system (Refer table 23)
Most (71.5%) of the respondents agree that the nature of performance appraisal
discussion is good while a few strongly agree to it. Nearly one fifth neither agree nor
disagree to the above statement while a very few do not agree to the statement. (Refer
table 24)
Most (75%) of the respondents agree that the Performance Appraisal System facilitates
growth and learning and nearly one tenth strongly agree to it. One tenth of the
respondents neither agrees nor disagrees to the above said statement while a few disagree
to the statement. (Refer table 25)
All the respondents (100%) agree that Performance Appraisal System benefits the
employee, employer and organization to the some extent. (Refer table 26)
It is observed that majority (40%) of the respondents prefer guideline and introductory
course and a few of them prefer better feedback from the Human Resource Department.
(Refer table 27)
A vast majority of the respondents (70%) prefer that Performance Appraisal System
should enhance both promotion and individual development. (Refer table 28)
More than half (53%) of the respondents prefer that the Performance Appraisal should be
conducted once in three months. (Refer table 29)
It is observed that a vast majority (71.5%) of the respondents prefers that Performance
Appraisal System should focus on teamwork along with individuals. (Refer table 30)
85
8.CONCLUSION
From the study, we can come to certain conclusions.
1 It is seen that most of the respondents fall under the age group of 51-60 years
2 A majority of them belong to the Marketing and HR department.
3 Though a majority of the respondents are aware of the performance appraisal system
in the organization they have come to know about it only in the later stage. They also
invariably see the need for the performance appraisal system.
4 Most of the employees feel that performance appraisal system is objective and that it
provides opportunities to discover their potential.
5 They also accept that the performance appraisal system improves communication
within the organization.
6 Though a majority of the respondents say that they receive feedback from their
appraiser they are not very appreciative of the extent of feedback.
7 The employees express that the use of performance appraisal system can be improved
further for their betterment.
8 The employees’ welfare being the prime concern it should be made sure that the
performance appraisal system should be modified to suit the needs of the employees.
86
9.SUGGESTIONS
Though the existing performance appraisal system has been found to be fairly good
based on the response of the study, the researcher would like to give the following
suggestion to make the system more effective.
1. The performance appraisal system in the organization is conducted once in a year
and this is used mostly for administrative purpose like promotions, salary
increases etc., it is suggested that performance appraisal could be done at more
frequent intervals, so that it will provide feedback on a continuous basis.
2. It is suggested that individual employees may be informed about his /her
performance rating. A report on the assessment may be given to the individual
concerned to know about his strength and weakness. This will give an
opportunity to the employee to improve up on his strength and overcome his
weakness for further development.
3. It is suggested that performance appraisal should be used to; determine the
training needs of the employees. If particular employee is not performing up to
the expectation. A training program may enable them to correct any skill or
knowledge deficiencies. Employees who are performing well above the
requirements of the position can be placed in a development program that will
prepare them for promotion to a higher level.
4. Guidance and introductory course should be included. The performance appraisal
system should focus on the individual development and the concept of teamwork
along with individuals should be enhanced.
87
10. ANNEXURE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Subba Rao P. “Personnel/ Human Resource Management” Konark Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi- 1998.
Tripathi. P.C. “Human Resource Development” Sultan Chand & Sons, Delhi-2003.
Mamoria C.B. “Personnel Management” Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai- 2002
JOURNALS
Dr. Gurpiner Kaur. “Performance Appraisal is an indispensable management tool”
HRD Times - Volume 3, September 2001.
Mr. David king “Performance Appraisal to Performance Management” HRD times,
Volume 4, December 2002.
WEBPAGES
www. amanet.org
www.prehall.com
www.performance-appraisal.com
88