Introduction: Organizations, whatever be their size or ownership type or nature of their output, have in place a performance evaluation system to evaluate their employees’ contribution to the organization and to award and reward (or punish) their employees over and above the salary that they pay their employees. The nature of the evaluation system would vary from organization to organization, ranging from informal to formal systems, from unstructured to highly structured mechanisms and from rudimentary to most sophisticated systems. The system in vogue in an organization has an impact on its employees – on their performance, their performance efficiency and their satisfaction levels. Thus the utility value of the performance evaluation system practiced in and on the organization is very “High”. In view of such a criticality, a number of studies have been taken up and conducted on the impact of the performance evaluation system on employees. Here we present a study on the satisfaction level of a set of employees who are officers in a government undertaking arising out of the performance evaluation system adopted by the organization. Being a progressive organization, the organization practices a collaborative approach in its performance evaluation system. On account of this, this study has been conducted by the authors in this Organization, using the questionnaire method, to assess the satisfaction level of the population; with the performance evaluation system that they are subjected to. Practice in Vogue: This Case-Study is limited to the officer category of the employees of the Unit which has been considered for this Study. The officer category is considered under three tiers for this Study. The bottom one being the first line executives and the top one being the set of officers reporting directly to the Chief Executive Officer (designated as Direct Reporting Officers), with the middle management officers in between these two tiers. The Unit’s performance targets are driven by the Annual Balanced Score Card (BSC) which sets the operational and strategic targets for the year in terms of short term objectives and long term objectives classified under four heads viz. Financial Perspective, Customer Perspective, Internal Process Perspective and Strategic Perspective. The Organization’s Score Card flows down from the Corporate Level Score Card which in turn is derived from the Memorandum of Performance signed by the Organization with the Government of India. The Unit level targets are fixed by the top management in consultation with the corporate functions. The Unit’s Score Card is cascaded down to the Score Card of the top management i.e. the direct reporting officers. While the Unit level targets are generally taken as such by all the top officers especially the financial and customer perspective key result areas, the targets specific to their function are also picked up. The respective function specific targets are approved by the CEO. The targets are set at five levels, with the approach that the budgeted targets are kept at level 4 and the stretched target at level 5, which is the highest level. The weights for each parameter of the BSC add up to a score of 100 marks. For the middle management and the line officers, the system involves picking up Key Result Areas (KRA) from the data bank of responsibilities. The data bank has identified routine responsibilities and critical responsibilities. The individual (the Appraisee) picks up the KRAs from the KRA bank and sets his or her 5 level targets consistent with the Unit BSC. The system is so designed that a specified share of critical KRAs have to be picked to form the part of the performance system. For the middle management the critical KRAs is a larger portion compared to that of the first line officers. The officers have the flexibility of fixing the weights for each KRA within a defined band and they have to keep on adding the KRAs into their performance target till the total weight stands at 100 and the ratio of the critical to routine is ensured as specified. Once the performance targets are selected by the Appraisee, the targets picked up moves up to his or her controlling officer who appraises the targets set for himself by the Appraisee. The Appraiser, if he is satisfied with the targets and KRAs selected by the Appraisee, (checking for its consistency with respect to the Unit Score Card and the Department’s Objectives) clears it. On clearance, the target moves up to the next level officer who reviews the targets and KRAs selected by the Appraisee. If the Reviewer finds that the selection of the KRAs and the targets set are satisfactory, approves it and then the targets so taken by the Appraisee, become the basis for annual evaluation of the performance of the Appraisee. If at the first stage of appraisal or at the first stage of the review, the Appraiser or the Reviewer is not satisfied with the selection of the Appraisee, the Appraiser or the Reviewer can return the target set back to the Appraisee for suitably modifying his or her KRA and / or the targets taken. Through discussions between the Appraiser / Appraisee or the Reviewer / Apparisee a mutually accepted performance score card is adopted by the Appraisee. The Performance parameters are kept on a computer system and are available for the Appraisee on 24 x 7 after the Reviewer accepts the proposal of the Appraisee for the parameters chosen by the Appraisee and the targets mutually arrived at. The evaluation of the performance is done at two stages - a mid-year review and the final year-end review. The Appraisee fills up his progressed level for the first (mid-year) review along with his plan for achieving his targets by the end of the year. This is appraised by the Appraiser and reviewed by the Reviewer. As at the time of selection of the KRAs and setting the targets, if either the Appraiser or the Reviewer does not agree with the Appraisee, the evaluation generated by the Appraisee is sent back to him / her for re-visiting his / her assessment of his / her progress. The Appraiser / Appraisee or the Reviewer / Appraisee discuss the achievement claimed by the Appraisee and arrive at the consensus value. The Appraiser and the Reviewer have at this time, the wherewithal to guide the Appraisee appropriately so that the Appraisee would be able to make mid-course corrections required so that he / she would be able to meet the targets adopted by the Appraisee, by the end of the assessment year. The final review is carried out at the end of the year, following the same process as that of the mid-year review. The entire process is carried out on an internet based platform. This in brief is the performance evaluation system followed by the company, where this case study was made / developed. The strength of this system is that the evaluation parameters and the target set for each parameter is jointly and collaboratively finalized by the Apparisee; duly appraised by the Appraiser and reviewed and approved by the Reviewer. During the Annual Review and the mid-year review, the Appraiser also fills up his assessment of the Appraisee for his / her other functional and strategic skills and also identifies the training needs of the Appraisee. The assessment of the Appraiser is reviewed by the Review Officer. After the annual performance cycle is fully completed, the scores are transparently made available to the Appraiser. (Note: The Scores later on, has a bearing on the ‘promotion’ prospects and the performance pay of the Appraisees.) This case-study has been carried out to study the satisfaction level of the users of this System. Research Design Population Size “N”: The Officers working in the Unit. The Size of the population is 450. Required Sample Size: (as computed using a freely available online tool[1]): 207 (See Appendix 1 for the output) Actual sample size “n”: 200 Confidence level selected: 90% Strata: 3 (First line executives, Middle order executives and the top executives). Sampling: Simple Random Sampling. Tools used: Percentages, Z test, F test and Student’s t Test. Resources for the tools: Online calculators and MS Excel. Methodology: Questionnaire Method. Literature Survey: The questionnaire for this case-study is adopted from the dissertation work of Ms. Marie Burns Walsh, December 2003 (“Perceived fairness of and satisfaction with employee performance appraisal[2]”). There are many definitions for Performance Appraisals. Performance appraisal is one of the popular concepts among the multinational and local companies. The concept has been defined by DeVries (1981) as the process which allows firms to measure and consequently evaluate an employee’s achievements and behavior over a certain period of time. The basic purpose of using performance appraisal techniques within an organization is to align the employee’s efforts with the overall objective of the firm[3]. According to Flippo, "Performance appraisal is the systematic, periodic and an impartial rating of an employee’s excellence in the matters pertaining to his present job and his potential for a better job."[4] Scott and Clothier (2008) say that, “Performance appraisal is the process of evaluating an employee’s performance of a job in terms of its requirements.” “Appraisals regularly record an assessment of an employee’s performance, potential and development needs. The appraisal is an opportunity to take an overall view of work content, loads and volumes, to look back on what has been achieved during the reporting period and agree objectives for the next.[5]” Performance appraisals are essential for the effective management and evaluation of staff. Appraisals help develop individuals, improve organizational performance, and feed into business planning. Formal performance appraisals are generally conducted annually for all staff in the organization. Each staff member is appraised by their line manager. Directors are appraised by the CEO, who is appraised by the chairman or company owners, depending on the size and structure of the organization[6]. According to a number of researchers, the enhanced and upgraded performance appraisal procedure and method will enhance the satisfaction level of the employees and definitely will improve the process of goal setting within the organization[7]. And how should organizations approach in adopting a performance evaluation system, considering that it is the key for an organization’s survival and growth. “Performance appraisals should be positive experiences. The appraisals process provides the platform for development and motivation, so organizations should foster a feeling that performance appraisals are positive opportunities, in order to get the best out of the people and the process.”[8] What should be the features of a good performance management system? A good employee performance appraisal system needs to align individual goals with the overall organization goals through a system of cascaded goal setting. Supporting these goals is a system of assessing and developing mapped role competencies. Also importantly, the success of any appraisal system lies in its objectivity and timeliness which requires both confidentiality as well as transparency. “Collating individual employee ratings for elimination of the several biases, normalization of ratings and eventually translating performance ratings into bonuses, variable pay, increments and promotions are a daunting task that takes over the lives of the HR team. It is well established that frequent reviews and feedback improve performance but this benefit often has to be compromised due to the sheer effort involved in each review cycle”[9]. “A good performance appraisal system should focus on the individual and his development, besides helping him to achieve the desired performance. This means that while the results are important the organization should also examine and prepare its human capital to achieve this result. This holds true even for new inductees”[10]. According to Subburaj (2012) “leading organizations do not stop at collecting the performance data, but use them. They use the performance measurement data to drive improvements and successfully translate strategy into action.[11]” Research Questions It is hypothesized (H0) that employees would not be satisfied with collaborative type performance evaluation system. It is hypothesized (H0) that there is no difference between the perception of employees on what they should get as their performance score and what they actually achieve in collaborative type performance evaluation system. To evaluate the first research question, the perception of employees covered under this type of evaluation system is obtained under 9 heads. They are:
Data Analysis: The response received is tabulated on a Master Table on MS Excel Spreadsheet and are analyzed using statistical tool available in MS Excel and other free online calculators. The output is given in Appendix II. 1] For the research question 1, the two tailed ‘p’ value obtained through the z test is less than 0.0001 2] For the research question 2, the computed F value is 0.2362 Each of the 9 parameters listed above were tested using the Student’s t test and the t probability values are tabulated below: Table: 1 ’t’ probability values Findings: From the output of the data analysis it is found that:
Recommendation: Based on the findings, it is recommended that Appraisers have to be sensitized to the rating process so that they are not only fair to the users but also appear fair to them. Conclusion: This case study shows that a collaborative style of performance management system which allows the user to develop his / her own targets consistent with the organization’s goals leads to all round satisfaction of the users, with an added caution that the superior officers have to be trained to approach the methodology of giving the rating in manner that appears fair to the Users. Acknowledgements This case-study was conducted in a leading progressive public sector organization. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the system adopted by the organization, the name of the organization is masked in this presentation. The authors thank the organization for having permitted to conduct the survey among its officer cadre. The authors also thank, Ms. Jothi erstwhile student of Auxilium College, Vellore who has taken the efforts of collecting the data for this Study. Bibliography: Decenzo David and P. Robbins Stephen, “Performance Appraisal”, Human Resource Development, First Edition, Prentice-Hall Of India, New Delhi, 1988, pg.259. Dr. B Rathan Reddy, “Performance Appraisal”, Effective – Human Resoures Training and Development Strategy, First Edition, Himalaya Publishing House, 2005, pg. 169 Dr. P Murali Krishna, “Performance Appraisal”, Human Resource Development, First Edition, Discovery Publishing House, 1998, pg. 77. Jeffrey Mello, Human Resource Management, Peebence Dare Shunt, Singapore, Third Edition,2012 Page No.312 K. Aswathappa, “Performance Appraisal”, Human Resource and Personnel Management, 3rd Edition, Tata Mc Graw Hill, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 199. Koontz, O’Donnell, Weihrich, “Performance Appraisal”, Essentials of Management, Fourth Edition, Mc Graw – Hill Series in Management, New York 2000 pg. 313. P.N Subramani and G Rajendran, “Performance Appraisal”, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, First Edition, R.S. Publications, 2001, pg.65. S. Schuler Randall, “Performance Appraisal”, Personnel and Human Resource Management, West Publishing, New York, 1981, pg. 221. Shoeb Ahmed, “Performance Appraisal”, New Dimensions in Human Resource Management, First Edition, Discovery Publication House, 2000, pg. 57. Subburaj Ramaswamy, “Performance Appraisal”, Total Quality Management, Second Reprint, Tata Mc Graw- Hill Publishing ltd, New Delhi, 2012pg.9.13. W.D.Scott, R.C.Clothier, and W.R.Spreigel, “Performance Appraisal Systems”, Modern Human Resource Management, First Edition, Regal Publications, 2008, pg. 185. Appendix I Output from http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#one Appendix II
Output of Statistical Calculations: Calculator: http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest/ Population Sample Mean 224 169.36 Standard deviation 38 Sample size 200 Alpha 0.05 Tail / side Both Result z-value -20.3349 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 229.2664 lower 218.7336 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Calculator: http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=98 Part I t-value 19.953 degrees of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 16.5633 lower 15.4367 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Part II t-value 19.7822 degrees of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 24.4685 lower 23.5315 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Part III t-value -28.2843 degrees of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 21.7669 lower 20.2331 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Part IV t-value -45.8205 degrees of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 13.148 lower 12.172 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Part V t-value -26.9986 degrees of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 22.3737 lower 20.2263 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Part VI t-value -19.9941 degress of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 28.9131 lower 26.4869 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Part VII t-value -8.7029 degress of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 14.1438 lower 13.0562 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Part VIII t-value 1.0999 degress of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value 0.2727 95% confidence intervals upper 21.9099 lower 16.8901 The two samples are not significantly different. (Accept Null Hypothesis). Part XI t-value 4.2426 degrees of freedom 199 two-tailed p-value < 0.0001 95% confidence intervals upper 25.3837 lower 23.2363 The two samples are significantly different. (Reject Null Hypo) Performance Scores Tool: MS Excel. F Test F test 0.23619331 Do not reject the H0 Test for Actual Score vs Anticipated Score --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#one [2] etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1106103-172944/.../Walsh_dis.pdf [3] http://www.articlesbase.com/businessarticles/popular-concepts-test-the-effectiveness-of-performance-appraisals-1241733.htm [4] http://www.managementstudyguide.com/performance-appraisal-tools.htm [5] Scott,W.D, Clothier,R.C., and Spreigel, W.R. “Performance Appraisal Systems”, Modern Human Resource Management, First Edition, Regal Publications, 2008, pg. 185. [6] http://www.businessballs.com/performanceappraisals.htm [7] G.E Roberts., “The Influence of Participation, Goal Setting, Feedback and Acceptance on Measures of Performance Appraisal Effectiveness,”, Dissertation Abstracts International (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1990 [8] http://www.citehr.com/performance-appraisal-management-f60.html [9] http://www.employwise.com/product/performance-management.html [10] http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles_various/performance-appraisal.asp [11] Ramaswamy ,Subburaj “Performance Appraisal”, Total Quality Management”
0 Comments
|
AuthorCyril Fernandez ArchivesCategories |