13 ZIJMR Vol2 Issue5 May 2012

7/27/2019 13 ZIJMR Vol2 Issue5 May 2012

1/11


2/11

ZENITH

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research

Vol.2 Issue 5, May 2012, ISSN 2231 5780

www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

136

Armstrong (2005) describes the role of performance appraisal as a tool for looking for-ward to

what needs to be done by people in the organisation in order to achieve purpose of the job, to

meet new challenges, better use of technology skills and attributes. In addition it will developboth organisational and individual capabilities and reach agreement on areas where performance

needs to be improved.

According to Dessler (2002), performance appraisal is defined as evaluating an employees

current or past performance relative to his or her performance standards. It therefore involves the

following:

Setting a work standard

Assessing the employees actual performance relative these standards.

Providing feedback to employee with the aim of motivating that person to eliminateperformance deficiencies or to continue to perform above par.

Performance appraisal aims to determine the relationship between the individual effort and

results, as well as between individual results and the attainment of organisational goals and

objectives. There is no ideal or standardized performance appraisal procedure since its scope

depends mainly upon the organisational goals and objectives and the purpose of the appraisal, aswell as on the skills of the appraisers and on the appraisal methods involved.

In the present paper some live case studies of selected ITES companies have been taken and their

performance appraisal systems with reference to its practices and processes have been evaluated.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Performance appraisal is a well-established way of providing milestones, feedback, guidance and

monitoring for staff. A further development is tying this appraisal into a larger and more

complex system of performance management (Weightman,1999). CIPD (2008d) support the

view that whilst performance appraisal is an important part of performance management, it isonly one tool amongst a range of tools that can be used to manage performance.

The performance appraisal is essentially a formal mechanism of reviewing individual employee

performance. Fletcher (2001) defines it as the activities through which organisations to assess

employees and develop their competence, enhance performance and distribute rewards.

OBJECTIVES

1. To critically examine the Performance Appraisal Systems of ITES companies withreference to its practices and processes at the different levels.

2. To draw the necessary findings in the light of the data analysed and interpreted.


3/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

137

CASE STUDY

In the present paper the selected ITES (Information Technology Enabled Services) Companies

from Pune region namely ZS Associates Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, IBM,

Patni, have been taken for study. The existing Performance Appraisal System of these selectedITES companies has been critically examined. The data required for this purpose has beenextracted through well-structured questionnaires

DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING

In order to fulfil the above mentioned objectives and to meet the requirement of the research the

data has been collected in the following ways:

PRIMARY DATA

QUESTIONNAIRE: Comprehensive structured questionnaire was designed for collecting the

data. The questionnaire was designed for the managers and executives working at the middle andtop level of management in ITES companies.

DIRECT INTERVIEW: The required information for the present research has been acquired

through direct interview of the officials working at the top management; the study has been

conducted objectively. The interviews were taken in an unstructured form and further analysis /outcome has been suitably presented

SAMPLING FRAME

The list of the ITES companies was taken from the yellow pages, which served as the frame for

the purpose of the study. This provided the complete list and companies were taken intoconsideration from the same.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE AND SAMPLE SIZE

Stratified sampling method was used to design sample. From the selected ITES companies, the

respondents were categorized into Managers or Executives working in these companies and

employees working under them. Random sampling was used to collect the data. The lists ofpersons working in these companies were taken and randomly respondents were selected to

collect the data.

SAMPLE PLAN

The total numbers of companies selected are 5. From each company random selection of 12employees is done.

LIST OF THE SELECTED ITES COMPANIES

In the present paper, the following companies have been taken for the study.


4/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

138

ZS Associates Ltd.,

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS),

Infosys,

IBM India Pvt. Ltd.

Patni Computer Systems

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND TOOLS USED

Filledup questionnaires were examined for their correctness and observed gaps were mitigated

through followup with the respondents. In the current research work, data related to research

topic was fed to the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences), and then various operationswere performed. Data analysis was done by using various statistical techniques such as

frequency, multiple responses, mean etc. in order to draw meaningful findings and conclusion.

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In the light of the above objectives stated the data analysis is presented in tabular format

[Table No. 1 to Table No. 6].

TABLE NO. 1: CRITERIAS CONSIDERED FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN

THE SELECTED ITES COMPANIES

Criteria ITES Companies

ZS

Associates

(%)

TCS

(%)

Infosys

(%)

IBM

(%)

Patni

(%)

Achievement of Objectives 12 12 -- 10 10

Ability of meeting defined

standards

14 14 -- -- --

Ability to meet deadlines 12 12 -- -- --

Output/Result of employees 5 5 25 25 25


5/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

139

Attitude towards the work 6 6 10 10

Core competency 15 15 30 30 30

Commitment 6 6 15

Technical Knowledge & Skills 15 15 30 25 25

Competency level 15 15 -- -- --

Total Percentage 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Survey

Ratings given by the respondents to the various aspects of their performance appraisal system

(PAS)

TABLE NO. 2: ZS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

Process of communicatingperformance standards

12 3 5 3.7500 .86603

Feedback Mechanism 12 1 4 3.250 1.3568

Performance Review Process 12 3 4 3.7500 45227


6/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

140

Clarity of Performanceappraisal System

12 1 4 2.0000 1.27920

Transparency of Performanceappraisal System 12 2 4 3.0000 1.04447

Valid N (listwise) 12

(Source: Survey)

Here the respondents were asked to rate the various aspects of their performance appraisal

system, where 1= poor, 2 = average, 3= good, 4= very good 5= the best.

While analysing these parameters the mean of the rating if it is above 0.5 percent then only it is

taken to the next rating (for e.g. if the mean comes 1.9 here rating received is somewherebetween 1&2 but it will be taken as 2, if the mean comes 1.4 here rating received is somewhere

between 1&2 but it will be taken to 1)

From the above analysis it is clear that the ratings given by the respondents to the process of

communicating performance standards and performance review process is somewhere between 3

to 4 hence it can be said that respondents view process of communicating performance standardsand performance review process as very good. Whereas a rating given for feedback mechanism

and transparency of performance appraisal system is 3 hence it is clear that respondents viewthese two aspects of performance appraisal system as good. Rating given to clarity of

performance appraisal system is 2; which indicates that respondents view it as average.

TABLE NO.3: TCS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS


Deviation

Process of communicating

performance standards

12 4 4 4.0000 .00000

Feedback Mechanism 12 3 4 3.417 .5149

Performance Review Process 12 2 4 3.5000 .90453


7/11


8/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

142

Clarity of Performance

appraisal System

12 3 5 4.1667 .57735

Transparency of Performance

appraisal System

12 2 5 3.5000 1.16775


(Source: Survey)

Here the respondents were asked to rate the various aspects of their performance appraisalsystem, where 1= poor, 2 = average, 3= good, 4= very good 5= the best.



between 1&2 but it will be taken to 1).

From the above table it is evident that, the ratings given by the respondents to process of

communicating standards and clarity of performance appraisal system is 4; hence it shows that

respondents view these two aspects of performance appraisal system as very good. Whereas the

ratings received by the feedback mechanism and performance review process fall between 3 and4 which clearly indicates that according to respondents feedback mechanism and performance

review process of their complete appraisal process is good while respondents have ratedtransparency of PAS somewhere between 3 and 4; hence it is assumed that respondents view it as

very good.


9/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

143

TABLE 5 : IBM DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS


Deviation

Process of communicatingperformance standards

12 3 4 3.9167 .28868


Performance Review Process 12 2 4 3.5000 .90453


appraisal System

12 3 4 3.9167 28868

Transparency of Performanceappraisal System

12 2 4 3.3333 98473


(Source: Survey)

Here the respondents were asked to rate the various aspects of their performance appraisal

system, where 1= poor, 2 = average, 3= good, 4= very good 5= the best.



between 1&2 but it will be taken to 1)

The ratings given to process of communicating performance standards, performance review

process and clarity of performance appraisal falls somewhere between 3 and 4 hence it can besaid that respondents think these three aspects of their performance appraisal process are very

good. While respondents have rated feedback mechanism and transparency somewhere between


10/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

144

3 and 4 hence it is indicated that respondents view these two aspects of their performance

appraisal process as good.

TABLE NO 6: PATNI DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS


Deviation

Process of communicating

performance standards

12 2 5 2.8333 .93744


Performance Review Process 12 2 5 2.9167 1.16450


appraisal System

12 .00 4 2.3333 .98473

Transparency of Performance

appraisal System

12 .00 3 1.9167 .66856


(Source: Survey)

Here the respondents were asked to rate the various aspects of their performance appraisalsystem, where 1= poor, 2 = average, 3= good, 4= very good 5= the best.



between 1&2 but it will be taken to 1).

From the above table it can be said that the respondents have rated process of communicating

performance standards, feedback mechanism and performance review process somewherebetween 2 and 3 hence it is considered that respondents view these three aspects of their

appraisal system as good. The rating given for clarity of performance appraisal process falls


11/11

ZENITH



www.zenithresear

ch.org.in

145

somewhere between 2 and 3 hence it is clear that respondents view it as average while

transparency of performance appraisal system is rated somewhere between 1 and 2 which means

respondents view it as average.

From the above data analysis it is being found that;

1. Output/Result, Core Competency are given due weightage while appraising theperformance of the employees.

2. The respondents of the majority companies have rated the process of communicatingstandards, feedback mechanism as very good.

3. Out of five selected ITES Companies; the respondents of majority of the companies i.e.4 out of 5 companies have expressed their positive response towards the various aspectsof their existing performance appraisal system such as performance review process,

clarity of performance appraisal system and transparency. In case of Patni Computer

Systems the respondents have expressed their dissatisfaction towards transparency andclarity of their existing performance appraisal system.

CONCLUSION

In this present paper, with the help of questionnaire analysis, the existing performance appraisalsystems of the selected ITES companies have been evaluated on the basis of criterias considered

for appraisal, process of communicating standards, feedback mechanism, and performance

review process, Clarity of performance appraisal process and transparency of performanceappraisal process. It appears that the respondents of the majority of selected ITES companies are

in agreement with their existing performance appraisal system.

REFERENCES

1. Armstrong, M. and Baron A. (2005), Managing performance: performancemanagement in action , CIPD, London.

2. CIPD. (2008d), Performance Appraisal , Factsheet, CIPD.3. Dessler G. (2002), A Framework for Human Resource Management , Rajkamal

Electric Press, India.

4. Fletcher C. (2001), Performance appraisal and management: The developing researchagenda Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74, 4, 473-487.

5. Weightman, J. (1999), Managing People and Organisation, Institute of Personnel andDevelopment, London

13 ZIJMR Vol2 Issue5 May 2012

Documents

Transcript of 13 ZIJMR Vol2 Issue5 May 2012