13 ZIJMR Vol2 Issue5 May 2012

ZENITH
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.2 Issue 5, May 2012, ISSN 2231 5780
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM OF THE SELECTED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES (ITES) COMPANIES
SHREYA RUSTUM VIRANI*
*Assistant Professor, Jayawantrao Sawant College of Engineering, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
ABSTRACT In recent years, performance management has become more important because managers are under constant pressure to improve the performance of their organisations. It is now realised that the performance of organisations influence the organisations continued existence and success. The increasing realisation that one of the key roles of managers is to manage employees performance is the key to the success of management in general and performance management in particular. It is now well accepted that performance management is a wider concept than performance appraisal. Appraisal being part of performance management plays a vital role in encouraging desirable performance and discourages undesirable performances before they become ingrained. Performance appraisal is a systematic and objective way of judging the relative worth or ability of an employee in performing his job. With above aim in view, the researcher has made an attempt in this work to gather and critically examine the valuable inputs from various representative ITES companies and carry out a deductive/inductive analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data for arriving at desired results. The researcher has done detailed analysis of performance appraisal system of the selected ITES companies. This research comes up with a view that the respondents of the selected ITES companies are in agreement with their existing performance appraisal system. KEYWORDS: Performance Management, Performance appraisal system, Case study, ITES Companies. ______________________________________________________________________________
www.zenithresearch.org.in
INTRODUCTION Due to rapid globalisation of world economy, the context and paradigm of performance in the organisational perspective has undergone sea change. Organisations now have to face competitive pressures, uncertainty, and dynamic environment and above all rising expectations of the customers that includes the external as well as internal customers. These factors have compelled organisations to manage performance of employees for achieving and sustaining their competitiveness. Performance is a behaviour that leads to results. Performance of an employee does not happen in isolation or without adequate reason. There are casual factors which include employee to perform better. Such factors are motivation, leadership, reward and compensation system, promotion system, training and development etc.
135
ZENITH
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 develop both 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 eliminate performance 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, as well 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 is only 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 with reference to its practices and processes at the different levels. 2. To draw the necessary findings in the light of the data analysed and interpreted.
136
ZENITH
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 selected ITES companies has been critically examined. The data required for this purpose has been extracted 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 and top 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 into consideration 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 of persons 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 12 employees is done. LIST OF THE SELECTED ITES COMPANIES In the present paper, the following companies have been taken for the study.
137
ZENITH
ZS Associates Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Patni Computer Systems RESEARCH METHODOLOGY METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND TOOLS USED Filled up questionnaires were examined for their correctness and observed gaps were mitigated through follow up 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 operations were 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 ZS Associates (%) (%) Achievement of Objectives Ability of meeting defined standards Ability to meet deadlines 12 14 12 12 14 12 (%) ---(%) 10 --(%)
ITES Companies TCS Infosys IBM Patni
10 ---
Output/Result of employees
25
25
25
138
ZENITH
Attitude towards the work
10
10
Core competency
15
15
30
30
30
Commitment
15
Technical Knowledge & Skills
15
15
30
25
25
Competency level Total Percentage
15 100
15 100
-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 communicating performance standards Feedback Mechanism 12 3 5 3.7500 .86603
12
3.250
1.3568
Performance Review Process
12
3.7500
45227
139
ZENITH
Clarity of Performance appraisal System Transparency of Performance appraisal System
12
2.0000
1.27920
12
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 somewhere between 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 standards and 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 view these 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 Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Process of communicating performance standards Feedback Mechanism 12 4 4 4.0000 .00000
12
3.417
.5149
12
3.5000
.90453
140
ZENITH
Clarity of Performance appraisal System Transparency of Performance appraisal System Valid N (listwise) (Source: Survey)
12
4.0000
.00000
12
3.5000
.90453
12
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 somewhere between 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 clarity of performance appraisal process is 4 hence it can be said that respondents view process of communicating performance standards and clarity of performance appraisal as very good. Whereas a rating given for performance review process and transparency of performance appraisal process is somewhere between 3 and 4 hence it can be said that respondents view these two aspects of their performance appraisal process as very good. Rating given to feedback mechanism indicates that respondents view it as good. TABLE NO.4: INFOSYS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Process of communicating performance standards
12
4.0833
.51493
Feedback Mechanism
12
3.417
.5149
12
3.417
1.07309
141
ZENITH
Clarity of Performance appraisal System Transparency of Performance appraisal System Valid N (listwise)
12
4.1667
.57735
12
3.5000
1.16775
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 somewhere between 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 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 and 4 which clearly indicates that according to respondents feedback mechanism and performance review process of their complete appraisal process is good while respondents have rated transparency of PAS somewhere between 3 and 4; hence it is assumed that respondents view it as very good.
142
ZENITH
TABLE 5 : IBM DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Process of communicating performance standards 12 3 4 3.9167 .28868
Feedback Mechanism
12
3.417
.5149
12
3.5000
.90453
Clarity of Performance appraisal System
12
3.9167
28868
Transparency of Performance appraisal System
12
3.3333
98473
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 somewhere between 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) 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 be said that respondents think these three aspects of their performance appraisal process are very good. While respondents have rated feedback mechanism and transparency somewhere between
143
ZENITH
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 Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Process of communicating performance standards Feedback Mechanism 12 2 5 2.8333 .93744
12
2.667
.6513
12
2.9167
1.16450
Clarity of Performance appraisal System Transparency of Performance appraisal System Valid N (listwise)
12
.00
2.3333
.98473
12
.00
1.9167
.66856
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 somewhere between 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 table it can be said that the respondents have rated process of communicating performance standards, feedback mechanism and performance review process somewhere between 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
144
ZENITH
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 the performance of the employees. 2. The respondents of the majority companies have rated the process of communicating standards, 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 aspects of 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 and clarity of their existing performance appraisal system. CONCLUSION In this present paper, with the help of questionnaire analysis, the existing performance appraisal systems 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 performance appraisal 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: performance management 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 resear ch agenda Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74, 4, 473-487. 5. Weightman, J. (1999), Managing People and Organisation, Institute of Personnel and Development, London
145

13 ZIJMR Vol2 Issue5 May 2012

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

13 ZIJMR Vol2 Issue5 May 2012

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ZENITH

ITES Companies TCS Infosys IBM Patni

Attitude towards the work

Technical Knowledge & Skills

Competency level Total Percentage

Performance Review Process

Clarity of Performance appraisal System Transparency of Performance appraisal System

Performance Review Process

Process of communicating performance standards

Performance Review Process

Performance Review Process

Clarity of Performance appraisal System

Transparency of Performance appraisal System

Performance Review Process

Potrebbero piacerti anche