A PROJECT REPORT ON

A Study on Performance Management

AT

Info Edge India Ltd.,

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO

Institute of Management Technology

Ghaziabad

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE IN

MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

SUBMITTED

BY

_________________________________

_______________________________

Institute of Management Technology; Ghaziabad

2014-2016
 DECLARATION

I the undersigned solemnly declare that the report of the summer

training work entitled study on
“_____________________________________________” is based on my
work carried out during the course of my study under the supervision of
________________________________ ,
_____________________________________&
Mrs_______________________________, Faculty, Department of
Management. Villa Marie Degree College

I assert that the statements made and conclusions drawn are an

outcome of the project work. I further declare that to the best of my
knowledge and believe the project report does not contain any part of any
work which has been submitted for the award of any other degree/ diploma/
certificate in this university or any other university.

_______________________

(Signature of the student)

DATE:

PLACE:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am extremely grateful to Principal Dr. Y. Philomena and the Department of

M.B.A for giving me the opportunity of learning through this research
project. It has been an excellent and rewarding experience, and has
immensely increased my knowledge.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my project guide

and mentor, Ms.____________________, Head of Department, Department
of Business Administration, for her support, guidance and encouragement.

I would also like to extend special thanks to my family and friends who have
been a constant source of support and encouragement. Without them, this
project would not have been materialized.

_______________________

(Signature of the student)

DATE:

PLACE:
 Table of Contents

Chapter – I : Introduction

Objectives of the Study

Need of the Study

Scope of the Study

Statement Problem

Limitations of the Study

Chapter – II Theoretical Framework

Chapter – III Research Methodology

Chapter – IV Company Profile & Industry Profile

Chapter – V Data Analysis & Interpretation

Chapter – VI Findings & Recommendations

Chapter – VII Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix

Abstract

I take this responsibility to express my profound and sincere gratitude to IMT

CDL for providing me the opportunity to explore the corridors of corporate
world and gather valuable knowledge and practical experience via Project. I
take the privilege of offering a deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to
PRERNA RATURI (Senior Manager-HR), INFO EDGE INDIA LTD. for providing
me her able guidance and inspiration to complete the Report.

Ms. PRERNA RATURI (Senior Manager-HR) who guided me how to carry on

with the project. Her able guidance and support have been constant source
of knowledge and motivation for me. Last but not the least; I would like to
thank all the employees of INFO EDGE INDIA LTD. for their valuable
suggestions and constant encouragement. The expertise in this study
belongs to those listed above. Any errors are mine.

Chapter – I

Introduction

Introduction:

Globalization of economy has put the organizations under tough

competition. Thus survival depends on the performance. We may consider
performance of the organizations the sum of the total performance of each
individual. In fact, performance management today occupies an important
role.

Global economy forced organizations to be more and more

competitive and the last word of competitiveness is performance-a
performance with result. Thus performance management is a managerial
function for planning, managing, improving, appraising and rewarding one’s
performance

Some of the Important features of performance Management are:-

 Performance Management is the systematic description of an

employee job relevant strengths and weakness.
 The basic purpose is to find out how well the employee is
performing the job and establish a plan of improvement.
 Managements are arranged periodically according to a
definite plan.
 Performance Management is not job evaluation. Performance
Management refers to how well some one is doing the job. Job
evaluation determines how much a job is worth to the organization
and, therefore, what range of pay should be assigned to the job.
Objectives of the Study:

 To evaluate the efficient performance Management system of

Info Edge India limited.
 To identify the satisfaction level of the employees and also to
examine the employees attitude towards the Management system
and management of the company.
 To diagnose the strength and weakness of individual so as to
identify the training and development needs of the future.
 To provide feedback to the employee regarding their past
performance and also suggestions to improve it in the future.
Scope of the Study:

The scope of the study is confined to the employees of Info Edge India ltd.,
and in few cases I have collected data through verbal discussion with Higher
officials of the organization.

1. Provide information about the performance ranks basing on

which decision regarding alary fixation, confirmation, promotion,
transfer and demotion are taken.
2. Provide feed back information about the level of achievement
and behaviour of the subordinate. This information helps to
review the performance of the subordinate. Rectifying
performance deficiencies and setting new standards of work, if
necessary.
3. Provide information that may help to counsel the subordinate
4. Provide information to diagnose deficiency in employee
regarding skills, knowledge, to determine training and
developmental needs and to prescribe the means for employee
growth and provide information for correct placement.
Need of the Study:

1. To create and maintain a satisfactory level of performance.

2. To contribute to the employee growth and development
through training, self and management development
programmers.
3. To help the superiors to have a proper understanding about
their subordinates.
4. To guide the job changes with the help of continuous ranking.
 5. To facilitate fair and equitable compensation based on
performance.
6. To facilitate testing and validating selection tests, interview
techniques through comparing their scores with performance
Management ranks.
7. To provide information for making decisions regarding lay off,
retrenchment, etc.
8. To ensure organization effectiveness through correcting
employee for standard and improved performances, and
suggesting the change in employee behaviour

Briefly, three purposes are generally achieved through performance

measurement i.e. alignment, adaptation and achievement. By alignment, we
mean that the position of man in relation to the organization should be lined
up in such a way that each shall render support to other for development
and growth. Adaptation refers to human transformation to match with the
organizations needs. It is an act of changing ones behavior to make it
suitable for a new purpose. Achievement is something more than
completion of the task, it is the human success ‘in doing’ something in a
desired way to produce greatly.

Statement Problem:

Info Edge has an in-depth understanding of the Indian consumer internet

domain. With years of experience in the domain, strong cash flow
generation, a diversified business portfolio and a market capitalization of INR
80 billion, it one of the very few profitable pure play internet companies in
the country. In spite of having strong financial and technical background it is
still facing problem of brain drain. The attrition levels are considerably high
compared to other competitor companies. The retention strategies can
planned only when we have clear understanding of the employee and the
employer relationship in the organization. In this study I have focused more
on performance Management system to understand the exact flow here in
Info Edge India ltd., I have tried my but the analysis has been done based on
the responses of the respondents who are employees of Info edge and the
authenticity is the concern.

Limitations of the Study:

 Little co-operations of some person due to conservative mind.

 Some people have no time to give answer.
 Sometimes people do not tell truth and fill it just for fun sake.
 Time or the duration is one more concern.
 Chapter – II

Theoretical Framework

Review of Literature

Purpose

The literature review section examines the importance of search

studies, company data or industry reports that serve as a foundation for the
setup of study. The research dimension of the related literature and the
relevant information begins from an explanatory perspective, approaching
towards specific studies which do related to the judge the limitations and
informational gaps in data from the secondary sources.

This analysis may reveal conclusions from past studies to realize the
reliability of the secondary sources and their credibility. This in turn enables
one to rely on a comprehensive review for the study.

Analysis of previous study

A survey about current practice, which is followed in companies to appraise

performance:

( Phatak, International Dimensions of Management)

Almost all software companies responding do have formal

appraisal programs. About 93% of smaller organizations (those with
fewer than 500 employees) have such programs. About 97% of large
organizations have them.

Rating scales are by far the most widely used appraisal technique.
About 62% of small organization use rating scales, 20% use essays, and about
19% use MBO. Among the large organizations, 51% use rating scales, just
over 23% use essays and about 17% use MBO.

However, those using ratings as the main appraisal technique typically

also require narrative comments to justify rating and to describe
employee strengths and weakness and document development plans.
Those using essays as the main appraisal technique usually require an
overall quantitative performance rating to facilitate employee
comparisons for compensation decisions.

The employee’s immediate supervisor makes Ninety two percent

of appraisals. These appraisals are in turn reviewed by the appraiser’s
supervisor in 74% of the responding organizations. Only about 7% of the
organizations use self-appraisal in any part of the overall appraisal
process. Virtually all employees (99%) are informed of the results of
their appraisals. Overall about 77% are given a chance to respond with
written comments on their appraisals. In 69% of companies, appraisals
are done annually.

I. UNDERSTANDING THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

1. Performance Appraisal System: Some Definitions
The term “performance appraisal” refers to the process by which an
individual‟ work performance is assessed.
Performance appraisal has been defined as the process of identifying,
evaluating and developing the work performance of employees in the
organization, so that the organizational goals and objectives are more
effectively achieved, while at the same time benefiting employees in terms
of recognition, receiving feedback, catering for work needs and offering
career guidance (Lansbury, 1988).
Performance appraisal is the formal process of observing and evaluating an
employee‟s performance (Erdogan, 2002).
According to Angelo S. DeNisi and Robert D. Pritchard (2006) “Performance
appraisal” is a discrete, formal, organizationally sanctioned event, usually not
occurring more frequently than once or twice a year, which has clearly stated
performance dimensions and/or criteria that are used in the evaluation
process. Furthermore, it is an evaluation process, in that quantitative scores
are often assigned based on the judged level of the employee‟ job
performance on the dimensions or criteria used, and the scores are shared
with the employee being evaluated.

2. Performance Appraisal System: Different Methods:

Most appraisal methods used throughout the world today are based, to
some extent at least upon the following techniques: Graphic rating scales;
behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS), behavioural observation scales
(BOS); mixed standard rating scales; and management by objectives (MBO).
Most commentators agree that goal-based appraisal systems, in which an
employee‟ work performance is measured against specific goals, are the
most satisfactory (Dorfman et al., 1986; Locke and Latham, 1984;
Lastly, in the past few years, there has been growing interest in the practice
community for what has been termed “non-traditional” appraisal systems
(e.g., Coens and Jenkins,
2000; Lawler, 2000). These systems are less structured than the more
traditional systems, with less emphasis on ratings or rankings, and more
emphasis on developmental meetings between supervisors and employees
as needed. The study of Bladen (2001) indicated that these approaches have
been growing in popularity, but most firms that have moved in this direction
have developed hybrid models, which still retain some aspects of the
traditional systems.
According to Muezyk and Gahle (1987), an organization's success or failure
may he determined by the ways in which performance is managed.
Katsanis et al. (1996) provide several recommendations on the basis of their
research for the development of performance appraisal methods:

Gain support of both human resources and top management; Use qualitative
versus quantitative criteria;
Allow for input when developing performance standards and criteria;
Make sure the performance appraisal system is not dated;
Ensure managers take ownership of the performance appraisal
system;
Attempt to eliminate internal boundary spanning by creating direct
reporting
relationships where possible;
Utilize performance targeting (Halachmi, 1993) to appraise PMs;
Be aware and act on environmental forces as they affect the
organization.
3. Performance Appraisal System: the specific case of the 360-degree
Whatever method of performance appraisal is used, it‟s necessary to decide
whom to use as the source of the performance measures. Each source has
specific strengths and weaknesses. We can identify five primary sources:
managers, peers, subordinates, self and customers.
Now, we can clearly see the development of multi-source appraisals, initially
as a means of initiating effective organizational change, but eventually as
part of what has been termed 360-degree appraisals. By the 1990s, this type
of appraisal was extremely widespread and growing in popularity in both the
research and practice arenas (see for example, the review by Dalessio, 1998).
Some studies pointed out some issues regarding the design of the 360-
degree appraisals. (see review in Seifert, Yukl, and McDonald, 2003), while
others have raised questions about the overall effectiveness of this approach
(e.g., Waldman, Atwater, and Antonioni, 1998). Yet, research on multi-source
and upward appraisals continues (e.g., Smither and Walker, 2004).
Proponents of the 360-degree feedback approach offer it as a “progressive”
means of conducting performance appraisal, a means that addresses many
procedural justice concerns. Church and Bracken (1997) contend that 360-
degree feedback systems and other forms of multi source or multi-rater
assessment methods in organizations have evolved from an innovative “nice-
to-have” technique administered only to the most senior levels to a “must-
have” tool for integration into overall performance and human resource
management strategies. These systems appear well suited for the flexible,
team-based, change-oriented organizational cultures of many organizations
today
360-degree systems are gaining popularity because they tend to reduce the
problems of previous generations of assessment methods (Antonioni, 1996).
Barnes (1997) notes that 360-degree appraisal moves the manager back into
a “comfort zone” as she or he is now only one among a number of assessors.
In addition, it greatly reduces the problems of central tendency, positive
skewness, and “halo effects,” it reduces defensiveness on the part of the
appraisee because there are a variety of assessors, and it recognizes that
subordinates are best placed to assess “leadership” or “people
management” skills. The technique is said to be helpful in defending legal
challenges of the outcome of appraisals, it meets the demands for employee
empowerment and involvement, and it is a useful tool in tapping employee
opinions and attitudes.
4. Performance Appraisal System: Different Purposes
Firms engage in the performance-evaluation process for numerous reasons.
Managers may conduct appraisals to affect employee behavior through the
feedback process, or to justify some sort of human resource management
action (termination, transfer, promotion, etc.). However, many other benefits
may also accrue from the information yielded by the appraisal. These
benefits include increases in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of
selection and placement programs, training and development needs,
budgeting; human resource planning, and reward decisions (Cocanougher &
Ivancevich, 1978; Dubinsky, Skinner, & Whittler, 1989; Thomas & Bretz, 1994;
Wanguri, 1995). Perhaps the overriding reason for performance appraisals is
provided by Ilgen and Feldman (1983). They contend that organizations
cannot function effectively without some means of distinguishing between
good and poor performance.
Cleveland and her associates (Cleveland et al., 1989) presented a
classification of the reasons for conducting appraisals in organizations, and
these included documentation, within-person decisions (feedback on
strengths and weaknesses) and between-person decisions (who to promote).
According to Yehuda Baruch (1996), Performance Appraisal systems are used
for two main purposes:
- To serve a variety of management functions such as decision-
making about promotions, training needs, salaries, etc.
- To enhance developmental processes of employees or as an
evaluation instrument (Campbell, D. and Lee, C., 1988; Farh, J.L.,
Cannella, A.A. and Bedeian, A.G., 1991).
Wendy R. Boswelljohn W. Boudreau (2000), examined two typical
performance appraisal uses: evaluative and developmental. The evaluative
function includes the use of performance appraisal for salary administration,
promotion decisions, retention-termination decisions, recognition of
individual performance, layoffs, and the identification of poor performance.
This is similar to Ostroffs (1993) conceptualization of the administrative
performance appraisal purpose. Developmental functions include the
identification of individual training needs, providing performance feedback,
determining transfers and assignments, and the identification of individual
strengths and weaknesses.
It has been suggested that these purposes often conflict (Cleveland, Murphy,
and Williams, 1989; Meyer, Kay, and French, 1965; Ostroff, 1993). This
conflict may prevent the appraisal process from attaining its full usefulness
to the organization, perhaps even contributing negatively to individual
behavior and organizational performance. Other research has found that
employees prefer appraisal ratings to be used for certain purposes rather
than others {Jordan and Nasis, 1992).
II. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM AND PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Performance management focuses on ways to motivate employees to
improve their performance. The goal of the performance management
process is performance improvement, initially at the level of the individual
employee, and ultimately at the level of the organization.
The performance appraisal is a technique that has been credited with
improving performance (Bagozzi, 1980; DeCarlo & Leigh, 1996; Jaworksi &
Kohh, 1991) and building both job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (which has been related to lower levels of turnover) (Babakus,
Cravens, Johnston, & Moncrief, 1996; Babin & Boles, 1996; Brown &
Peterson, 1994; Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985).
Although the relationship between appraisals and performance may not be a
direct and causal one, their impact on performance may be attributed to
their ability to enhance: role clarity, communication effectiveness, merit pay
and administration, expectancy and instrumentality estimates, and
perceptions of equity. Duhinsky, Jolson, Michaels, Kotahe, and Lim (1993)
discuss the concept that increases in role clarity can affect both the
effort/performance expectancy and performance/reward instrumentality
estimates. Thus, by reducing ambiguity performance appraisals may
positively influence the levels of motivation exhibited by employees. More
frequent appraisals and feedback help employees to see how they are
improving, and this should increase their motivation to improve further (cf.
Kluger and DeNisi, 1996).
Appraisals are generally considered to have a positive influence on
performance, hut they also may have a negative impact on motivation, role
perceptions, and turnover when they are poorly designed or administered
(Churchill et al., 1985).
The ultimate goal of performance appraisal should be to provide information
that will best enable managers to improve employee performance. Thus,
ideally, the performance appraisal provides information to help managers
manage in such a way that employee performance improves (Angelo S.
DeNisi and Robert D. Pritchard, 2006). Providing the employee with
feedback is widely recognized as a crucial activity. Such feedback may
encourage and enable self-development, and thus will be instrumental for
the organization as a whole Yehuda Baruch (1996). Larson (1984) supports
the importance of evaluations in terms of their effect on organizational
effectiveness, stating that feedback is a critical portion of an organization's
control system.
1. Problems in Performance Appraisal
The performance appraisal systems tend to have several problems. Raters‟
evaluations are often subjectively biased by their cognitive and motivational
states (DeNisi & Williams, 1988; Longenecker et al., 1987), and supervisors
often apply different standards with different employees which results in
inconsistent, unreliable, and invalid evaluations (Folger et al., 1992). In order
to create better systems, researchers have traditionally focused on validity
and reliability (Bretz et al., 1992) by designing newer “forms” of performance
appraisals (e.g., behavioral-based systems that better define specific
essential job functions of employees or 360-degree feedback mechanisms
that allow for cross-validation via multiple raters). However, despite these
recent advances in evaluation design, critics continue to argue that
performance appraisal systems are not consistently effective (Atkins &
Wood, 2002; DeNisi & Kluger, 2000).
Thomas and Bretz (1994) argue that evaluations are often perceived by
employees and supervisors with "fear and loathing." Two possible
explanations for the fear and loathing are the absence of a "sense of
ownership" and an absence of rewards for properly completing the process.
Cardy (1998) describes the appraisal process as "a difficult and error-ridden
task." However, Cardy also points out that it is an important task that affects
both the individual and the organization. As suggested by Drenth (1984),
evaluation is a sensitive matter, often eliciting negative psychological
responses such as resistance, denial, aggression, or discouragement,
particularly if the assessment is negative. Thus high perceptions of evaluative
performance appraisal use may result in negative feelings about the
appraisal.

The employee reactions to appraisals can be an important condition to

improve the employee‟s performance. Recently, scholars have begun to
argue that employee emotions and perceptions are important in
determining the efficacy of performance appraisal systems.
In fact, appraisal reactions such as satisfaction, acceptability, and motivation
to use feedback, are cited as an important trend in the appraisal research
during the past ten years in a recent review of that literature (Levy and
Williams, 2004).
2. Performance Appraisal Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction with performance appraisal would be positively
related to work performance (Pettijohn et al., 2001a; Roberts and Reed,
1996). Because performance appraisal often includes equipping employees
with new knowledge and skills, it may also contribute to employees‟
perceived investment in employee development. Using a social exchange
lens (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2004; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Lee and
Bruvold, 2003), employees who believe their organization is committed to
providing them with developmental activities may feel an obligation to
„repay‟ the organization through high work performance Since Performance
appraisal systems will allow to communicate strategies, goals and vision,
employees should experience higher levels of commitment to superordinate
organizational goals and, therefore, become more affectively committed to
their organization. Moreover, developmental performance appraisal is also
about increasing employees‟ perceptions of being valued and being part of
an organizational team (Levy and Williams, 2004), perceptions that are
central to affective commitment. Also, if performance appraisal satisfaction
reflects perceived investment in employee development, employees will
probably reciprocate by way of higher affective commitment to the
organization (Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Finally, research on sales people
suggests that organizational commitment is positively associated with the
use of explicit evaluative criteria and openness to discussing the appraisal
(Pettijohn et al., 2001a) and negatively related to role ambiguity (Babakus et
al., 1996). And, since performance appraisal satisfaction is enhanced by
employee participation and perceived clarity of goals (Roberts and Reed,
1996), it may also be positively related to affective commitment.
The arguments about communication of superordinate goals (Latham, 2003),
the capacity of performance appraisal to increase employees‟ perceptions of
being valued and being part of an organizational team (Levy and Williams,
2004), and the social exchange argument (Lee and Bruvold, 2003), may also
apply to turnover intention. In addition, Poon (2004) recently reported
findings indicating that dissatisfaction with performance appraisal influenced
employees‟ intention to quit through reduced job satisfaction.
a. The role of the feedback:
One of the most important conditions is to provide clear, performance-based
feedback to employees (Carroll and Schneier, 1982; Ilgen et al., 1979; Larson,
1984). Almost 50 years ago, Maier (1958) highlighted the crucial role of
appraisal feedback in the performance appraisal process.
According to Levy and Williams (2004), “. . . if participants do not perceive
the system to be fair, the feedback to be accurate, or the sources to be
credible then they are more likely to ignore and not use the feedback they
receive.”
Indeed, the significance of feedback to the appraisal process as well as to the
broader management process has been widely acknowledged (Bernardin
and Beatty, 1984; Ilgen et al., 1979; Lawler, 1994; Murphy and Cleveland,
1995). First, from the organization‟s point of view, feedback keeps both its
members‟ behavior directed toward desired goals and stimulates and
maintains high levels of effort (Lawler, 1994; Vroom, 1964). From the
individual‟s point of view, feedback satisfies a need for information about
the extent to which personal goals are met (Nadler, 1977), as well as a need
for social comparison information about one‟s relative performance
(Festinger, 1954).
Second, feedback potentially can influence future performance (Ilgen et al.,
1979; Kluger and DeNisi, 1996). Third, it is believed to play a significant role
in the development of job and organizational attitudes (Ilgen et al., 1981;
Taylor et al., 1984).
Performance feedback should include information on how to improve
performance, along with information about what areas of performance need
improvement. The frequency of feedback is also important. The rating scales
should focus on results as much as on processes.
Thus, feedback is not only important to individuals but also to organizations
because of its potential influence on employee performance and a variety of
attitudes and behaviors of interest to organizations.
In summary, the central role of feedback to the appraisal process and the
importance of examining ratees‟ satisfaction with appraisal feedback are
widely acknowledged (Ilgen et al., 1979; Keeping and Levy, 2000; Murphy
and Cleveland, 1995).
Some of the relevant characteristics that may influence the effectiveness of
the appraisal process include the frequency of the appraisals, the nature of
the appraisal (i.e., written vs. unwritten), the perceived fairness of the
evaluation process (Huffman & Cain, 2000), and the degree to which the
evaluation results are discussed with the employees being evaluated
(Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, 1978).
Reactions to feedback are presumed to indicate overall system viability
(Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994; Carroll and Schneier,
1982) and to influence future job performance (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996), as
well as job and organizational attitudes (Taylor et al., 1984).
Satisfaction with appraisal feedback is one of the most consequential of the
reactions to appraisal feedback (Dorfman et al., 1986; Giles and Mossholder,
1990; Keeping and Levy, 2000). Several researchers (Giles and Mossholder,
1990; Organ, 1988) have asserted that using satisfaction as a measure of
employees‟ reactions affords a broader indicator of reactions to appraisal
feedback than more specific cognitively oriented. criteria. In fact, cognitively
oriented measures, such as perceived utility and perceived accuracy, are
positively related to satisfaction with appraisal feedback (Keeping and Levy,
2000). In addition, because appraisals form the basis of several important
decisions, satisfaction with feedback signifies recognition, status, and future
prospects within the organization.
These various psychological implications of satisfaction with feedback make
it a significant determinant of future behavior and job and organizational
attitudes (Taylor et al., 1984).
Ratee participation in appraisal feedback discussion was investigated as a
predictor because it has been emphasized in several models (Klein et al.,
1987) and reviews (Cedeblom, 1982) of the appraisal feedback literature.
The central role of the rater to the feedback process has been acknowledged
by several researchers (Ilgen et al., 1979; Cederblom, 1982; Klein et al.,
1987). Therefore, satisfaction with rater was included as a potential predictor
of satisfaction with appraisal feedback.
b. The organizational justice
The organizational justice literature addresses three principal types of justice
- procedural, interactional and distributive justice.
There has been a growing body of research that looks at procedural,
interactional and distributive justice in organizations. Exemplars of this trend
include Greenberg (1987, 1988, 1993a, 1996), Alexander and Ruderman
(1987), Lind(1995), Lind and Tyler (1988), Fryxell and Gordon (1989), Folger
and Konovsky (1989), Sheppard et al., (1992), Cropanzano and Randall
(1993), Gordon and Fryxell (1993), Hartley (1995), Alexander ef aZ., (1995),
Taylor ef a/., (1995), Cropanzano and Kackmar (1995), Beugre (1998) and
Folger and Cropanzano (1998).
- The distributive justice: The study of distributive justice deals with the
perceived fairness of the outcomes or allocations that individuals in
organizations receive (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). In the case of
performance appraisal, distributive justice requires that “performance
appraisal ratings meet employee expectations, outcomes are based on the
ratings, and outcomes meet the expectations of employees” (Bowen et al.,
1999).
- The procedural justice: The study of procedural justice focuses on the

fairness of methods that are used in organizations to arrive at distributive

justice. It addresses “fairness issues concerning the methods, mechanisms,
and processes used to determine outcomes” (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998).
Perceptions of procedural justice reflect an appraisal of the process by which
an allocation decision is {or was) made (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998).
Leventhal and colleagues have been credited with importing the concept to
organizational settings from the legal literature (Leventhal, 1980).
Leventhal‟s
theory of procedural justice focused on six criteria that a procedure should
meet if it is to be perceived as fair. Procedures should:
a- be applied consistently across
people an time, b- be free from bias,
c- ensure that accurate information is collected and used in
making decisions,
d- have some mechanism to correct flawed or inaccurate
decisions,
e- conform to personal or prevailing standards of ethics or morality,
f- ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by a decision have
been taken into account. (Colquitt et al., 2001)
Applied to questions of performance appraisals, procedural justice underlies
two theories: control theory and the group-value model.
In control theory (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) it is assumed that individuals
prefer to be in control of decision-making processes rather than be passive
recipients. For example, in a recent study of computer-based performance
monitoring, Douthitt and Aiello (2001) reported that employee participation
(providing input related to the expression of work process preferences) had a
positive impact on perceptions of procedural justice. However, they showed
that the ability to control the computer monitoring (if it was on or off) did
not significantly influence perceptions of justice. Their findings suggest that
various forms of control (decision and process) may partially determine the
perceived fairness of performance appraisal systems.
Proponents of the group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988) hold that
individuals want to be respected and valued members of groups and that
individuals perceive higher procedural justice when they feel valued and
accepted by group members. One recent study (Robbins et al., 2000) showed
that group-value concerns explained unique variance in organizational
commitment, turnover intentions, as well as in both employee and group-
performance. Moreover, group-value concerns explained more unique
variance in organizational commitment and performance than did
distributive justice or control-based procedural justice. These findings
suggest that group-value concerns are correlated with key organizational
outcomes, and that perceptions of group membership are important in
determining whether a performance appraisal system is fair.
- The interactional justice: Interactional justice refers to 'justice appraisals
based on the quality of the interpersonal treatment [people] receive' (Bies
and Moag, 1986, as quoted in Cropanzano and Randall, 1993). A concern
with interactional justice therefore involves raising questions about the type
of “interpersonal sensitivity” and other aspects of social conduct that
characterize social exchange between parties, including the explanation
offered for certain decisions made about the individual (Folger and
Cropanzano, 1998). It focuses on “how formal agents of the organization
treat those who are subject to their authority, decisions and actions” (Cobb
et al., 1995). Such a distinction allows us “to include non procedurally
dictated aspects of interaction such as explanation content and the
persuasive features of communication efforts” (Folger and Cropanzano,
1998).
While we acknowledge that some authors (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg,
1990) have suggested additional justice constructs and some have argued that these constructs are
distinct from procedural justice (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2000; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002), the
presentation that follows is in keeping with those who contend that distributive and procedural concerns
are of primary significance (Brown & Benson, 2003; Gabris & Ihrke, 2001; Tyler & Bies, 1990)
c. The role of the appraiser
Attitudes toward the appraiser are important, particularly because the person providing the performance
appraisal is often the employee's supervisor (Milkovich and Boudreau, 1997). The feelings created during
the performance appraisal may endure and affect the employee-supervisor relationship in general (Wendy
R. Boswelljohn W. Boudreau, 2000). These authors considered that evaluation may create negative
feelings toward the appraiser (the immediate supervisor) and could arguably be detrimental to the
relationship. This may be particularly true if the employee receives a low PA rating or perceives injustice.
Although negative feelings may upset the relationship between the evaluator and the individual being
evaluated (Blau, 1964; Drenth. 1984), evaluation may lead to positive outcomes, such as pay increases or
promotions, and ultimately a positive reaction toward the person providing the feedback.
Russell and Goode (1988), for example, found that satisfaction with the appraisal positively associated
with satisfaction with the appraisal source: the supervisor.
The Gosselin and colleagues (1997) research suggests that many employees not only prefer
developmental performance appraisal uses such as career planning but also prefer that their immediate
supervisor provide the performance appraisal feedback.
d. Performance appraisal purposes and attitudes
Previous research has shown that performance appraisal purpose affects rating processes and outcomes
(Qawahar and Williams, 1997; Murphy, Garcia, Kerkar, Martin, and Baher, 1982; Shore, Adams, and
Tashchian. 1998; Williams, DeNisi. Blencoe, and Cafferty. 1985) and employees indicate a preference for
certain performance appraisal uses (Jordan and Nasis, 1992), it is conceivable that employee attitudes
may vary depending on perceptions of how the performance appraisal is used. If people perceive
performance appraisal purposes differently, as has been suggested (Balzer and Sulsky, 1990; Osiroff, 1993),
then attitudes may vary depending on that perception.
Prince and Lawler (1986) study showed a positive effect on employee satisfaction with the performance
appraisal when this one is used for salary discussion.
Gosselin, Werner, and Halle, 1997 study found that although employees did not indicate a preference for
administrative (that is, evaluative) or developmental performance appraisal use, 29 percent of the
respondents ranked using appraisals for promotion decisions their preferred performance appraisal use
and 11 percent of respondents ranked appraisals used for salary administration as a "favored" choice of
appraisal use.
It has also been proposed that evaluation is often of a negative nature (Blau, 1964; Meyer, Kay, and
French, 1965), whereas development is more likely to be viewed positively because of its futuristic and
helpful focus (Milkovich and Boudreau, 1997).
In the study of Gosselin, Werner, and Halle (1997), over half the respondents ranked salary increases as
their last or second to last (out of five) preferred use of appraisal. Salary increases may even lead to
negative feelings if the increase is perceived as inequitable or minimal (Wendy R. Boswelljohn W.
Boudreau, 2000).

Development provided by the immediate supervisor has been shown to be an important and common use
of performance appraisal (Cleveland, Murphy, and Williams, 1989; Meyer, Kay, and French, 1965). Prince
and Lawler (1986) found that the constructs "work planning and goal setting" and "discuss performance
attributes" exerted a positive influence on employees' satisfaction with and perceived utility of the
performance appraisal. In contrast, the construct "career development" showed little influence on
performance appraisal satisfaction.
In the Gosselin and colleagues‟ study (1997), no clear preference for one use over the other was found. In
fact, many respondents actually preferred developmental uses such as career planning and training and
development (36 percent and 25 percent, respectively).
Dipboye and de Pontbriand (1981) similarly showed that employees were more satisfied and had greater
acceptance of the performance appraisal when employee development and performance improvement
were emphasized in it. Related research on performance appraisal objectivity, fairness, and accuracy has
shown that performance improvement discussions has a positive effect on these variables (for example,
Fulk. Brief, and Barr. 1985; Goodson and McGee, 1991).
Previous research on 360-degree feedback has found that ratees approve of these appraisals when they
are used for developmental purposes but are not as accepting when they are used for evaluation (for
example, Antonioni, 1996; Ash, 1994; McEvoy, 1990; McEvoy, Buller, and Roghaar, 1988).
The relationship between performance appraisal use and performance appraisal satisfaction has been
found to be strongest for low performers, where low performers were more satisfied when salary
discussion was included in the PA than when it was not (Prince and Lawler, 1986). In contrast, it is
conceivable that better performers are happier with the appraisal and are also the employees who were
provided development (Wendy R. Boswelljohn W. Boudreau, 2000).
III. EMPIRICAL STUDY
1. Research objective
Our objective consists of examining the way in which the performance of the employees is evaluated in
Lebanese firms. We attempt to provide a picture of the characteristics of the performance appraisal
process used in Lebanese firms, the purposes of these appraisal systems, the problems emerged and
finally the different areas to be improved in the appraisal systems.
We present at the end of this paper a series of specific recommendations for organizations based on this
research for the successful implementation of performance management systems. The emphasis of this
article is to define ways to manage performance in a way to increase employees‟ satisfaction with the
performance appraisal systems.
The results of the research may help identify components of the appraisal process that have a significant
affect on the benefits derived from the performance-evaluation process.
By identifying the crucial components of the evaluation process, practitioners may he provided with
additional guidance as they attempt to develop their own appraisal systems.

3. Methodology and Sample Selection

In-depth personal interviews with Human Resource Managers in Lebanese firms were used. The sample
for this study consists of the following industries: Banks, Insurance Companies, Hotel, Construction,
Restaurant, Consultancy, Commercial, Hospital, Printing firm and Industrial.
For these personal in-depth interviews, an interview guide was developed. The questions in the guide
consisted of asking HRMs a description of the performance evaluation process, the employee satisfaction
level with the performance appraisal systems and the areas to be improved. The respondents were
guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality.
4. Results
All the HRM interviewed indicated that they have a formal performance appraisal system.
a. Characteristics of the performance appraisal process used in Lebanese firms:
- Methods: In fact, we can measure performance in various ways. In this section, we are interested to
explore the different performance appraisal approaches utilized in the Lebanese firms.
Most Human Resource Managers claimed that the most effective way of measuring performance is to rely
on a combination of two or more alternatives. Many HRM declared that the most common types of the
performance appraisal employed are the Graphic Rating Scale and the Management by Objectives.
As one HRM noted: “the Graphic Rating Scale is the most popular method used inLebanese firms
because it’s quite easy to develop and it can be generalizable across a variety of jobs.”
Another HRM argued: “the Management by Objective is a very popular performance appraisal method
since it minimizes subjectivity and it relies on objective and quantifiable indicators of performance.”
- Feedback provided: Many authors highlighted the crucial role of appraisal feedback in the performance
appraisal process. From the organization‟s point of view, feedback keeps both its members‟ behavior
directed toward desired goals and stimulates and maintains high levels of effort and from the individual‟s
point of view, feedback satisfies a need for information about the extent to which personal goals are met.
The review of literature showed that feedback potentially can influence future performance. In this
section, we‟ll try to analyze the performance feedback process developed in the Lebanese firms.
All the HRM claimed that the performance feedback is given to the employees once a year during
November and December by their direct managers. Most of them declared that the feedback is provided
in the manager‟s office on a one-on-one basis, in a very official way. This performance feedback session
lasts for around 20 minutes.
If an individual‟s performance is below standard, all the HRM considered that some criticism must take
place. Rare are those HRM interviewed who considered that the feedback should be focused on solving
the problems causing a poor performance. Finally, all the HRM agreed that the feedback session should
end by setting new goals.
Most of the HRM claimed that, at the end of the feedback session, the appraiser asks the employee to
sign his performance appraisal form. As one HRM noted: “ There are two main purposes for requesting an
employee's signature on his or her performance-evaluation form. First, this is a way of formally confirming
receipt of the performance evaluation by the employee. Second, employers may require an employee to
sign in order to indicate that the employee agrees with the contents of the evaluation.”
Another HRM added: “If an employee refuses to sign the evaluation, the appraiser asks him to sign to
merely acknowledge that he received the evaluation and to note his disagreement with the evaluation.”
- Sources: Most the HRM affirmed that they ask their employees to complete a self-assessment before the
feedback session. As one HRM noted: “The self-assessment helps us a lot because it can make the
feedback session go more smoothly by focusing our discussion on areas where disagreement exists and
moreover it allows the appraisee to participate fully in the feedback session.”
All the HRM agreed that the Managers are the most efficient source to rate the employees since they have
extensive knowledge of the job requirements and they have the adequate opportunity to observe their
employees.
b. Purposes of performance appraisal systems in Lebanese firms
In the review of literature, we saw clearly that performance appraisal systems are used for two main
purposes:
- Administrative: such as decision-making about promotions, training needs, salaries, etc.
- Developmental: to develop employees who are effective at their jobs.
All the HRM interviewed, when asking them about the performance appraisal purposes, cited that they
use performance appraisal information for salary administration, promotions and recognition.
None of them mentioned the functions of the development approach such as providing training needs,
providing performance feedback, determining transfers and assignments, and identifying the individual
strengths and weaknesses.
c. Problems produced by the performance appraisal systems in Lebanese firms
Many different problems have been cited by the HRM interviewed. Here are some of the interviewed
HRM citations:
As one HRM noted: “Appraisal may cause tremendous and anxiety for both the manager and the
employee being appraised; In most of the cases, the employees don’t perceive the appraisal as fair. We
often hear some of the employees’ complaints regarding the justice of this appraisal process, such as
inconsistency across employees, inaccurate information and very distant discussions with the
appraiser.”
In the same direction, one HRM mentioned: “Appraisals may have a negative impact on motivation and
satisfaction if they are poorly designed or administered; if evaluations are not perceived as being
conducted fairly and consistently, we can’t expect to reach a high level of employee satisfaction toward
the performance appraisal system.”
Another HRM cited: “It’s not easy at all to implement a performance appraisal system; some of the
major appraisal problems are the subjectivity and the use of inconsistent criteria which may lead to
negative attitude toward the appraisal system.”
One more HRM claimed: “Sometimes we face problems with the appraisers who lack communication
skills and consequently are not able to conduct an effective performance feedback; that’s why in most
of the cases, employees were not encouraged to be forthright and candid.”
An additional argument was given by a HRM: “We don’t really have a tool to improve our performance
appraisal system and we don’t aim on the short-run to conduct any survey to measure the employee
satisfaction toward the performance appraisal system.”
One more HRM noted: “One of the major problems that we face is the lack of the senior management
support for the performance appraisal system, so how can we really look to improve the performance
appraisal system if we don’t benefit from the management support and belief that the performance
appraisal system is one of the most strategic HR practices.”
d. Different areas to be improved in the appraisal systems
The interviews identified areas of the appraisal process that need to be improved in the Lebanese firms:
consistency in the process and timing, improved training for appraisers, good follow-up, firm commitment
from the top management and more open and sincere discussions.
For example, as one HRM noticed: “Measuring performance is a challenging key to gain a competitive
advantage, once performance has been measured, a major component of a manager’s job is to feed
that performance information back to employees in a way that results in improved performance rather
than decreased satisfaction and motivation, that why, managers should be enough skilled and well
trained to be able to conduct an open and sincere feedback. We think that the managers should
allocate an adequate amount of time for a conversation regarding the appraisal results.”
Another example has been provided by a HRM who cited: “The performance appraisal system can be
improved, first, by changing the perception of the senior management toward the performance
appraisal system; We consider that when the performance appraisal is perceived by the top
management as playing a crucial role in motivating people and consequently as having a positive
impact on performance, certainly the system will be improved and will give better results.”
One more example seems to be important to cite: “Most of the times, the performance appraisal system
is not linked to compensation, so how can we really expect an improvement in the performance if the
employees do not really perceive a relation between the appraisal result and a merit increase or an
annual incentive, that’s why we really recommend that the appraisal system should be inevitably linked
to compensation.”
Additional example can also be useful to cite: “At this moment, we don’t effectively have the necessary
structure that allows us to adjust the appraisal system in a way to increase the employee satisfaction
and to minimize as much as possible the areas of dissatisfaction, that why we consider that building a
configuration that allows a continuous improvement in the performance appraisal system is a priority. ”
5. Recommendations
Here are some of the recommendations that we can provide for developing an effective performance
appraisal system:
 The program is well thought out and tailored for the firm.
The managers are trained in the appraisal process
 The appraisal process must be viewed as a continuous activity rather than a one-a-
year event. Performance expectations and actual performance must be discussed often and
regularly.
 Even if a formal evaluation is given only once a year, an employee should be made
aware of his or her performance periodically throughout the year.
 It is not enough to tell an employee who has performance problems that his or her
performance is poor, or to identify problem areas without specific instructions on how
performance can be improved. This only upsets employees without solving the underlying
problems. Employees must be given specific instruction on how performance can be
improved and must have short- and long-term goals set to show incremental
 improvements. Management expectations should be realistic; problem employees do not
become star performers in a matter of weeks.
 Performance expectations and developmental targets and activities should be set
through mutual agreement with employees.
 Employees should be full participants in the performance appraisal process. During
the feedback session, the appraiser should make sure that the employee has the resources
required to do his job and must understand the nature of the existed barriers that might
prevent the employee success.
 A 360 degree feedback could be an interesting performance appraisal approach
especially for the most senior levels.

Conclusion
The principal purpose of an appraisal system should be to improve the employee and the organizational
performance. The system must be based on a deep regard for people and recognize that employees are
the most important resource. The system should first of all contribute to the satisfaction of all the
employees. This tenet will require a continuous effort in counseling, coaching and honest, open
communications between the employee and supervisors.

The findings of this research conducted in the Lebanese firms seem to suggest that firms interested in
improving their performance through the performance appraisal systems should seek to enhance the
employee satisfaction toward this appraisal system.
The findings of this research can be summarized as follows:
The most common types of the performance appraisal employed in the Lebanese firms are the Graphic
Rating Scale and the Management by Objectives. In all the firms, a performance feedback is given to the
employees once a year during November and December by their direct managers. Rare are those HRM
interviewed who considered that the feedback should be focused on solving the problems causing a poor
performance. In most of the companies, employees are asked to complete a self-assessment before the
feedback session and managers are the only source used to rate the employees. When asking about the
performance appraisal purposes, the HRM cited that they use performance appraisal information for
salary administration, promotions and recognition. None of them mentioned the functions of the
development approach.
Regarding the problems generated by the appraisal systems, we can distinguish five different types of
problems according to the HRM citations: An unfair perceived performance appraisal system, the use of
inconsistent criteria which may lead to negative attitude toward the appraisal system, unskilled appraisers
who lack communication skills and consequently are not able to conduct an effective performance
feedback, absence of tools aiming to improve the performance appraisal system and finally the lack of the
senior management support

Finally, the findings of this research indicated many areas to be improved in the appraisal system such as
the use of explicit evaluation criteria, an open and sincere feedback, a greater senior management
support, a process perceived as being fair by employees and finally a structure in which improvements in
performance appraisals may be facilitated.
Methods of reviewing the literature

The review of literature does scrutinize the important research studies. The primary sources that
provide relevant information are the best form to retrieve data from the research. The primary sources
were encouraged with the help of distribution of questioners as well as conducting personal interviews.
With this the data received enables the researcher to accurately arrive at the problem of the study and
the consecutively solutions to the same. The secondary sources were also relied on for additional
information. It includes company journal, newsletters, records, manuals etc.

Conclusion

Performance management lays an evaluative and developmental dimension to its makeup, and is
crucial in both linking rewards to performance and providing a platform for the development of
employees. Over concentration on the assessment of performance can work to the detriment of effort
aimed at establishing the development needs of the individual in an open and honest way. The manager,
as an appraiser, may encounter difficulties in reconciling the roles of 'judge' and 'mentor'. Managers need
to develop the skills of coping with such tensions in their roles. In some organizations, this problem is
solved by having different managers carrying out performance and development appraisals. Appraisal
provides the context in which mangers can seek to ensure that there is acceptable congruency between
the objectives of the individual and those of the organization.

Although one recognizes the part played by performance management in the determination of
rewards, we believe that if treated as a way of providing feedback on progress and of jointly agreeing the
next set of aims, the appraisal can have a positive effect on individual motivation.

2.5 Operational Definition of Concepts

Performance Appraisal

Performance appraisal is the assessment of an individual's performance in an performance in a

systematic way, the performance being measured against such factors as job knowledge, quality and
quantity of output, initiative, leadership abilities, supervision, dependability, co-operation, judgment,
versatility etc. assessment should not be confined to the past performance alone. Potentials of the
employee for the future performance must also be assessed.

Performance appraisal can be defined as "the systematic evaluation of the individual with respect
to his or her performance on the job and his or her potential for development".

A more comprehensive definition is, “Performance appraisal is a formal structured system of

measuring and evaluating an employee's job and how the employee can perform effectively in future so
that the employee, organization all be benefited."

Performance appraisal, to common understanding, is the formal and informal assessment of the
performance of the employee at work. In an informal system we are aware that superior is continually
making judgments about their subordinates' performance on a subjective basis. By contrast, superiors
could resort to using formalized appraisal techniques when assessing the performance of subordinate,
and these judgments arc considered to be more objective. In formalized systems the terms 'performance
appraisal and 'performance management' are used. Both refer to a process where by mangers and their
subordinates share understanding about what has to be accomplished, and the manager will naturally be
concerned about how best bring about those accomplishments by adept management and development
of people in short and long terms. Also, performance would be measured using the techniques discussed
in this chapter and it will be subsequently related to targets or plans. In this way the subordinate receives
feedback on his or her progress.

A distinguished feature of performance management is its integrating strength in aligning various

processes with corporate objectives: for example, the introduction of performance-related payment
system and mobilization for training and development resources to achieve corporate objectives.

Measuring Performance

In many organizations, the feedback on job performance is ambiguous or is given annually as a

ritualistic exercise. Many subordinates therefore have trouble in gasping how their efforts are perceived
by the organization. Almost every one who has worked at a job can remember times when they were
unclear on how their performance was being judged.

The annual performance appraisal system tends to serve only a little purpose: salary
administration, training and succession planning. But this is not the sole objective of performance
appraisal. These objectives will only dilute and weaken the clarity and validity of any appraisal system.
Most organization ties the formal appraisal system directly to salary increase, which decrease their
validity.

It is therefore very important for organizations to:

(a) Link Salary and Status Realistically to the Performance Appraisals

Most personnel departments have a very narrow outlook to appraisals. The general view is to
receive the appraisal forms at a date (which usually is the deadline), issue instructions regarding
increments and promotions, receive the data regarding the same and they issue letters to the concerned
employee informing of their salary increase. The appraisal process gets polluted as the appraiser and
appraise have at the back of their minds promotion and salary increase, rather than performance plans
and participative reviews. This dilutes the objectives of appraisal to great extent. In fact, if organizations
create, a culture of continuous feedback on the performance they would be making the appraisal system
more relevant. Several organizations have already started delinking performance appraisal from salary
increase.

(b) Making Objectives of Performance Appraisals Clear to All Employees

If performance appraisal should not directly be linked to salary increase the question then arises,
what should the objectives of performance appraisals be that could be realistically achieved?

Some suggestions:

 To do joint goal setting, and link the goals to the organizational objectives
 To provide role clarity by defining Key Result areas for Accounting.
 To establish a level of performance in the current job and seek ways of improving it.
 To identify potential for development and to support the total process of planning
 To increase communication between the appraiser and the appraise.
 To identify factors that facilitate performance and other factors that hinder performance.
 To help the employees identify and recognize their own strengths and weaknesses. To make
them assess their own competencies and how the same can be multiplied and improved.
 To generate data about the employee for various decisions like transfers, rewards, job-
rotation, etc.
(c) Focus on Developmental Appraisals

Managers should develop part ownership in the employee's future. Any good appraisal system
should focus on developmental appraisal. Developmental appraisal mean that an organization needs to
develop not just isolated performance appraisal tool/system, but the total frame work for the individuals
development, improvement in job and level of competence and preparing employees for future jobs.
Thus, appraisal of people, which is a part of the total HRD system, lies to be linked to long-term
development activity and carrier planning.

Organizations have to show vision for the future. Vision, strategies and objectives will give rise to
individual objectives and performance standards. The immediate rewards and recognition do not lead to
enduring performance and upgrading of competence and therefore are not real motivators. The appraisal
as a tool not only gives the individual and the organization the idea of where the individual stands in
terms of his skills, competencies and abilities, but also monitors the process of growth and development,
together with the inputs that are required to develop a high level of competence by individuals.

(d) Let Employees Appraise Their Own Performance

Subordinates need feedback more often on their performance. The best way to do it is to let them
appraise their own performance.

Self-appraisal would -

1) Motivate the employee to take more responsibility for his/her own performance.

2) Focus on the job behavior only.

3) Reduce ambiguity in performance and focus on change in job behavior.

When subordinates undertake self-appraisal, they analyze their job duties and how key issues in a
job they handle. Each individual may rate himself or herself.

Self-appraisal may focus on cost control, communication, planning, training, delegation and decision-
making. After self-appraisal, the subordinate discusses the ratings with his/her direct report or superior to
get a feed back on performance. Both then come to an agreement in areas of convergence and draw a job
improvement plan.

(e) Create a Climate for Open Appraisals in Organizations

In most organizations, the concept of open appraisal is misunderstood. Open appraisal

does nut mean that the appraisal ratings are shown by the subordinate, and his/her signature is then
obtained. What it does mean that both the appraiser and the appraise share their views on performance
with each other, identify the areas of improvement and work towards it. One of the objectives of open
communication between the appraiser and the appraise is to bring them together to solve organizational
problems and performance related problems. The quality of ratings is likely to improve if there is shared
understanding between the appraiser and the appraise.

(f) Muscle Builds the Organization

 In today's competitive world, raising performance goals is essential. This entails analyzing the
company's current situation, projecting the future, establishing higher expectations, and selling the top
management on the upgrading process and developing an action plan.Muscle builds the organization by

1) Enhancing your own performance

2) Accelerating the professional growth of the best performers

3) Not tolerating managerial performers. One cannot muscle build the organization, unless
marginal performers are replaced.

4) Developing multiple skills and competencies by worshiping success and potential.

(g) Build Commitment in the Workplace

Change is an inevitable part of manager's job. As conditions change, individual responsibilities are
also expected to change. In commitment-based approach, the workplace, jobs are designed to be broader
than before, team accountability is as important as individual accountability for performance. The
performance expectations are high and emphasize continuous important in the workplace.

Managers have to stop being my topic to performance appraisals. No personnel professional in the
90's will be able to afford the luxury of myopia. We have to see our way to the various changes in
environment that are taking place and those changes that will revolutionize our organization culture in the
out coming years. We must help our organization's triumphant progress through the 90s, by recognizing
and rewarding performance.

METHODS OR TECHNIQUES OF APPRAISAL

Broadly all the approaches to appraisal can be classified into:

a) Past Oriented Methods and

b) Future – Oriented Method
a) Past Oriented Methods

 Rating Scales
 This is the simplest and most popular technique for appraising employee performance.
The typical rating scale system consists of several numerical scales, each representing a job-
related performance criterion such as dependability, initiative, output, attendance, attitude,
co-operation, and the like. Each scale ranges from excellent to poor. The rater checks the
appropriate performance level on each criterion, and then computes the employee’s total
numerical score. The number of points scored may be linked to salary increases etc.

 Checklist
Under this method, a checklist of statements on the traits of the employee and his or her job is
prepared in two columns – viz., a ‘Yes’ column and a ‘No’ column. All that the rater should do is to
tick the ‘Yes’ column if the statement is positive and in column ‘No’ if the answer is negative. After
ticking off against each item, the rater forwards the list to the HR department where the actual
assessment of the employee takes place. In other words, the rater only does the reporting, while
actual evaluation is done by the HR department. The HR department assigns certain points to
each ‘Yes’ ticked. Depending on the number of ‘Yes’ the total score is arrived at. When points are
allotted to the checklist, the technique becomes a weighed checklist.

 Forced Choice Method

Here, there would be certain statements mentioned and the appraiser will only have to
select the appropriate statement that suits the appraise. This is called as Forced Choice
Method because here, the appraiser has no freedom at all. He only has a few statements that
he will have to select that suit the appraise. The list is then forwarded to the HR Department
who will do the assessment. There will be points given to each of the individual statements.

 Forced Distribution Method

One of the errors in rating is leniency – clustering a large number of employees around a high
point on a rating scale. The forced distribution method seeks to overcome the problem by
compelling the rater to distribute the rates on all points on the rating scale.

The method operates under an assumption that the employee performance level conforms to a
normal statistical distribution. Generally, it is assumed that employee performance levels conform to
a bell – shaped curve. For example, the following distribution might be assumed to exist - excellent
10%, good 20%, average 40% below average 20% and unsatisfactory 10%.

The major weakness of the forced distribution method lies in the assumption that employee
performance levels always conform to a normal (or some other) distribution. In organizations that
have done a good job of selecting and retaining only the good performers, the use of forced
distribution approach would be unrealistic as well as possibly destructive to the employee morale.
One merit of this approach is that it seeks to eliminate the error of leniency. This technique is
however not acceptable by most of the rates and rates.

 Critical Incidents Method

This method of employee assessment has generated a lot of interest these days. This
approach focuses on certain critical behaviors of an employee that make all the differences
between effective and non-effective performance of a job. Such incidents are recorded by the
superiors as and when they occur.

One of the advantages of this method is that the evaluation is based on actual job
behavior. Further, the approach has descriptions in support of particular ratings of an
employee. Giving job – related feedback to the rate is also easy. It reduces bias on the part of
the raters.

The method however has significant limitations. These include:

a) Negative incidents tend to get noticed more than positive incidents.

b) Recording is a chore, so supervisor could easily forget.
c) Overly close supervision may result.
 Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
Behaviorally anchored rating scales, sometimes called as Behavioral Expectation Scales are
rating scales whose scale points are determined by statements of effective and ineffective
behaviors. They are said to be behaviourally anchored in that the scales represent a range of
descriptive statements of behaviour on each scale best described and employee’s performance.
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) have the following features:

1. Areas of performance to be evaluated are identified and defined by the people who
will use the scales.
2. The scales are anchored by descriptions of actual job behavior that, supervisors agree,
represent specific levels of performance. The result is a set of rating scales in which both
dimensions and anchors are precisely defined.
3. All dimensions of performances to be evaluated are based on observable behaviors and
are relevant to the job being evaluated since BARS are tailor made for the job.
4. Since the raters who will actually use the scales are actively involved in the
development process, they are more likely to be committed to the final product.

BARS were developed to provide results, which subordinates could use to improve
performance. Superiors would feel comfortable to give feedback to the rates. Further BARS help
to overcome rating errors. Unfortunately, this method too suffers from distortions inherent in
most rating techniques.

 Essay Method
Here, the rater must describe the employee within a number of broad categories such as.

1. The raters overall impression of the employee’s performance.

2. The promotability of the employee
3. The jobs that the employee is now qualified or capable to perform
4. The strengths and weakness of the employee
5. The training and development assistance required by the employee.
Although, this method might be used individually, it is most frequently used in combination
with others. It is extremely useful in filing information gaps about the employees that often occur
in the better-structured checklist method.

 Cost Accounting Method

 This method evaluates performance from the monetary returns the employee yields to his or
her organization. A relationship is established between the cost included in keeping the employee
and the benefit the organization derives from him or her. Performance of the employee is then
evaluated based on the established relationship between the cost and the benefit.

b) Future Oriented Method

 Management by Objectives (MBO)

The concept of MBO conceived by Peter F. Drunker, reflects a management philosophy which
values and utilized employee contributions. Applications of MBO in the field of performance
appraisals are a recent thinking.

The working of MBO can be described in four steps:

The first step is to establish the goals each person is to attain. These goals can be used to evaluate
employee performance.

The second step involves setting the performance standard for the subordinates in a previously
arranged time period. As subordinates perform, they know fairly well what there is to do, what
has been done and what remains to be done.

The third step, the actual level of goal attainment is compared with the goals agreed upon.
The evaluator explores reasons for the goals that were not met and for the goals that were
exceeded. This step helps determine possible training needs. It also alerts the superior to
conditions in the organization that may affect a subordinate but over which the subordinate has
no control.

The final step involves establishing new goals and possibly, new strategies for goals not
previously attained.

 Psychological Appraisals
Large organizations employ full time industrial psychologists. When psychologists are used for
evaluations, they assess an individual’s future potential and not past performance. The appraisal
normally consists of in-depth interviews, psychological tests, discussions with superiors and a
 review of other evaluations. The psychologist then writes an evaluation of the employee’s
intellectual, emotional, motivational and other related characteristics that suggest individual
potential and my predict future performance. The evaluation by the psychologist may be for a
specific job opening for which the person is being considered, or it may be a global assessment for
his or her future potential. From these evaluations, placement and development decisions may be
made to shape the person’s career.

 360 Degree Appraisal

This is a technique of appraisals wherein multiple rates are involved in evaluating
performance. This is understood as a systematic collection of performance data on an individual
or group, derived from a number of stakeholders – the stakeholders being the immediate
supervisors, team members, customers, peers and self. In fact, anyone who has any information
on ‘how an employee does the job’ may be one of the appraisers. This provides a broader
perspective about an employee’s performance. In addition, the technique provides for greater
self-development of the employees. For an employees development multi-source feedback is very
useful as it enables the employee to compare his or her perceptions of self with the perceptions of
others.

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK DEFINED

360° feedback is a relatively new feature of performance management. 360° feedback has
been defined by Ward (1995) as: The systematic collection and feedback of performance data on an
individual or group derived from a number of stakeholders on their performance.

The data is usually fed back in the form of ratings against various performance dimensions.
360° feedback is also referred to as multi-source assessment or multi-rater feedback.

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK – METHODOLOGY

1. The Questionnaire
 360° feedback processes usually obtain data from questionnaires, which measure from
different perspectives the behaviors of individuals against a list of competencies. The competence
model may be developed within the organization or the competency headings may be provided by the
supplier of the questionnaire. The dimensions may broadly refer to leadership, management and
approaches to work.

2. Ratings

Ratings are given by the generators of the feedback on a scale against each heading. This may
refer both to importance and performance, as in the questionnaire, which asks those completing it to
rate the importance of each item on a scale of 1 (not important) to 6 (essential) and performance on a
scale of 1 (weak in this area) to 6 (outstanding).

3. Data Processing

Questionnaires are normally processed with the help of software developed within the
organization or, most commonly, provided by external suppliers. This enables the data collection and
analysis to be completed swiftly, with the minimum of effort and in a way that facilitates graphical as
well as numerical presentation.

4. Feedback

The feedback is often anonymous and may be presented to the individual (most commonly) to
the individual’s manager (less common) or to both the individual and the manager. Some
organizations do not arrange for feedback to be anonymous. Whether or not feedback is anonymous
depends on the organization’s culture – the more open the culture, the more likely is the source of
feedback to be revealed.

5. Action
 The action generated by the feedback will depend on the purposes of the process, i.e.
development, appraisal or pay. If the purpose is primarily developmental, the action may be left to
individuals as part of their personal development plans, but the planning process may be shared
between individuals and their managers if they both have access to the information. Even if the data
only goes to the individual, it can be discussed in a performance review meeting so that joint plans
can be made, and there is much to be said for adopting this approach.

360-Degree Feedback – Advantages and Disadvantages

Individuals get a broader perspective of how they are perceived by others than previously possible.

 Increased awareness of and relevance of competencies

 Increased awareness by senior management that they too have development needs.
 More reliable feedback to senior managers about their performance.
 Gaining acceptance of the principle of multiple stakeholders as a measure of
performance.
 Encouraging more open feedback – new insights.
 Reinforcing the desired competencies of the business.
 Provided a clearer picture to senior management of individual’s real worth (although
there tended to be some ‘halo’ – effect syndromes).
 Clarified to employee’s critical performance aspects.
 Opens up feedback and gives people a more rounded view of performance than they
had previously.
 Identifying key development areas for the individual, a department and the
organization as a whole.
 Identify strengths that can be used to the best advantage of the business.
 A rounded view of an individuals / teams / the organization performance and what its
strength and weakness are
 It has raised the self awareness of people managers of how they personally impact
upon others – positively and negatively
 It is supporting a climate of continuous improvement
  It is starting to improve the climate / morale, as measured through out employee
opinion survey
 Focused agenda for development. Forced line managers to discuss development
issues.
 Perception of feedback as more valid and objective, leading to acceptance of results
and actions required.
But there may be problems. These include:

 People not giving frank honest feedback;

 People being put under stress in receiving or giving feedback;
 Lack of action following feedback;
 Over-reliance on technology
 Too much bureaucracy
These can all be minimized if not avoided completely by careful design, communication, training and
follow-up.

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK – CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS

360-Degree is most likely to be successful when;

 It has the active support of top management who themselves take part in giving and
receiving feedback and encourage everyone else to do the same.
 There is commitment everywhere else to the process based on briefing, training, and
an understanding of the benefits to individuals as well as the organization.
 There is a real determination by all concerned to use feedback data as the basis for
development.
 Questionnaire items fit or reflect typical and significant aspects of behavior.
 Items covered in the questionnaire can be related to actual events experienced by the
individual.
 Comprehensive and well-delivered communication and training programs are followed.
APPRAISAL ERRORS
 None of the methods for appraising performance is absolutely valid or reliable; each method
has its own strengths and weakness. Let us try to understand the most commonly occurring errors
within performance appraisal methods.

1. Error of Central Tendency:

This refers to the tendency of not using extreme scale scores on the judgment scale; most of
the rates are clustered in the middle.

2. Error of Leniency:

This is caused by the tendency of the lenient rater to put most of the rates on the higher side
of the scale, while a tough rater places them on the lower side of the scale.

3. Halo Effect: In other words, it is tendency to allow the assessment on one trait to influence
assessment on others. This usually arises when traits are unfamiliar, ill – defined and involved
personal reactions.

4. Error in Unreliability:

This error occurs when there is the existence of inconsistency in the evaluations of a group of
employees by two / more appraisers.

5. Personal Bias:

This error occurs when there exists a close relationship between the appraiser and the
appraise. This tends to influence the evaluation. The scores could be on the higher when there would
be a bias on the side of the appraiser. Therefore, the scores given could tend to be higher then what
the appraise deserves. This would give the appraise an undue advantage for the appraise during the
times of promotions, pay rise etc. the same could happen vice versa too if an appraiser does not share
a good relationship with the appraise, he could tend to give absolutely low scores for the appraise.

5. No Consultation
 There would tend to be an error in the scores if the appraiser just goes on giving scores
without discussing with the appraise. If the appraise would not be given his say in the matter, the
score will not reflect the actual capability of the appraise.

6. Spill over Effect

This refers to allowing past performance appraisal ratings to unjustifiably influence current
ratings.

7. Status Effect: It refers to over rating of employed in higher level job or jobs held in high esteem, and
under rating employees in lower level job at job held in low esteem.

Chapter – III

Research Methodology

PRIMARY DATA:

Primary data is collected through discussions with officials, and staff of the company. This enables to
evaluate the company's effectiveness towards HR practices.

SECONDARY DATA:

Much stress was given to secondary data. The secondary data was extensively collected from
various sources viz, company annual reports, circulars, financial statements and some other important
documents. Main method used for collection of data is the “Questionnaire Method”.

Type of Research
 The research design comprise of the plan and structure of investigation conceived so as to arrive at
the responses to the research queries. It there by addresses the aims and objectives of the study, both
descriptively and analytically.

Sampling Technique

The sampling technique adopted for the study is non-probability Random sampling technique
according to the convenience of the researcher.

A questionnaire was administered to HR managers / executives of different software companies to

obtain data for the purpose of analysis.

Sample Size

Data is collected using a sample of 75 employees of Info Edge India Ltd.,

Sample Description

The sample mainly consists of data from the primary sources that are utilized for the purpose of
this study. This is done by means of administrating questioners to human resource managers / executives
in different software companies in the city. Secondary data like company journals, newsletters, records
etc. were also relied on for retrieving further information.

Instrumentation Technique

Questionnaire and structure disguised questions.

Actual Collection of Data

Both secondary and primary sources of data are utilized for the purpose of this study. Primary
data is collected by means of administering a questionnaire to the Human Resource Managers /
Executives in Info Edge India Ltd.,. Secondary data is collected from various records, manuals and other
sources of the HR Department.
Limitations of the study:

Any work carries some sort of limitations due to certain available and unavailable reasons. The following
are the limitations of the study.

 Limited time period- the project work has been done during the period of 45 days. This
short time may lead to some conclusions, which in long run may not be valued.
 Small sample size- more than 300 people are working in INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., as
executive level officers, so we can not considered the all employees within given time, because of
this reason we taken limited sample 75.
 Executive level only- we collected the responses from the executives only.
 Some employees are not given the response because of their busy work schedule.
 We distributed questioners to all members, but we get back only 75 from this, so the
collected information also limited.
 The some members are not given accurate responses.
 The limited information we considered for whole executives in the organization.

Chapter – IV

Company profile
Info Edge has an in-depth understanding of the Indian consumer internet domain. With years of
experience in the domain, strong cash flow generation, a diversified business portfolio and a market
capitalization of INR 80 billion, it one of the very few profitable pure play internet companies in the
country.

The company was incorporated on May 1, 1995 under the Companies Act, 1956 as Info Edge (India)
Private Limited and became a public limited company on April 27, 2006. Starting with a classified
recruitment online business, naukri.com, Info Edge has grown and diversified rapidly, setting benchmarks
as a pioneer for others to follow. Driven by innovation, creativity, an experienced and talented leadership
team and a strong culture of entrepreneurship, today, it is India’s premier online classifieds company in
recruitment, matrimony, real estate, education and related services.

Its business portfolio comprises:

Recruitment: Online recruitment classifieds, www.naukri.com, a clear market leader in the Indian e-
recruitment space, www.naukrigulf.com, a job site focused at the Middle East market, offline executive
search (www.quadranglesearch.com) and a fresher hiring site (www.firstnaukri.com). Additionally, Info
Edge provides jobseekers value added services (Naukri Fast Forward) such as resume writing.
Matrimony: Online matrimony classifieds, www.jeevansathi.com, is among the top three in India’s online
matrimonial space, and has offline Jeevansathi Match Points and franchisees.
Real Estate: Online real estate classifieds, www.99acres.com, is India’s largest property marketplace
covering almost all the major cities and a large number of agents and developers.
Education: Online education classifieds, www.shiksha.com, is the smartest gateway for students to achieve
their goals.
The company’s spirit of entrepreneurship has also been evident in the investments it has made in early
stage companies/start-up ventures to tap into the growing and vibrant Indian internet market. Currently,
the company has investments in Zomato Media Private Limited (www.zomato.com); Applect Learning
Systems Private Limited (www.meritnation.com); Kinobeo Software Private Limited (www.mydala.com);
Canvera Digital Technologies Private Limited (www.canvera.com); Happily Unmarried Marketing Private
Limited (www.happilyunmarried.com) and Goa-based Mint Bird Technologies Private Limited
(www.vacationlabs.com).
With a network of 62 offices located in 43 cities throughout India, Info Edge has 4,049 employees engaged
in innovation, product development, integration with mobile and social media, technology and technology
updation, research and development, quality assurance, sales, marketing and payment collection. It has
also made forays abroad into the Gulf market with the website www.naukrigulf.com and currently has
offices Dubai, Bahrain, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

In terms of accounting standards, Info Edge has the following subsidiary companies:
o Naukri Internet Services Private Limited and Jeevansathi Internet Services Private Limited, which
own internet domain names and related trademarks;

o Allcheckdeals India Private Limited which provides brokerage services in the real estate sector in
India;

o Info Edge (India) Mauritius Limited primarily to make overseas investments of the company (under
liquidation);

o Applect Learning Systems Private Limited which is engaged in business of kindergarten to class12
(K-12) assignment and tuitions through its online portal Meritnation.com;

o Zomato Media Private Limited, which operates an online food guide portal zomato.com; and

o MakeSense Technologies Private Limited, owner of proprietary software for semantic search which
augments search capabilities for both recruiters and job seekers, principally on naukri.com.
 Chapter – V

Data Analysis & Interpretation

Planning Performance

1. Superiors & subordinate work together to plan employees’ Performance expectations.

37% of the employees are disagree, 53% of the employees are agree and 10% of the employees are
strongly agreed. Majority of the respondents shared that there is a healthy relation between superiors
and subordinates.

2. Employees are clear about the behavior that is expected of them in the job
Graphical Representation:

INTERPRETATION
20% of the employees are disagree, 47% of the employees are agree and 33% of the
employees are strongly agreed. All most all employees know what is expected by the organization.

3. The results to be achieved from employees are specific, Measurable achievable and time
bound.
Graphical Representation:

INTERPRETATION
32% of the employees are strongly disagree, 17% of the employees are disagree And 35% of the
employees are agree 16% of the employees Strongly agreed. More than half of the employees are not
happy with the type of rewarding their work.

4. Employees tasks are clearly described to help them in achieving their performance
expectations
Graphical Representation:
INTERPRETATION
20% of the employees are disagree, 40% of the employees are agree and 40% of the
employees are strongly agreed. There is a concern that few employees are not clear about their
job description.

5. Performance standards are fixed based on systematic methods of evaluation

Graphical Representation:
 INTERPRETATION
16% of the employees are disagree, 28% of the employees are agree And 56% of the
employees are strongly agreed. Almost all employees are happy about the techniques of
evaluation based on their performance only 16% of the employees are negative about this and the
gap need to filled and the issues should be addressed.

Duration of work period in INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., ..

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

0-1 yrs 2 3%

1-5 yrs 33 55%

5-10 yrs 15 25%

10+ yrs 10 17%

Total 60 100%

Duration of work in INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., ..

3 percent of the respondents are dealing with Info Edge India Ltd., . for less than a year. 55 percent
of the respondents are dealing in Info Edge India Ltd., . from 1-5 yrs. 25 percent of the respondents are
dealing in Info Edge India Ltd., . from 5-10 yrs. 17 percent of the respondents are dealing in Info Edge India
Ltd., . for over 10 yrs.

Extent of satisfaction in setting goals/objectives in the beginning of the year.

This question was asked to the employees of INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., . to find out the extent of satisfaction
of the employees in setting goals/objectives in the beginning of the year to know if they are being given
opportunities to express their views.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of

 respondents

Very satisfied 38 63%

Satisfied 18 30%

Dissatisfied 4 7%

Total 60 100%

Chart 6: Extent of satisfaction.

63 percent of the respondents are very satisfied in setting their goals and objectives in the
beginning of the year. 30 percent of the respondents are satisfied in setting their goals and objectives in
the beginning of the year. 7 percent of the respondents are dissatisfied in setting their goals and
objectives in the beginning of the year.

Ratings of the PA strategies and programmes in the company.

This question was asked to the employees of INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., . to rate the standard of various PA
strategies and programmes that take place in the organization.

Ratings of PA strategies.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Good 42 70%

Average 18 30%

Bad 0 0%
Total 60 100%

Ratings of PA strategies.

70 percent of the respondents rate the Performance Appraisal strategies as good. 30 percent of the
respondents rate the Performance Appraisal strategies as average. None of the respondents rates the
Performance Appraisal strategies as bad.

Performance Appraisal strategies are fair and objective.

This question was asked to the employees to know if the performance appraisal strategies are fair and
objective to the employees.

PA strategies are fair or not.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Yes 34 84%

No 26 16%

Can’t say 0 0%

Total 60 100%
 84 percent of the respondents say that the Performance Appraisal strategies are fair and objective. 16
percent of the respondents say that the Performance Appraisal strategies are not fair and objective. None
of the respondents are there who can’t say anything.

It is necessary to appraise an employee.

This question was asked to the employees to know how important it is to appraise an employee.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Yes 56 93%

No 0 0%

If necessary 4 7%

Total 60 100%
 100 percent of the respondents say that it is necessary to appraise an employee. None of the respondents
says that it is necessary to appraise an employee.

There is clarity in what is expected from the employee.

This question was asked to the employees to know if they are made clear on what is expected of them so
that they can work accordingly.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

More Clarity 20 33%

Clarity 40 67%

No Clarity 0 0

Total 60 100%
 33 percent of the respondents say that they are more clarity and 67% percent of the respondents want
clarity with what is expected of them. None of the respondents say that they are not clear with what is
expected of them.

Suggestions and innovations are rewarded.

This question was asked to the employees to know if they are motivated by accepting their suggestions
and innovations in the form of rewards.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Yes 21 35%

No 39 65%

Total 60 100%
 35 percent of the respondents say that their suggestions and innovations are rewarded. 65 percent of the
respondents say that their suggestions and innovations are not rewarded.

Supervisors take interest in sharing an employee’s personal concern.

This question was asked to the employees to know if the employees’ problems are dealt well by their
supervisors so that their morale increases and they are satisfied with their job.

Table 12: Supervisors share an employee’s personal concern.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Yes 43 72%

No 17 28%

Total 60 100%

Chart 13: Supervisors share an employee’s personal concern.

 72 percent of the respondents say that the supervisors take interest in sharing their personal concern. 28
percent of the respondents say that the supervisors do not take interest in sharing their personal concern.

Annual increments/promotions are based on performance.

This question was asked to the employees to know if the annual increments/promotions are based on
their performance or not.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Yes 49 82%

No 9 15%

Can’t say 2 3%

Total 60 100%
 82 percent of the respondents say that the annual increments/promotions are based on their
performance. 15 percent of the respondents say that the annual increments/promotions are not based on
their performance. 3 percent of the respondents can’t say or their answers are inapplicable.

Extent of satisfaction in interdepartmental teamwork.

This question was asked to the employees to know the extent of satisfaction in interdepartmental
teamwork based on which their effectiveness in work can be known.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Very satisfied 17 28%

Satisfied 30 50%

Dissatisfied 13 22%

Total 60 100%

28 percent of the respondents are very satisfied with interdepartmental teamwork. 50 percent of the
respondents are just satisfied with interdepartmental teamwork. 22 percent of the respondents are
dissatisfied with interdepartmental teamwork.
 Extent of help of training and development programmes in improving employees’ performance.

This question was asked to the employees to know how far the training and development programme is
helping the employees to learn and work better.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

To great extent 13 22%

To some extent 42 70%

To very little extent 5 8%

Total 60 100%

22 percent of the respondents say that the training and development programmes help to a great extent
to improve their performance. 70 percent of the respondents say that the training and development
programmes help to some extent to improve their performance. 8 percent of the respondents say that the
training and development programmes help to a very little extent to improve their performance.

Performance Appraisal System is used in job rotation.

This question was asked to the employees to know the extent of use of performance appraisal system in
job rotation.
Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Mostly 7 12%

Partially 53 88%

Nil 0 0%

Total 60 100%

12 percent of the respondents say that performance appraisal system is mostly used in job rotation. 88
percent of the respondents say that performance appraisal system is partially used in job rotation. None
of the respondents say that performance appraisal system is not at all used in job rotation.

Extent of the purpose of performance appraisal system being fulfilled.

This question was asked to the employees to know how far the performance appraisal system is actually
helping them in their work.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Completely 39 65%

Partially 21 35%
Total 60 100%

Chart 18:

65 percent of the respondents say that the purpose of performance appraisal is completely fulfilled. 35
percent of the respondents say that the purpose of performance appraisal is partially fulfilled.

INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., . always strives for continuous individual improvements.

This question was asked to the employees to know how far they agree with the fact that INFO EDGE INDIA
LTD., . always strives for continuous individual improvements.

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Strongly agree 13 22%

Agree 35 58%

Disagree 12 20
Total 60 100%

22 percent of

the respondents strongly agree that INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., . always strives for continuous individual
improvements. 58 percent of the respondents agree that INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., . always strives for
continuous individual improvements. 15 percent of the respondents disagree that INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., .
always strives for continuous individual improvements. 5 percent of the respondents strongly disagree
that INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., . always strives for continuous individual improvements.

Chapter – VI
Findings & Recommendations
The performance management system of INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., is designed in

such a way that it can identify the track high potential and high critical performers as well as low

performers.

The performance management system of INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., encourages

employees innovations and creativity, skills of employees are recognized and given chance to

improve the work. Their ideas are taken to implement in the goal setting for coming financial year.
 From the study of INFO EDGE INDIA LTD., performance management system we

found that there is very good team effort and collaboration between HOD’s and immediate

supervisor to achieve the goal. The team members and supervisor are supportive and encourages

the new employees to learn.

The periodic review and feedback of the performance of the employees are done

through formal and informal feedback system that helps in improving the performance of the

employee. Special care is taken for the DME rated employees and given special training through

formal one-year performance improvement program.

There are various rewards and recognition system based on performance appraisal report

like service award, project bonus, individual awards, team awards, spot awards which motivate

employees and encourages employees to retain in the company.

Suggestions:

Performance review of support cadre is done every half yearly and where as managerial

cadre is done every quarterly. So in my understanding I suggest that the performance review of the

support cadre must be done every quarterly so that they can be much aware of their performance and

hence they can improve their skills and perform the better job.
 Performance management system is done manually which is time consuming and long

process so I suggest for on-line performance management system to be implemented which can quickly

resolve performance issue before they start becoming serious business problem.

There are two cycles regarding performance i.e., July to June for performance appraisal and

April to march is performing period cycle of employee. So in my suggestion there must be only one cycle

regarding performance so that we can allocate the rest time in business improvement.

Chapter – VII
Conclusion

The overall performance management system is good even through some minor problems it also showing good

results but also has some defects in its process. The employees are very much capable in utilizing resources

maximum and they also balancing short-term and long-term priorities & procedures from their leaders to achieving

objectives.

The majority of the employees are not satisfied with grievance committee decisions and also not

appreciable by the grievance committee for time consuming in delivering it decisions on performance management
issues. Skills of employees is recognized and given chance to prove their work. Their ideas are taken to implement in

there goals. And this motivates them to work for company to achieve the target set before them.

Bibliography

Managing Human Resource --- Wayne F. Casico

(Fifth edition)

Personnel Management --- C. B Mamoria,

(21-st edition)

HR and Personnel Management --- Aswathappa

(Third edition)

1. http://www.durban.gov.za/Documents/City_Government/Performance_Manageme
nt_Unit/Organisational%20Performance%20Framework.PDF
2. http://www.theijm.com/vol2issue1/140.pdf
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale
4. http://www.infoedge.com
5. http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/rpt/109436_.pdf
6. http://www.housetontx.gov/hr/files/Intro%20Presentation_091712012.pdf