Abstract

:

Performance appraisal is a vital tool to measure the frameworks set by any organization to its
employees. It is utilized to track individual contribution and performance against organizational goals
and to identify individual strengths and opportunities for future improvements and assessed whether
organizational goals are achieved or serves as basis for the company’s future planning and development
.This study examined the status of the performance appraisal system of Nass Construction Company and
its implication to employees performance. The respondents of this study were tenured employees . The
purposive sampling technique was used in the selection of respondents. Quantitative and qualitative
method of research was utilized in the gathering of data. Interviews, focus group discussion and survey
questionnaires were the main instrument used in this study. The result of the study showed that the
performance appraisal system of the company are in place, aligned with the vision and mission of the
institution , and is accurate in terms of content and purpose. On the other hand, the results reflected
that the performance appraisal system of the company has brought about both positive and negative
impact on the employees performance. Further, the respondents identified some major gaps in the
implementation of the company’s appraisal system: no appropriate rewards are given to best
employees, appraisal system was not fully explained to employees, no feedback of results and
employees do not participate in the formulation of evaluation tools. It is recommended that the
company should revisit and redesign its appraisal system that is align to its vision and mission towards
the attainment of its organizational goals.

Keywords: Company Performance, Employee Efficiency, Employee Motivation, Employee Reward
System,
APPRAISALS AT YARRA BANK
Yarra Bank has a five-level performance appraisal system using a forced ranking
distribution. Superior performers (the top 10 per cent) are rated 1, good
performers (the next 25 per cent) are rated 2, acceptable performers (the next
45 per cent) are rated 3, marginal performers (the next 15 per cent) are rated 4
and unsatisfactory performers (the bottom 5 per cent) are rated 5. Employees
rated 5 are given 3 to 6 months to improve their performance before they are
considered for termination. Salary increases (awarded to those rated 1, 2 or 3)
and bonus payments (awarded only to those rated 1 or 2) are performance
related. Employees rated 4 and 5 are given only legally required increases.
Although meant to be confidential, employees quickly learn the ratings of other
people in the organisation. Those with a 1 rating are referred to as ‘stars’, those
with a 2 rating are called ‘starlets’ and those with a 4 or 5 rating are called
‘dogs’. Employees rated 3 are called ‘workhorses’.
Problems arise when a ‘star’ is perceived by co-workers as really belonging to
another ranking group. This fosters envy and a reluctance to communicate and
cooperate. The typical attitude is that if they

Although originally promoted as a management program. As a result. let them solve the problem. A major problem also exists with those rated marginal. The annual performance appraisal program thus creates considerable tension and dissatisfaction among Yarra Bank’s managers and workers. Finally.348 are hotshots. Employees rated 5 who belong to a union are seen as being treated more leniently when it comes to pay increases and terminations than employees who are not union members. One consequence of this is that many managers claim that the forced distribution of employees (where managers rank each employee from 1–5) creates too much ill feeling and is not fair. 2. it is recognised that some managers are reluctant to fire troublesome non- performing employees who belong to a union (and especially those who are members of the United Union of Australia).com. https://books. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.ph/books?id=spAY7_nLHcwC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&d q=disadvantages+of+five- level+performance+appraisal+system&source=bl&ots=0y_VcoJIsU&sig=BXa244Z81C . although trained and experienced. over time the performance appraisal program has become regarded more as a HR department exercise. they become demotivated. and the better ones (the borderline 2’s) quit the company. argue that their department is different (because most of their people are stars or starlets) and refuse to rank anyone as a 4 or 5. a major source of contention exists with those graded as ‘dogs’. Some managers (especially the more politically powerful).google. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the present program. they are failing to meet performance standards. a problem exists with a number of employees rated 3 because they regard their rating as really meaning that they are only average. Likewise. Identify the major stakeholders and explain their likely views of the existing performance appraisal program. Although the company denies favouritism occurs. Managers who strictly follow the system feel that their employees are disadvantaged as a result. Although a distinction is made in the performance appraisal record between employees who have been given a 4 rating because they are new or learning a job and those whose performance is rated marginal because.

com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of- performance-management/ A stakeholder is a person (for example. they become demotivated Rated 4 employees-A major problem also exists with those rated marginal. shareholders may sell their shares and trade unions may create an industrial dispute. although trained and experienced. a company. Employees rated 5 who belong to a .156 For example. As a result. Rated 1 employees - Rated 2 employees-the better ones (the borderline 2’s) quit the company Rated 3 employees -Likewise. trade union or government) that has a vested interest in an organisation’s operations and performance (see figure 1.aGiwVvYXgcvZql5rY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIwPrD2uLKxwIVyc 2ACh0kbAiV#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.10). a major source of contention exists with those graded as ‘dogs’. a problem exists with a number of employees rated 3 because they regard their rating as really meaning that they are only average.workforce.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-performance-appraisal- rating-systems http://smartchurchmanagement. Stakeholders try to influence the way an organisation operates by supporting or opposing its strategies. Although a distinction is made in the performance appraisal record between employees who have been given a 4 rating because they are new or learning a job and those whose performance is rated marginal because. employees may go on strike or quit. they are failing to meet performance standards. customers may buy elsewhere. Rated 5 employees who belongs to a union - Rate 5 employees who do not belong to a union-Finally. an employee or a shareholder) or group (for example.

R.com/#/books/9780730302582/epubcfi/6/42%5B.pdf http://moodle.php/68770/mod_resource/content/1/Fletcher.union are seen as being treated more leniently when it comes to pay increases and terminations than employees who are not union members. Managers who strictly follow the system.com/doi/abs/10. [Online] Australia.vst. HR Department Strengths . [Accessed: 28th of August 2015].1108/02683940410543605 http://online.edu/faculty/showDeclFileRes.feel that their employees are disadvantaged as a result. Some managers (especially the more politically powerful). it is recognised that some managers are reluctant to fire troublesome non-performing employees who belong to a union (and especially those who are members of the United Union of Australia). John Wiley & Sons.goal oriented .emeraldinsight.Although the company denies favouritism occurs.do?declId=240&key=__workpaper__ http://www.vnd.org/ijems/23/IJEMSi2n3i7i1222217. managers .baskent.vitalsource.performance based appraisal weakness.managementjournals. Available from: http://online. argue that their department is different (because most of their people are stars or starlets) and refuse to rank anyone as a 4 or 5.essec. managers who are politically powerful -One consequence of this is that many managers claim that the forced distribution of employees (where managers rank each employee from 1–5) creates too much ill feeling and is not fair.idref=cha .edu.tr/pluginfile.com/books/9780730302582/epubcfi/6/34 .tension Ref STONE.wsj.pdf http://blogs. (2013) Managing Human Resources 4e.com/indiarealtime/2011/04/29/career-journal-making-performance- appraisals-more-effective/ http://www.vitalsource. http://www.

p8%5D .