1. 1.1 INTRODUCTION: The System of Performance Appraisal for Board level positions and of executives two levels below the Board level positions for Navaratna and Mini Ratna Companies has been revised by Public Sector Enterprises Selection Board for having uniformity in the Appraisal System. NTPC has accordingly reviewed the existing Appraisal System of senior executive levels. The revised Performance Management System having components of Performance Planning, Monitoring, Review, and Development through involvement of the Appraisee is being introduced. OBJECTIVES: To accomplish organizational goals through a system of performance assessment linked to company's objectives. To facilitate fulfillment of individual aspirations and promotion of professional excellence. To encourage a two-way communication process between the Appraisee and the Reporting Officer for bringing objectivity in Performance Appraisal System. To evaluate the potential of the executive to assume higher responsibilities along the hierarchy. To involve the Appraisee through various stages of Performance Management, thereby reducing the Performance gaps. To map competencies and potential of executives for enabling the organisation to source the talent generally from within the company for meeting organizational growth. To involve the executive to share the responsibility and become accountable for efficient management of the business for result oriented performance through mutual involvement. To provide a transparent system to help each executive to evaluate his own performance and develop himself with the help of Reporting Officer. To provide for removal of differences, if any, in performance appraisal through intervention of the Reviewing Officer. APPLICABILITY: The revised Performance Management System is applicable to all senior executives at the level of E7A and above including Board level. The Performance Management System will also cover senior executives of E7A and above who may join NTPC on deputation or retaining lien while in service of NTPC. However, for Board level Appointees the ‘The Performance Appraisal Report’ as prescribed by PESB is applicable.


2. 2.1







2.8 2.9 3. 3.1 3.2


2 The System provides for setting up of Key Performance Areas (KPAs) and reviewing the same in two half-yearly periods. . The Performance Management System brings to focus important managerial attributes and strikes a balance between ‘Performance’ and other aspects of managerial talents/skills. Values and Potential.4.6 4.3 Generic Managerial competencies exhibited by an Appraisee while discharging duties have been given 20% weightage in appraisal.1 The Performance Appraisal Period would run concurrent with the financial year i. Generic Managerial Competencies.7 4. 5.e.3 The first half year is from 1st April to 30th September and the second halfyear is from 1st Oct. The Performance Management System provides for appraisal of the executive’s Potential to assume higher responsibility and has a weightage of 15% in appraisal.8 4. PERIODICITY: 4.9 5. 5. consisting of Performance. 4. 4. to 31st March. To utilize the Performance Management System for facilitating individual career development and bring organisation-wide HR intervention at senior levels to bridge competency gaps.5 4. The Performance Component as identified and measures evolved would have 50% weightage in total appraisal. totaling to 100 marks. from 1st April to 31st March. The System aims to bring the concept of ownership and accountability on both Appraisee and Appraiser to create mutual trust and confidence.2 4. 5. Executives will have a set of Key Performance Areas to be identified through discussion and achieve them during the performance period. The system is to develop the competencies by involving the executive in setting targets and identifying Key Performance Areas.1 FOCUS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: The focus of the Performance Management System for senior executives is to appraise them on different components of managerial responsibilities.4 The Company’s concern for actualization of organizational Core Values is reflected in the Performance Management and is assigned a weightage of 15% in appraisal. 4.

1 The Performance Management System.Part IA: First Half Year Performance. Part II Part III Part IV Part V Competencies Values Potential Appraisal Performance & Potential Profile 6. Values and Potential Appraisal. HR initiatives like Professional Circles.1.1.4 6.1. The Measure could have Quantitative Targets. The KPAs should be more focussed. . Specific. One of the KPAs should be “Staff Development”. Review of KPAs for 2nd half-year.e.3 6. 5. actual ‘Measures’ for each KPA is to be defined and written.4 . Realistic and Time-Bound.5 At the end of the Performance Appraisal year. Agreed (mutually arrived at by the Appraiser and the Appraisee). Quality Circles.3 7. Measurable. .4 While reviewing the KPAs of the first half year. The KPAs reflect ‘Stretch Standard’ which is in excess of “Norm”. 6. Suggestion Scheme etc. concrete and measureable.6 7.. normal standard of performance expected. The measures for this could be mandays of training & development activities for the Unit/ Department/function visa-vis the Company’s training targets. the targets for Key Performance Areas for the second half year are evolved.1 PART I-PERFORMANCE: Part IA: First Half Year Performance: The System provides for the Reporting Officer (Appraiser) and the executive (Appraisee) to identify through discussion and agree upon a set of Key Performance Areas (KPAs) in brief at the beginning of the first half-year.2 7.e. The KPA Targets may be having different weightages and limited to 8 Key Performance Areas only. .5. 6. the review for the second half of the year is undertaken.Part IC: Annual Perfomance.1. Qualitative Improvements etc.1. consisting of the following components is implemented through ‘Performance Appraisal Form’.5 6. based on the nature of the KPA item.Performance: .Part IB: Second Half Year Performance. as building a performing team is an essential target for senior executives. Competencies.Part ID: Comments on Performance.2 Part I. The idea is to enable the executive to focus on given deliverables and not miss important critical areas. Time Schedule for achieving KPAs fully/partially. The review would also involve annual appraisal of KPAs. .1 7.0 7. The KPAs should be ‘SMART’ i.5 They should be more than the “Norm” i. While identifying KPAs. COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW: 6. 7.

2.6 7. The Performance Evaluation of 2nd half-year Performance is jointly undertaken on completion of 2nd half year/Annual Performance year and not later than 15th April. The KPAs may undergo change owing to target accomplished. change of role etc.1.8 7. change of role etc. Both the Appraisee and the Reporting Officer sign the Part IA. actual achievement is briefly recorded against each KPA and marks obtained w.7. The marks obtained are aggregated at the bottom out of 50 marks as aggregate 7.9 The Appraiser and Appraisee jointly evolve KPAs. each KPA is indicated in relevant column. During the Performance Evaluation. KPAs which extend beyond the 1st half year may be rerecorded in the targets of the 2nd half-year.3 PART IC: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE: .1.4 7.6 7.r. 7. the actual achievement is assessed against each KPA and marks obtained against each KPA is indicated.1 The System helps to review the Key Performance Area Targets for the Second Half-Year based on the evaluation of 1st half-year KPAs depending on actual achievements. new targets coming up.3 7. The Performance under Part IA is jointly reviewed and performance evaluated at the beginning of 2nd half year and not later than 15th October.2.2. At the time of joint review.2. The aggregate of marks obtained for different KPAs is worked out and indicated as aggregate of IA. new targets coming up.t.7 IB.2.1. define measures and allocate marks for each KPA at the beginning of first half-year by 15th April. 7. ‘Measures’ for each KPA defined and Marks allocated.7 7.1. The KPAs may undergo change owing to target accomplished. 7.2 PART IB: SECOND HALF PERFORMANCE: The reworked KPA targets are briefly recorded.5 7.

3.2 In Part ID the Reporting Officer offers comments w.4.3. 7. 7.7.t. . 7. It would provide a pictorial description on the performance of the appraisee for the year.2 The Annual Performance Marks out of 50 marks be computed based on the formula mentioned in Part 1C and marks obtained be indicated in the Box.1 Part I related to Performance gets completed on filling up of Part ID by the Reporting Officer at the end of Appraisal year.4.3.r.3. Achievements and sums up in brief the Performance profile of the appraisee in writing.3 The marks so obtained out of 50 would be the marks secured for “Annual Performance” in the achievement of KPAs. 7.1 This part consolidates the 1st half-year and 2nd half-year Performance of the Appraisee by aggregating Performance Marks obtained in Part IA and Part IB. KPAs.4 PART 1D: COMMENTS ON PERFORMANCE: 7. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 7. Measures.4 The Appraisee and the Reporting Officer would jointly endorse the Annual Performance by signatures.

the KPA inputs and measures are also derived from the MOU Targets set for the financial year which flows down from Corporate level to different Units and Functions across the Organisation.1 Key Performance Areas (KPAs) are such critical areas of performance.5. Division. if any. The Reporting Officer should base the evaluation of the performance based on the data collected during the performance period.5. Station. point out positive personality factors that were observed during the performance. . 7. which though constitute few in number.3 Similarly.4. the Reporting Officer would bring out summary of Key Performance Areas achieved in the year. 7. It is therefore desirable to maintain a diary for monitoring the performance and providing feedback from time to time during the relevant performance period.4. Measures and allocation of marks to different KPAs will have to be derived and worked out from the Annual Performance Targets of the Project. favourable conditions that prevailed in the situation and finally mention the negative personality factors which were observed and which came in the way of achieving KPAs. 7.4. would have major impact on Business/Targets of the Units/Functions.3 While summarising the performance.7. unfavourable situations that were encountered by the appriasee during the period. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 7.5 DETERMINATION OF INPUT FOR PART IA AND PART IB: 7.2 The input for identification of Key Performance Areas.5. Department and Function as the case may be.

Head of Department.6 Circumstances may arise when due to the revision of business plans. KPAs could be arrived from the Business Plans for the Unit/Function. Long Term and Short Term Plans etc. Under such circumstances. Suitable remark should be reflected in the achievement column. The various activities/sub-activities associated with KPAs should be separately discussed including ‘Measures/Standards’ for each of them. optimal utilisation of resources. Functional Head. new project identified may be abandoned and or may be relegated to lower priority after substantial activities undertaken. it is essential to discuss the KPAs. Task Forces. Therefore a separate diary for details and for monitoring periodically is preferred. certain KPAs may lose relevance in spite of the best efforts put in by the appraisee. the KPAs and Measures are assessed and Marks allotted for the 1st half-year.5 7..6. The range of performance measurement could be ‘Good’ which amounts to meeting the ‘Norm’. Corporate Plan.5. Measures and Marks awarded to different KPAs by the Reporting Officer with the appraisee for 1st half-year performance. KPA-Measures should be preferably fixed on a reasonable range of performance target instead of a fixed target. Measures and Marks are arrived at for 2nd half-year Performance period.5.5. the following system may be followed: 7.7 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Similarly.1 If the KPA was substantially achieved before abandoning of the target/the area of activities. R&M Plans.5. etc. The range of measure for ‘Outstanding’ is a stretch target which could be achieved by best efforts.5. and a new set of KPAs.6 7. at the beginning of 2nd half-year. In addition. at the beginning of the year. 7.8 Therefore. then the appraisee should be assessed based on the results achieved by him.5. These are only indicative. Similarly. allotment of marks should be on a range linked to the extent of achievement of targets whether it is in range of ‘Good’. . ‘Very Good’ would be a range of performance which would be superior to the ‘Norm’ but cannot be classified as ‘Outstanding’.9 7. marks are allotted commensurate with performance level.4 Another source for KPAs are the functional role & responsibility being discharged as Unit Head. against the KPA and fair assessment of KPA may be made and marks awarded judiciously. Recommendations of Study Groups. Alteration of KPAs under Special Circumstances: 7. 7. For example. so that other factors affecting performance could be accounted for and a reasonable assessment is made. ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’.7. as the target may be abandoned. For performance below ‘Good’ also.

If the change is earlier to 3 months replace KPAs by new set of KPAs commensurate with revised responsibility. Technical/Functional Areas and Managerial Competencies.1.1 8. use data for making effective business decisions on time. the KPAs for his new responsibility is again discussed and arrived at his new place of posting. On his joining the new place of posting.6.2 In circumstances when a person’s responsibility gets changed due to addition/deletion of certain assignment.6. the present assignment which the executive is presently doing. B. The purpose of this Part is to identify whether the Appraisee has the right balance between functional and managerial competencies in order to find roles for which he can be groomed like ‘Generalist’ or ‘Specialist’ and provide suitable career paths based on the competencies.3 7.6. Technical Knowledge: 8.1.PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 7. as well as. Competency based evaluation would help the organisation to take systematic steps for bridging the competency gaps.4 8. PART II: COMPETENCIES: Evaluation of Competencies: The System envisages evaluation of competencies of the executives on two broad categories namely. In case any KPAs lose relevance within three months of the commencement of the relevant half year the same may be replaced by a new set of KPAs by following all the systems provided for evolving KPAs. provided a minimum of 3 months has been spent in the appraisal year. COMPETENCIES AND RATINGS: Competencies: The competencies and the ascribed meaning/ability to be assessed are as under: A. identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing . measurement. In cases where the person is transferred out of the present role after completion of 3 months of the appraisal year then his Performance Management System should be completed for that period before release.1. 7.4 8. then assessment should be carried out and marks awarded to each of the KPA which loses relevance in the revised responsibility.1.1 8.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 8.2 8.0 8.3 To reward Appraisees not solely on the performance but also on the competencies.2.1 Knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the work of the organisation. as performance may be influenced by several other factors on which executive has no direct control. Business Attitude: The ability to identify opportunities. etc.

Considers all departmental/division’s performance in line with the targets and goals of the company. Interpersonal Competence: To promote open and constructive relationships with all. using common sense.2. E.system and take action as required. plans and tactics.2 RATINGS OF COMPETENCIES: The competencies are evaluated annually on a five-point rating scale-1. past experience and rules to identify key underlying issues in their proper perspective for taking necessary action.the rating 1 being the lowest end of the scale and 5 being the highest on the scale. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM H. the ability to understand the nature and dynamics of interaction with others. Communication Skills: Ability to communicate ideas and information effectively through both written and oral presentations. C. 8.4 & 5 .3. .2. Strategic Thinking: The ability to understand situations and to generate alternate strategies. Resources Management: The ability to allocate and optimally utilize the resources in a cost effective way. G. to convert ideas into action plans after ensuring their acceptability to present company’s policies and objectives to groups within and outside. Capacity to conceptualise long term role based on operational analysis and assessment of policies and procedures having impact on business strategies of the company. Willingness to consult and involve subordinates in decision making thereby espousing confidence in subordinates. respecting individuals as they are and exhibiting tolerance for differences and disagreements based on rational and objective grounds. contributing to the development of the subordinates. Systematic Thinking: Ability to see linkages between situations that are not obviously related. F. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM D. Empowering Skills: The ability to delegate authority to the subordinates while retaining responsibility thus.

8. Hence due emphasis is laid on the Core Values demonstrated by the executive in his day-to-day business dealings and 15% weightage has been ascribed in the Performance Appraisal to the process of Value actualisation exhibited by the executive.8 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 8. COMPANY VALUES & RATINGS: The Corporate Values ‘COMIT’ and the indicative observable behavior in respect of each value is as under: A.6 Based on the competencies observed. The marks so obtained out of 20 is indicated in the Box at the bottom of Part II.1. he is courteous.2.2. Thereafter the aggregate rating is to be converted to marks out of 20 using the Conversion formula (based on the maximum attainable marks of 40 i. PART III:VALUES: Value Actualisation: Adoption of the Company’s Core Values in the business dealings is one of the essential duties of employees at all levels. have a major role in the actualisation of Core Values by being ‘Role Models’ in observing and practising them and thereby leading by example.3 8. . The Reporting Officer would discuss each competency (A to H) with the Appraisee and plot the rating.7 8. The Part II is duly signed by the Appraisee and the Reporting Officer.1 9.2.2 The review of competencies and completion of Part II for the previous appraisal year is done at the end of Appraisal year.1 9.1. the Reporting Officer would classify each competency on a scale of 1 to 5. he demonstrates loyalty and commitment to the organisation and has a sense of ownership and belongingness with it.e. The competencies all together have a weightage of 20% in the total Performance Appraisal. sincere.2.2.2. Customer Focus: 9. Organisational Pride: The Executive holds the company in high esteem and rejoices in belonging to it. not later than 15th April. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM B.5 8.1.2 9. The aggregate of the rating of each competency is to be arrived at the bottom of the ratings column. Especially Senior Executives who occupy leadership positions in the Company.1 The Executive has conviction that the customer (Internal & External) is the center of all activity.0 9.9 8.3 9. 8. 8 competencies x 5 maximum rating = 40). patient and sensitive to the customers and honours commitments on time.

10. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM . The Reporting Officer would evaluate the Appraisee on each of the Value and mark the rating for each value.2. he is creative and innovative and has the willingness to experiment and take risks. namely evaluating the suitability of the executive to assume higher responsibilities along the hierarchy.2 Potential is a component related to “Competencies” of Part II.3 In due course of time.4 9. The marks obtained out of 15 marks is written in the Box.7 10. Mutual Respect and Trust: The Executive has high regard for and faith in the fellow organisational members.2.4 The personality profile of each individual based on the Assessment Centre or with the help of other process can become available to the Reporting Officer to enable him to evaluate potential of the appraisee with more objectivity. 9. The Part III is signed jointly by the Reporting Officer and the Appraisee. the appraisal of ‘Potential Component’ may be done through Assessment Centres or with the help of such other means. he believes in collaboration and openness and has good team spirit. E. PART IV-POTENTIAL APPRAISAL: 10. The ratings are then aggregated at the bottom of the rating column out of maximum of 25. thinking new and ahead and being swift without compromising on quality. Total Quality: The Executive believes in pursuing excellence in all spheres of activity.2.6 9. not later than 15th April. systems and processes. Initiative and Speed: The Executive believes in taking the first step.2.0 The ratings so obtained would be converted to 15 marks by the conversion formula given. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 9.2. It seeks to achieve one of the major objectives of the Performance Appraisal System. to make the appraisal more broad-based.1. 9.C.5 9.1 Evaluation of Potential: 10. he makes continuous efforts in improving standards of performance. The evaluation of Values and completion of Part III for the previous appraisal year is done at the end of Performance Appraisal Year.2.2. D. Each value has to be evaluated through discussion on a rating scale of 1 to 5 the rating 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. 10.

Conceptual Ability: The executive demonstrates the ability to understand and forecast results. This would be out of 20 marks. is able to work collaboratively instead of competitively.2. is able to reorganize his own department while managing diverse and divergent views without loosing sight of the objectives. pride and commitment amongst all levels of the organisation. setting an example for others to emulate. 10. 10. Team Building: The executive demonstrates ability to cooperate and interact with others in a team environment.2. Rating 1 being lowest and rating 5 being the highest. Leadership Abilities: The executive demonstrates ability for guiding and facilitating decision making for achieving goals.4 The aggregate of all the comptencies A to D would be arrived at by totalling all the ratings.5 The Potential Appraisal has a weightage of 15% in the total Performance Appraisal. 10.2.7 The marks so obtained out of 15 marks is written in the Box. 10. B.2.2. generates enthusiasm. the Reporting Officer would objectively evaluate the potential of the assessee based on factual information observed during assessment year.2 The evaluation of ‘Generic Competencies’ for potential Appraisal is done through discussion on a rating scale of 1 to 5.8 The Part IV is jointly signed by the Reporting Officer and the Appraisee bottom of the page.2. at the .6 The rating on potential out of 15 marks is obtained by using the Conversion formula at the bottom of Part IV. able to respond to situations quickly and predict changes. 10.1. C.6 Pending institutionalisation of such systems.10.1. sensitive to environment. This would be possible once the Assessment Centres or any such other systems are institutionalised and all senior executives are covered. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM D. Strategic Vision: The executive demonstrates the ability to build future scenarios and to handle change with a focus on long term issues.2.3 The evaluation of potential is done on each competency and rating given against each in the rating column by the Reporting Officer.5 That would also provide a more detailed prescription of ‘development’ initiatives. 10.2 RATINGS ON POTENTIAL: 10. 10.1 The following generic competencies are covered for potential evaluation of Executives : A.2. 10. 10.

3 In case the first Reviewing Officer in hierarchy feels the necessity of reviewing the appraisal written by the Reporting Officer he would have a detailed discussion with the Reporting Officer on each of the items and arrive at a fair decision accounting for the views of Reporting Officer. 11. The decision of the countersigning authority is final. Part II.1. Thereafter he should offer comments in the relevant column including different ratings for each of the items duly substantiated by the facts. 12.1. 11.1 11.2. not later than 15th April.0 REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES OF THE SYSTEM: . 11. 11. Thereafter offer comments and ratings on the Performance of the appraisee in the relevant column. Competencies.2 The Reviewing Officers in the hierarchy would go through the performance of the appraisee in totality as finally brought out by the Reporting Officer inter-alia indicating details of marks scored under Performance.2 PART V: PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL PROFILE: Final Marks Scored: The Part V would sum up all marks scored for the Performance Appraisal year.1 11.5 Similarly. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 11.1. 11.2. The marks scored for Part I. countersigning authority who is the final authority will offer considered comments in the final appraisal by him taking into account the appraisal of the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officers. Values and Potential before countersigning & offering comments if any.4 Similarly if the Second Reviewing Officer has any comments with respect to the performance and other parameters of evaluation he would duly discuss with the first Reviewing Officer and arrive at a fair decision.3 The aggregate of the marks scored is arrived at by adding all marks scored for different components.6 The Reviewing Officer / countersigning officer while undertaking review would be guided by such factors like situations/circumstances that may have bearing on the overall performance evaluation of the appraisee.2. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 11.10.4 This would form the Final score of Performance & Potential Appraisal rating of the executive out of 100 marks. He would endeavour to have uniform approach with respect to assessments brought out by different Reporting Officers under his control.1 COUNTERSIGNING THE APPRAISAL: The Appraisal of the Reporting Officer is duly countersigned by the Reviewing Officers above in the hierarchy.1.9 The appraisal of this Part for the previous appraisal year is done at the end of Performance Appraisal year. Part III and Part IV is transferred to this section and entered against respective item. 11.2. 11.0 11. accounting for the views of the first Reviewing Officer.

dislike etc. It is important that one should be aware of the problems that can affect the validity and dependability of the Appraisal System. regional or religious backgrounds. appraisal may become invalidated because of biases carried as an appraiser. 12. Biases may creep in for several reasons such as social background. 13. Some appraisers may resort to this for sometime.1 Implementation of Performance Management System is very sensitive and needs to be done with utmost objectivity.12.5 LENIENCY ERROR: It occurs when the appraiser artificially assigns all or certain group of employees high performance ratings and consequently all or certain scores cluster at the top of the rating scales.7 CENTRAL TENDENCY: It is the tendency of the appraiser to avoid using the extremes of rating scales and to cluster the ratings around the mid point. 13. Difficulties may crop up in its implementation while completing the Form.4 INFLATION OF RATING: It is a tendency to inflate ratings.8 SPILL OVER EFFECT: . HALO EFFECT: It is the tendency to base the overall assessment of an individual on the basis of a specific trait/characteristic of the appraisee.2.0 13. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 13.2 13. but some are generally prone to give inflated ratings without giving regard to Performance.6 STRICTNESS ERROR: It occurs when the appraiser artificially assigns all or certain group of employees low performance ratings and consequently all or certain scores cluster at the bottom of the rating scales.1 PITFALLS TO BE AVOIDED: The fact that the Performance Management System is implemented by human beings. 13. bias and other pitfalls that may influence appraisal. 13.3 BIAS: Many a times. 13. Any difficulty or difference that may arise between the Reporting Officer and the Appraisee in the process of implementation of the system needs to be sorted out through mandatory intervention of the immediate Reviewing Officer in the hierarchy. inter-personal conflicts. there is likelihood of prejudice. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 13.

15.3 15. 15. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 14. This is called recency effect.0 15.It is the tendency of the appraiser to carry in mind the past performance of the appraisee in view while making evaluation on the present Performance. GENERAL: Performance Discussion: 14. remove difficulties and ensure completion of appraisal report and sending to Corporate Centre by 15th May every year. positive and negative aspects.2 The performance discussion calls for creating conducive atmosphere by putting the Appraisee at ease and hence exclusive time and energy is to be spent on this important activity of discussion and feedback.3 The Reporting Officer need to establish rapport with the Appraisee by spending initially 5-10 minutes for discussion on positive aspects. Therefore. The Reporting Officer would facilitate the Appraisee to reflect on the performance and on related issues. 13. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 15. 14.1.2 Regional Head and Project Head would facilitate implementation by monitoring progress. The primary responsibility for making available of Performance Appraisal Form and setting the process in motion rests jointly with the Reporting Officer and the Appraisee as per the time frame provided in the System.9 RECENCY EFFECT: Some times the raters assign ratings on the basis of recent behaviour they have seen in their appraisees forgetting about past behaviour over a period.2 FEEDBACK: . active listening is essential. 15.4 The process of performance discussion is to enable the Reporting Officer to gather all possible data with respect to performance viz.0 14. monitoring and retrieval of completed form. understanding the problems faced by the appraisee and actions taken by him for overcoming the same.1.. accomplishments.1 15. The process of discussion needs to be given utmost importance and carried out in a conducive atmosphere in order to remove any anxiety or tension in the Appraisee.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM: Regional HR and Unit HR are responsible for implementation by communicating down the line and facilitating smooth implementation by extending logistic support.1.1 Performance discussion is one of the important activities to be undertaken by the Reporting Officer with the Appraisee. situations which contributed to the performance etc.1.

Similarly.2 The developmental needs identified by the Reporting Officer will be shared with the Appraisee and the same would be reflected by him while offering the comments in Part V.1 Providing performance feedback is a delicate matter and the Reporting Officer should lead the performance discussion to create a condition for providing Performance Feedback in the best possible manner. 15. 15.2 The feedback should be focussed on the specific performance actions and not on the personality of the assessee. Therefore regular performance monitoring review and feedback should be carried out during each half year. 15.15.3 SPECIMEN: In order to acquaint the Appraiser and Appraisee with KPAs. feedback should be a regular feature of performance review rather than reserving it for the end of the performance year.3 The continuous feedback based on the facts gathered during the period would provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to take corrective steps during the remaining part of the performance period.2 16.. condition and situations. Competencies. two Specimen are enclosed as Annexure I and II.2. The KPAs.1 From year 2001-2002. only the revised Performance Management System and Appraisal Form thereunder is applicable.3.4 MISCELLANEOUS: 15. Measures. The Reporting Officer while evaluating Performance. 15.3. 16. Measures allotment of Marks. and they are to be specific to their job roles and responsibilities.4.3.0 16.1 16.2.3 DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS: 15.2. 15. Values and Potential would specifically address the developmental needs in order to overcome the competency gaps in the appraisee PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 15. Marks allocated and Marks obtained are all illustrative in character. The Appraiser and Appraisee will have to evolve KPAs. 15. Measures.4 Feedback should be aimed more at improving and developing the person and should be provided with sufficient descriptive way based on data collected in an non-hurting manner.2. Standards etc. \ .1 The Performance Management System is a tool to be utilised for identifying the developmental needs of the appraisee.3 The Reporting Officer should suggest specific competency gaps and developmental initiative/training and time frame for the same. based on their business plans.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.