You are on page 1of 62

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

PROJECT ON
“PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL”

SUBMITTED BY: POOJA PARIHAR. TYBMS.

PROJECT GUIDANCE: PROF.MRUNALI APHALE.

DECLARATION
I, Pooja Parihar, studying in TYBMS of ICLES’ Motilal Jhunjhunwala college of arts,science and commerce,vashi, hereby declare that I have completed this project on “PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL” in the academic year 2006-2007 as per the requirement of the Mumbai university as a part of BACHELOR MANAGEMENT STUDIES(BMS) programme.The information presented through this project is true and original to the best of my knowelge.

Pooja Parihar TYBMS,ICLES’,VASHI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all those people who have in their own sweet ways helped me to complete this project.this project would just not have been complete without the valuable contribution from various people whom I have interested with in the course of its completion .i begin by thanking our principal shriddhar shetty and bms coordinator of ICLES (vashi) college and project guide mrunali aphale without whose inspiration , encouragement ,help and suggestion I could not have completed thyis report.my parents who have always stood by me as solid as a rock,it is their faith in me that has been me complete this project on time my brother’s who helped me in whatever small ways possible.the list goes on ……………………. . I wish to thank all those people who have sent me a helping hand in finishing this project, whose names are too numerous to be mentioned here.

ii. iv. 3. TOPIC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. PAGE NO.e. iv. -CULTURE. -STEPS. -METHODS. iii. i.NO 1.CONTENTS SR. 5. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL. iii. -IMPORTANCE. i. 2. 4. -INTRODUCTION. v. 6. CONCLUSION. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In this project we have covered all the aspects of performance appraisal i. -PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL -ATTRIBUTES -RECOGNITION. ii. -OBJECTIVES. Key objectives of performance appraisals include . BIBILOGRAPHY. MASTEK COMPANY.

overcoming typical rating deficiencies. creating a rating instrument.it is an approach to the management of the people in an organization. very visible. Bonuses or other special increases can and should be tied to very specific. establishing a rating philosophy.(1) validating selection and other management or cultural practices. employees want to know what you think of their work. If pay increases are warranted for other reasons. and engaging the employee in making decisions on future performance changes. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Human resource management deals with human resource employed in a business unit. Finally.organisation are made up . Letting workers know that you have noticed their efforts goes a long way towards having a more motivated workforce. it is unlikely that they require a performance appraisal system to administer. as goals that are overly ambitious are doomed for failure. An effective negotiated performance appraisal helps the employee take additional ownership for both continuing effective performance and improving weak areas. and (3) making decisions about pay or promotions. Employee goals set through performance appraisals should be difficult but achievable. and this doesn’t require a performance appraisal system. very measurable results. Important steps to obtaining useful traditional appraisals include determining the type of data to be collected as well as who will conduct the appraisal. Profit sharing is another case in point. Some employees tend to boycott their own progress by setting impossible goals to achieve. (2) helping employees understand and take responsibility for their performance.

directing. and controlling of the procurement.it is the human resource which brings success and prosperity to a business enterprise. organizational and societal objectives are accomplished”.in the final analysis. promotions and transfer of employees.progressive personnel policies also create cordial labour management relation and bring huan resource development.such problem include personnel planning. Human resource management are also called personnel management.the person who look after personnel function is called human resource manager. develop.it is now used liberally in India and also in th other countries in place of the term personnel management which deals with the management of employees working in an organization.of ele and function through people. According to Edwin flippo “Human resource management is the planning. recruitment and selection.the term Human resource management got popularity in the USA by 1970’s. Human resource management can be treated as advance form of personnel management itself. efficient and cooperative manpower brings success. employee traning and development. organizing.it deals with various problems relating to manpower employed. Human resource management is a management function which helps managers to plan. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTRODUCTION . the traditional personnel management as its scope is much wider in contents and significance.it is an advancementover. well-trained. career planning and partcipative management. Human resource management is relatively a new term for what was earlier called as personnel management. recruit. compensation. train. development. stability andprosperity to a business unit. performance appraisal. induction. integration. compensation payment. maintenance. renumerate and maintain members for an organization. Human resource management is the latest nomenclature used to personnel matters are called personnel policies. and separation of human resources to the end that individual. select.

4th. and objective. student employees be evaluated at the end of their 6th month on the job.Performance appraisal is not a single event. This is the same place you will find process information. ratings definitions. as needed (double clicking on each). giving continuous feedback throughout the year. The history of performance appraisal is quite brief. etc according to scott. This section of information serves three (3) purposes: To help employees work closer to their potential. “Performance appraisal is a process of evaluating an employee’s performance of a job in terms of its requirement”. which may be found by going to: Network Neighborhood. Its roots in the early 20th century can be traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies. This is done through communicating expectations. Staff Development & Human Resources. and then the appropriate subfolder. All performance appraisals should also be documented using the appropriate evaluation form. We require that Civil Service employees be evaluated at the end of their 2nd. But this is not very helpful. public. rewarding accomplishments. year-round program of exchanging information with employees that begins and ends with the annual performance review. To help Staff Development and Human Resources establish rationale for compensation and personnel actions such as promotions. clothier and sprigal. . Julius. and terminations. and that all employees (including Academic Professional) receive formal performance appraisals on an annual basis thereafter. Performance Appraisal. transfers. coaching to improve performance. Employees at all levels are entitled to regular performance appraisals that are fair. accurate. It is a continuous. To help supervisors help employees be more effective and to evaluate an employee’s performance factually and objectively. and encouraging employees to “test their limits” and achieve their goals. and 5th months during probation. for the same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resources management.

says Dulewicz (1989). but more often than not. Yet in a broader sense. For example. it failed. defensible and accurate." Appraisal. it might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession! There is. The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational. appraisal really dates from the time of the Second World War . the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art. if any. a basic human tendency to make judgements about those one is working with. ". In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal. informally and arbitrarily. was given to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income justification. The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. there is little chance of ensuring that the judgements made will be lawful. On the other hand. naturally. is both inevitable and universal. In the scale of things historical.As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of work performance. appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee was justified. if their performance was better than the supervisor expected. ethical and legal problems in the workplace. If was felt that a cut in pay. people will tend to judge the work performance of others. or a rise. a pay rise was in order. a cut in pay would follow.. Without a structured appraisal system. fair. including subordinates. Little consideration. If an employee's performance was found to be less than ideal..not more than 60 years ago. it seems. early motivational researchers were aware that different people with roughly equal work abilities could be paid the same amount of money and yet have quite . Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended. That is. should provide the only required impetus for an employee to either improve or continue to perform well. as well as about oneself.

These observations were confirmed in empirical studies. it is obvious that if the system is to work . a manager prepares an appraisal of another employee..different levels of motivation and performance. The merit carrot is not a very big one. and a number. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the structure depicted in Figure 1 is that the appraisal has as its primary input the perceptions of the manager. they are the only input. differences between the maximum and minimum increases are also quite modest. This is often quite modest and amounts to little more than a cost-ofliving increase. As a result. yes. an offset against inflation. In the 1950s in the United States. The general model of performance appraisal: A Basic Performance Appraisal System The general form of a basic performance appraisal system is depicted in Figure 1. the potential usefulness of appraisal as tool for motivation and development was gradually recognized. such as morale and self-esteem. A discussion follows. Pay rates were important. Technically speaking. the size of the pay raise for the subsequent year). Moreover. Based on his or her perceptions. Appraisals typically have two components: text. could also have a major influence. Given this model. The number is usually the basis for determining the employee’s merit increase (i.e. but they were not the only element that had an impact on employee performance. It was found that other issues. the traditional emphasis on reward outcomes was progressively rejected.

The size of the merit pool is limited and the distribution of these monies is typically according to some formula. This is a restraint. Because merit rating numbers must be adjusted to meet various restraints and constraints. otherwise. Several people have an interest in influencing a manager’s appraisal of a given employee’s performance. and other managers whose own subordinates must compete for a finite pool of merit increase monies. From this follows an inescapable conclusion: the . In a word. not everyone can receive a five because there isn’t enough money available to support such an outcome. and anyone with a vested interest in having a given employee receive a good or a bad appraisal.effectively the manager’s perceptions must be objective. People and politics are not the only forces tending to negate the positive potential of performance appraisal systems. co-workers. comprehensive. Thus. accurate. customers. and increasingly limited promotion opportunities. and the appraisals they prepare. plum assignments. shaping. But there are others." Restraints and constraints can also include EEO and affirmative action considerations. the language and tone of the appraisals must in turn be adjusted so as to be consistent with the numbers. This is a constraint. the system is patently flawed." By the same token. The most obvious is the employee. mentors. and just plain manipulating their perceptions and the appraisals based on these perceptions. This leads to the following assertion: The structure of the typical performance appraisal system makes managers who prepare appraisals the targets of efforts aimed at influencing. are independent of and often have no relation to the performance of the person being appraised. There are also important systemic or structural factors at work. An appraisal leads to a merit increase. the politics of performance appraisal can be fierce. a "can’t do. a "must do. and free from any significant bias. clients. distortion or undue influence. for example. These include other employees who are being appraised by the same manager. The preceding assertion may be elaborated upon as follows: Many efforts to influence the perceptions of the managers who prepare appraisals. in a performance appraisal system that allocates merit increase percentage on a five-point scale. the numbers assigned must fit within the limits of the available pool of merit monies.

conjectured that performance appraisal systems actually erode performance over time as a result of people endeavoring to set goals that are achievable. restraints. and can be found in Chapter VII of General and Social Systems (Rutgers University Press: 1968). fair. an engineer with Intersys who is also chairman of the IEEE Engineering Management Society in Boston. [ Berrien’s comments were made in the context of a discussion about the balance of control between a supra system and its subsystems. the costs are still astronomical. Harry Heflin. stress. Erosion of Performance Tauo Jokinen. and it is quite reminiscent of the late Kenneth Berrien’s view that management might control the lower limits of productivity but employees are clearly in control of the upper limits. and works the process." Damaging to Morale & Motivation: . After first acknowledging the "hard" costs of performance appraisals. But how does it look to employees. and objective assessment of all employees is literally impossible. and constraints of the system do not permit it.honest. and that they represent a decrease in productivity of no more than 10 percent. and anguish (on the part of those giving as well as those receiving appraisals). Even if it is assumed that such periods last no more than a few days or weeks. thus ensuring themselves a decent appraisal. The structure. Reductions in Productivity Several people cited temporary reductions in productivity in the aftermath of the appraisal review sessions. prepares for. An employee of the federal government said this period lasts at least six months.] Creation of Emotional Anguish: Also cited were negative emotional states: worrying. a product development manager with Nokia. One person estimated this period of reduced contribution lasts for about three months. valid. depression. "But I think the real cost is the emotional anguish as everyone anticipates. The preceding discussion looks at performance appraisal systems mainly from a managerial perspective. and what are its effects on them? People responding to the Internet queries provided the following answers to these questions. wrote. This might be viewed as a form of structural deflation regarding performance.

Team and Task vs.] Institutionalizing Existing Values & Biases: A military officer with a Ph. These are deemed especially severe when the performance appraisal system is seen as "bad" or unfair." Mike was lambasting the media and the educational establishment for churning out young people with a short-term. "What have you done for us this year?" Employee contributions over time — past or future — do not enter into the equation. in times of change. then. could be heard lamenting the lack of a long-term view in one of his recent seminars. Process: One factor the author was sure would be cited. annual performance appraisal systems ask of employees. Essentially. a TQM consultant. 1995. Consultant Charles Ladd made this same observation independently of . This means that people are praised and rewarded or cursed and punished for factors beyond their power to influence let alone control. Appraising individual performance can be a divisive factor in an environment where genuine teamwork is required.. observed that performance appraisal systems serve to institutionalize the values and prejudices of those in power — and to protect these values and prejudices from challenge. selfinterested view. is that the classic performance appraisal system emphasizes individual or task-level performance instead of team or process performance. the famed reengineering guru. Little wonder. Emphasizing Individual vs. "The Process-Centered Organization. on December 4. retaining an appraisal system that focuses on individual task performance sends at best a mixed message when management calls for teams or wants to focus on business process performance instead of individual task performance. is the use of performance appraisal systems to reward or punish people for what are really natural variations in system or process performance.Closely related to the emotional factors cited above are the penalties paid in the form of decreased morale and motivation. who is stationed at the Pentagon and who wishes to remain anonymous. that Mike Hammer. An element of unfairness cited by Charles Ladd. Fostering A Short-term View Another factor the author thought would be cited and wasn’t is the short-term view that is inherent in annual performance appraisal systems. Consequently. [ Mike could be heard uttering this lament in Boston. during the first offering of his new seminar.D. but wasn’t.

will come from their supervisors. and systemic reasons. Deming’s dictum to drive fear out of the workplace was frequently cited in this context. that it acts to maintain the status quo. the human resources department (HR). Further. many people have access to them including prospective employers elsewhere within the company.the officer. although performance appraisal systems do not distribute much in the way of rewards. for political. Performance appraisals become a permanent part of the employees’ personnel folders. Past appraisals exert a significant influence over status and standing. if any. future assignments. There. Savvy employees know that success hinges in large part on "psyching out the boss. Thus. . This ties to a lack of trust in one’s boss. Worse. Control of appraisals is largely in the hands of the employee’s supervisor. This view of performance appraisals squarely contradicts the mythology of performance appraisal systems. a passiveaggressive stance of "tell me what you want me to do and I’ll do it" on the part of an employee. the marching orders. structural. Both argued that this aspect of performance appraisal systems forms a structural impediment to cultural change. As one might expect." that is. they seem to have an almost exclusively negative impact on the very employees they are meant to help. Redesigning Performance Appraisal Systems Is A Sisyphean Task: In short. Trying to change these factors so that performance appraisal systems will work the way they are intended is truly a modern-day version of Sisyphus’s legendary task. and other executives and senior managers. and leads to a phenomenon known as "malicious compliance. they can inflict great damage. and management in general. Fostering Fear and Lack of Trust: Directly related to the factors cited above is the degree of fear associated with the appraisal system. and promotions. the reasons performance appraisal systems fail to provide the benefits claimed for them seem firmly rooted in the nature of organizations and the behavior of people. A Carrot-and-Stick Management System: The source of the fear cited above owes to the fact that the carrot-and-stick nature of appraisal systems is mostly stick. performance appraisal systems cannot function as intended." They also know that when senior executives call for change.

Examples include reducing calf mortality. or diminishing bruises in the cherry harvest. Personal trait ratings are useful. initiative. personal traits (how it was done. cooperation. Personal traits such as motivation. even though they sometimes say more about how supervisors get along with an employee than how well the employee performs on the job. increasing yield of the alfalfa crop. and appearance (dress and grooming) may be considered. Farmers are unlikely to want to reward performance—no matter how excellent it is—if a worker only performs grudgingly and after repeated admonitions. . conduct) and proficiency (skill). dependability. Productivity can be measured in terms of specific performance accomplishments.Traditional Performance Appraisal Here are some key steps you can take toward achieving effective performance appraisals--ones that can be used to validate the selection process as well as to make decisions about pay or promotions: (1) Select what performance data to collect (2) Determine who conducts the appraisal (3) Decide on a rating philosophy (4) Overcome rating deficiencies (5) Create a rating instrument (6) Deliver useful information to employees Select what performance data to collect One way to classify on-the-job worker behavior is by considering the three "P’s"-productivity (what was done). willingness to take criticism.

for instance. but co-worker evaluations have a tendency to be lenient. Employee.g. Determine who conducts the appraisal Input into the appraisal of worker performance may come from many sources including the employee. Employees can be the most important persons in the evaluation process. for instance. Ratings from multiple sources usually yield more reliable performance appraisals. specific characteristics should be related to the job. Over-emphasis on personal traits may increase compliance at the expense of both creativity and performance. subordinates. A farm personnel manager may be appraised in terms of understanding labor management principles. Sometimes co- . or ability to counsel employees. Nevertheless. knowledge. or even persons outside the organization. one may want to address how well an employee reports on assignment completions (productivity). skill in conducting interviews. and ability—plays an important role in worker performance. has less need for teamwork than two milkers who work side by side. but not always. as we saw in the negotiated performance appraisal approach. At times co-workers have a better grasp for a colleague’s performance than the supervisor. Instead of talking about worker dependability (personal trait). knowledge of applicable labor laws. An equipment operator who spends hours preparing land. furthermore. they help assure worker interest in overcoming deficiencies that may be blocking future performance or growth.. farmers need to strike the right balance between productivity and personal traits. Proficiency—skill. employees have a vested interest in making positive comments about their own performance.When personal traits are considered as part of a performance appraisal. the employee has a good understanding of his daily performance and how it can be improved. Usually. a personal trait issue can be translated into an achievement. and no matter how motivated they are. When appraisals address worker proficiency factors (e. Often. co-workers. In evaluations. can usually benefit from outside evaluation. Stressing achievement over personal traits may lead to a philosophy where the end justifies the means—no matter how dysfunctional or unethical the behavior. AI skills for a herdsman). supervisors. Co-workers. Jobs vary in the importance that can be attached to such factors.

Normally. Performance appraisal data obtained from the immediate supervisor is the most common rating source. Supervisor. when comparing employees against each other. . a few employees end up at the top and a few at the bottom in what is known as a normal distribution curve (also known as "grading by the curve. all superior). The majority end up somewhere in the middle. The principal advantage of the comparison method is preventing raters from placing all employees in one category (for example. Formal evaluation by subordinates is unusual. Two disadvantages—especially when very few workers are involved—include assuming (1) employees fall in a normal distribution (there may be four excellent performers in a group of five." see Figure 6-1). Supervisors are often in the best position to give workers an honest evaluation. Comparison against others. while often needed. and (2) there are similar differences in performance between two adjacent employees. Peer review is usually anonymous and several peers are involved in the evaluation. Where the employee is ranked depends on how a person performs in comparison to others. Decide on a ratingPerformance appraisal data can also be classified according to whether employees are compared against others or are rated against a standard. The danger in supervisory evaluations is the substantial amount of power and influence wielded. supervisors have been known to improve their interpersonal relations and reduce management by intimidation. When subordinates have an input into their supervisor’s evaluation. This anonymity. often by the hand of a single rater. or none in a group of three). Issues of anonymity and adequate sampling of subordinates may be important in traditional appraisals. between those ranked 1 and 2 and those ranked 4 and 5. for instance. At times a co-worker may be particularly hard on a disliked worker. although from time to time subordinates may be asked for input into the evaluation of their supervisor. can also lend itself to abuses.workers hope management will read between the lines and praise irrelevant or insignificant factors. Evaluations by outside clientele may be useful in instances when there is much personal contact with outsiders or when the person being evaluated knows more about aspects of the job than the farmer or supervisor. Outside the organization. Subordinate.

much the better. Lenient raters may later appear to contradict themselves (e. vanity and dysfunctional competition. raters who feel a worker has done superior work considering his time in the position. realizing this. especially when rating forms require a written justification for a high or low rating. Supervisors tend to remember events more recent to the evaluation." the worst rating many companies give their employees on appraisals is . They are likely to create envy. While employees may typically compare themselves to others. Once a worker is classified as a poor performer. Farmers who choose to use a standardized approach must next decide whether to judge all workers on an absolute standard or whether to consider an employee’s time on the job. In a healthy organization. may rate him as such.g. As with olives.. Ratings against a standard do not preclude comparisons. as they fear new workers who receive high marks will not feel the need for further improvement. Workers. Supervisors may tend to rate workers as average. when a worker is disciplined or does not get a raise). In contrast. one employee’s success need not mean another’s failure. I prefer the latter approach. Overcome rating deficiencies Supervisory evaluations often suffer from numerous rating deficiencies:5 One particularly good or poor trait may contaminate other performance areas considered in the evaluation. If all can succeed. where a small olive may be graded "large" and the largest "super" or "colossal.Worker Performance Rating against a standard permits a supervisor to classify employee performance independently from that of other employees. may strive to improve performance as time for appraisals near. Both supervisor and employee have a reference point for accurately looking at an employee’s long-term performance growth. Those who prefer an absolute standard tend to give lower scores to employees. there is little to be gained by having the organization promote such comparisons. because it seems more positive. An evaluation six months or a year later yielding a superior mark would require a corresponding improvement on the part of the worker. it may take a long time for a supervisor to notice the worker has improved. Others may tend toward being either overly strict or lenient.

Data can be presented in terms of critical incidents. or rating scales. for instance. philosophy. or even attractiveness (Sidebar 6-2)." Thus. Critical incidents. To be effective and accurate. the employer might be in the position of arguing that "good" actually means "bad. Appraisal instruments require substantial rater training if results are to be meaningful. Examples of negative critical incidents include not observing elevated milk tank temperatures.8 First impression attractiveness can have an even more serious impact on employee selection. Sidebar 6-2: Physical attractiveness Studies show attractive people are often judged to be more intelligent and have other positive qualities. This technique involves noting instances where workers reacted particularly well or poorly. A combination of approaches is often necessary to end up with a useful performance appraisal.7 In one study. Photographs of the supposed authors were attached to the essays. age."6 Raters may also be influenced by an employee’s personal attributes such as national origin. Whatever instrument is used. or a worker who averted an upcoming disaster outside normal responsibility areas. men gave attractive women higher scores on the quality of writing. There are a number of ways of classifying performance appraisal instruments. or cows in heat. Create a rating instrument You can choose from several data collection and evaluation techniques. gender. race."good. critical incidents need to be jotted down as they take place and are still fresh in the supervisor’s mind. narratives. level of education. an employee who volunteers a money saving idea. This is particularly true where candidate impressions are formed solely on an interview and not moderated with data obtained from practical and written tests. or predetermined anchors. . it should provide meaningful information to both employees and management. Examples of noteworthy positive incidents are milkers who constantly provide accurate information on sick cows. union membership. or milking cows with antibiotics into the tank.

The strength of the process is in the concreteness of the examples provided.. narratives provide a broader outlook on worker performance. long periods of time may not yield any particularly good or poor behavior. the critical incident is susceptible to emphasizing negative worker behavior. 0 to 3). below average).1 = below average 2 = good. or an adjective-descriptive scale (e.10 Numerical rating scale for milkers Performance Area Follows proper procedures to improve milk quality Provides proper parlor environment for milking Recognizes & records cows in heat or sick Keeps milk from fresh cows separate (cholostrum milk) Makes efficient use of time as cows are milked or washed Takes safety precautions with cows that kick Cleans milking parlor for next milking 3 = superior . 0 = not performed The most useful method is a combination approach that includes either a numerical or descriptive anchor.g. and raters may give the appraisal less thought than it deserves.. Deliver useful information to employees This brings us back to sharing information with the employee (see Negotiated Performance Appraisal).. As compared to the critical incident. Predetermined anchors. as well as critical incidents and a narrative performance description. Anchor-based appraisals include rating factors with a numerical scale (e. Their ease in use may be deceiving.. Further. The critical incident approach can be used to come up with data and ideas to develop more complex rating scales. good.... Evaluations work best when workers know the evaluation 0 1 2 K K J J L J 3 J .g.... superior. If care is not taken.. Narratives work best when raters have the skills and take the time to provide a thorough.. employees may have difficulty translating critical incident reports into improved day-to-day performance. Appraisals where raters simply check or circle the most appropriate answer can potentially make for more standardized evaluations than either the narrative or critical incidents and are less time consuming for the supervisor (see Figure 6-3)... though.. analytical report while maintaining a positive tone.9 Narratives. When used alone..

in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed. to help determine reward outcomes. accomplishes the task of removing possible surprises at a much deeper level. There should not be too many surprises for the employee when both discuss the evaluation.but not all . Despite the importance of formal appraisals. and promotions. The negotiated performance appraisal. Such areas of evaluation can form the basis for an intelligent conversation about performance between supervisor and employee. Regardless of the approach taken. that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or semi-annual). Allowing the worker to take a major role in the performance appraisal interview does not guarantee the interview will be fun. In one farm operation a manager was able to not only discuss a foreman's performance within his present job. but it can do much to reduce its unpleasantness Modern Appraisal Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a subordinate and supervisor. it helps to involve the worker in making plans and taking responsibility for improvement. to a great extent.criteria in advance. either directly or indirectly. By the same token. as it encourages candid conversation between the individual being appraised and the supervisor. but also the types of skills that were needed if the foreman was interested in a potential promotion to assistant manager. In many organizations . the appraisal results are used to identify the better performing employees who should get the majority of available merit pay increases. Sharing information about performance should be done frequently and in a positive manner. bonuses. That is. an effective manager does not wait for formal performance appraisal interviews to communicate with employees. appraisal results are used to identify the poorer performers who may . with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills development.appraisal results are used.

(Organizations need to be aware of laws in their country that might restrict their capacity to dismiss employees or decrease pay. So employee knows if he/she is doing something wrong (to improve future performance).) Whether this is an appropriate use of performance appraisal .is a very uncertain and contentious matter.require some form of counseling. or in extreme cases. How would you feel if… …your boss didn’t give you a performance appraisal or it was delivered very late? …your boss didn’t give you specific examples? …your boss didn’t make any comments on the appraisal? …your performance appraisal contained only criticism? …your supervisor’s performance appraisal were radically different from your selfappraisal? . demotion. IMPORTANCE.the assignment and justification of rewards and penalties . It’s a formal opportunity to speak with your employee. dismissal or decreases in pay.

…you received a very high performance rating? Would you expect a promotion? How would you feel if you weren’t promoted? …your boss felt you were not ready for a promotion? Would you want to know specifically what you needed to do to be promoted? Returns On Your Investment Of Time: You will be able to identify and resolve performance problems early while there is still time to make changes. You will be better able to identify strong performers who have the desire and ability to advance. You will strengthen communication with employees. Through this process, you will open communication channels that have been blocked by misunderstandings or conflicts. You will know how employees view their work situations and what you can do to help them reach their potentials. You may get feedback about your style of managing and how it encourages or inhibits the success of others. You should have no surprises at review time. By working closely with an employee throughout the year, you both will have a pretty good idea of what’s going to be said during the review ahead of time. This will reduce much of the anxiety associated with performance reviews.

STEPS
1. Plan For Good Performance. If you want the employee to do something, you must tell him/her exactly what you want: what jobs or tasks are most important, what skills and behaviors are required and acceptable, what goals should be accomplished, and what result you expect. There are two (2) primary ways to accomplish this: providing the employee with a job description and setting goals and performance expectations. Goals should be SMART: Specific. Measurable.

Attainable. Realistic. Time-limited. Remember: initiating and maintaining positive communication about work expectations and work performance is management’s responsibility! 2. Have Employees Evaluate Their Own Performance. The employee’s self-evaluation is one of the tools you will use to write your own evaluation: You want to see how much insight the employee has into his/her own performance strengths and weaknesses. FYI: industrial psychologists have found that most employees rate themselves the same or lower than their manager would. You also want to gauge whether he/she clearly understands your expectations and standards of performance. This is an important measure of your supervisory skills. If the employee’s evaluation is vastly different from yours, you failed to communicate clearly your expectations and standards. Surprises mean something is wrong with your system! Encourage the employee to think about past performance goals, accomplishments, and areas needing improvement and development..

OBJECTIVES
Objectives for performance appraisal policy can best be understood in terms of potential benefits. Mohrman, Resnick-West and Lawler (1989) identify the following: Increase motivation to perform effectively Increase staff self-esteem Gain new insight into staff and supervisors Better clarify and define job functions and responsibilities Develop valuable communication among appraisal participants Encourage increased self-understanding among staff as well as insight into the kind of development activities that are of value

Employee Viewpoint From the employee viewpoint. . test validation. Organizational Viewpoint From the organization's viewpoint. (However. The main aim of the feedback system is to inform the employee about the quality of his or her performance. the purpose of performance appraisal is four-fold: (1) Tell me what you want me to do (2) Tell me how well I have done it (3) Help me improve my performance (4) Reward me for doing well. etc.) One of the best ways to appreciate the purposes of performance appraisal is to look at it from the different viewpoints of the main stakeholders: the employee and the organization. The appraisers also receives feedback from the employee about job problems. The main aim of the evaluation system is to identify the performance gap (if any). and development of training programs Effective performance appraisal systems contain two basic systems operating in conjunction: an evaluation system and a feedback system. the information flow is not exclusively one way.Distribute rewards on a fair and credible basis Clarify organizational goals so they can be more readily accepted Improve institutional/departmental manpower planning. one of the most important reasons for having a system of performance appraisal is to establish and uphold the principle of accountability. This gap is the shortfall that occurs when performance does not meet the standard set by the organization as acceptable.

the principle of accountability breaks down completely.indeed actively encourages . Encourage Discussion Research studies show that employees are likely to feel more satisfied with their appraisal . Certain techniques in performance appraisal have been thoroughly investigated. essay methods (25%) and resultsoriented or MBO methods (13%). Ultimately.each individual or business unit to "pass the buck" to the others. Locher & Teel (1977) found that the three most common appraisal methods in general use are rating scales (56%). What typically happens is that several individuals or work units appear to have overlapping roles. Organizational failure is the only possible outcome. the non-aligned organization may run. METHODS In a landmark study. but are not held accountable for the way in which those responsibilities and duties are performed." Nonalignment occurs where employees are given responsibilities and duties. The objective is to align responsibility and accountability at every organizational level. In this event. The overlap allows . Like a poorly made or badly tuned engine. In cases where the non-alignment is not so severe. One of the principal aims of performance appraisal is to make people accountable. the organization may continue to function.For decades it has been known to researchers that one of the chief causes of organizational failure is "non-alignment of responsibility and accountability. but it will be sluggish. costly and unreliable. in the severely non-aligned system. albeit inefficiently. follow the button links on the left. and some have been found to yield better results than others. For a description of each. no one is accountable for anything.

Employees are also more likely to feel that the appraisal process is fair if they are given a chance to talk about their performance. This especially so when they are permitted to challenge and appeal against their evaluation. 1989) In contrast. Baron. and more likely to find it useful. focus attention.g. (e. 1986).e. denial of problems. ill-informed. i. Nemeroff & Wexley. It is also more likely that such employees will be better able to meet future performance goals. to help them overcome present difficulties and to improve their future performance.result if they have the chance to talk freely and discuss their performance.specific.. 1981) The useful of goals as a stimulus to human motivation is one of the best supported theories in management. as well as increased resistance to improvement. Employees will be less anxious about criticism. Appraisers should feel comfortable with the techniques of appraisal.... when the believe that the appraiser's intentions are helpful and constructive. unfair or harshly presented . and encourage employees to find new and better ways to work. tension and workplace conflict.. difficult and accepted by employees will lead to higher levels of performance than easy. 1988) have reported that "destructive criticism" which is vague. Constructive Intention It is very important that employees recognize that negative appraisal feedback is provided with a constructive intention. 1994) Appraiser Credibility It is important that the appraiser (usually the employee's supervisor) be well-informed and credible. (e. .g. vague goals (such as do your best) or no goals at all. (Fedor et al. resentment. Locke... and poorer performance.g." (Harris & DiSimone.will lead to problems such as anger. other studies (e..et al. Goals can stimulate employee effort. Set Performance Goals It has been shown in numerous studies that goal-setting is an important element in employee motivation. and should be knowledgeable about the employee's job and performance. It is also quite clear that goals which are ". (Greenberg. 1979). increase persistence.

The nature and scope of the traits selected for inclusion is limited only by the imagination of the scale's designer. 1986) Rating Scales The rating scale method offers a high degree of structure for appraisals.even for entire workforces. punctuality and technical (work skills) competence. employees are more likely to view the appraisal process as accurate and fair. This allows ratings to be easily compared and contrasted . They also express more acceptance of the appraiser's feedback and a greater willingness to change. Rating scale methods are easy to use and understand. initiative. This encourages equality in treatment for all appraisees and imposes standard measures of performance across all parts of the organization. The result is widespread acceptance and popularity for this approach. The traits selected by some organizations have been unwise and have resulted in legal action on the grounds of discrimination. (Bannister. Each employee trait or characteristic is rated on a bipolar scale that usually has several points ranging from "poor" to "excellent" (or some similar arrangement). both appraisers and appraisees have an intuitive appreciation for the simple and efficient logic of the bipolar scale. The one major provision in selecting traits is that they should be in some way relevant to the appraisee's job. Each employee is subjected to the same basic appraisal process and rating criteria. The traits assessed on these scales include employee attributes such as cooperation. or by the organization's need to know.When these conditions exist. Advantages The greatest advantage of rating scales is that they are structured and standardised. with the same range of responses. communications ability. The concept of the rating scale makes obvious sense. Disadvantages Trait Relevance .

It is possible that an employee's performance may depend on factors that have not been included in the selected traits. the trait "initiative" might not be very important in a job that is tightly defined and rigidly structured.Are the selected rating-scale traits clearly relevant to the jobs of all the appraisees? It is inevitable that with a standardised and fixed system of appraisal that certain traits will have a greater relevance in some jobs than in others. and all false and irrelevant indicators are excluded. Systemic Disadvantage Rating scales. and the traits they purport to measure. generally attempt to encapsulate all the relevant indicators of employee performance. An example is the supervisor who believes that an employee is inherently good (halo effect) and so ignores evidence that might suggest otherwise. a low appraisal rating for initiative may not mean that an employee lacks initiative. This is a common and normal psychological phenomenon. we see in others what we want to see in them. The relevance of rating scales is therefore said to be context-sensitive. and then seek evidence to support that view (while ignoring or downplaying evidence that might contradict it). Rather. Employees in this class are systemically disadvantaged by the rating scale method. In other words. Instead of correcting the slackening employee. . For example. the supervisor covers for them and may even offer excuses for their declining performance. All human beings are affected by it. Perceptual Errors This includes various well-known problems of selective perception (such as the horns and halos effect) as well as problems of perceived meaning. Selective perception is the human tendency to make private and highly subjective assessments of what a person is "really like". In such cases. This is an assumption very difficult to prove in practice. it may reflect that fact that an employee has few opportunities to use and display that particular trait. There is an assumption that all the true and best indicators of performance are included. Job and workplace circumstances must be taken into account. Such employees may end up with ratings that do not truly or fairly reflect their effort or value to the organization.

middleof-the-road ratings (e. Unlike perceptual errors. To another appraiser. Perceived Meaning Problems of perceived meaning occur when appraisers do not share the same opinion about the meaning of the selected traits and the language used on the rating scales. Busy appraisers. The supervisor becomes unreasonably harsh in their assessment of the employee. The horns and halo effect is rarely seen in its extreme and obvious forms.On the other hand.such as "Performance exceeds expectations" or "Below average skill" . regardless of the actual performance of a subordinate. As well.may mean different things to different appraisers. Rating Errors The problem here is not so much errors in perception as errors in appraiser judgement and motive. this might suggest an excessive dependence on supervisory assistance . and always ready to criticize and undermine them. a supervisor may have formed the impression that an employee is bad (horns effect).g. to one appraiser. For example.. But in its more subtle manifestations. or where the appraisers do not feel confident with the task of appraisal. the appraiser prepares a written statement about the employee being appraised. Essay Method In the essay method approach. . it can be a significant threat to the effectiveness and credibility of performance appraisal. This problem is worsened in organizations where the appraisal process does not enjoy strong management support. The most common rating error is central tendency. these errors may be (at times) deliberate. or those wary of confrontations and repercussions. the language and terms used to construct a scale . "satisfactory" or "adequate"). may be tempted to dole out too many passive.and thus a lack of initiative. Thus the spread of ratings tends to clump excessively around the middle of the scale. an employee may demonstrate the trait of initiative by reporting work problems to a supervisor.

it is difficult to compare and contrast the results of individuals or to draw any broad conclusions about organizational needs. The appraiser is not locked into an appraisal system the limits expression or assumes that employee traits can be neatly dissected and scaled. in consequence. Advantages The essay method is far less structured and confining than the rating scale method. It also suggests courses of action to remedy the identified problem areas. or it be composed in collaboration with the appraisee.freedom of expression .is also its greatest handicap. Thus the process is open-ended and very flexible. Appraisers may place whatever degree of emphasis on issues or attributes that they feel appropriate. It permits the appraiser to examine almost any relevant issue or attribute of performance. The statement may be written and edited by the appraiser alone. The varying writing skills of appraisers can upset and distort the whole process. The process is subjective and. This contrasts sharply with methods where the appraisal criteria are rigidly defined. Results Method (MBO Method) The use of management objectives was first widely advocated in the 1950s by the noted management theorist Peter Drucker. .The statement usually concentrates on describing specific strengths and weaknesses in job performance. Appraisers often find the essay technique more demanding than methods such as rating scales. The techniques greatest advantage . Disadvantages Essay methods are time-consuming and difficult to administer.

An example of an objective for a sales manager might be: Increase the gross monthly sales volume to $250. MBO advocates claim that the performance of employees cannot be broken up into so many constituent parts .MBO (management by objectives) methods of performance appraisal are results-oriented. Disadvantages MBO methods of performance appraisal can give employees a satisfying sense of . and not on their potential for success. Employees are judged according to real outcomes. Once an objective is agreed. whereas the traits and attributes of employees (which may or may not contribute to performance) must be guessed at or inferred. the MBO method concentrates on actual outcomes. But put all the parts together and the performance may be directly observed and measured. They are expected to monitor their own development and progress. The MBO method recognizes the fact that it is difficult to neatly dissect all the complex and varied elements that go to make up employee performance. Advantages The MBO approach overcomes some of the problems that arise as a result of assuming that the employee traits needed for job success can be reliably identified and measured. Instead of assuming traits. the employee is usually expected to self-audit. then he or she has demonstrated an acceptable level of job performance. If the employee meets or exceeds the set objectives.000 by 30 June.as one might take apart an engine to study it. to identify the skills needed to achieve the objective. Usually the objectives are established jointly by the supervisor and subordinate. or on someone's subjective opinion of their abilities. That is. Typically they do not rely on others to locate and specify their strengths and weaknesses. that is. The guiding principle of the MBO approach is that direct results can be observed. they seek to measure employee performance by examining the extent to which predetermined work objectives have been met.

Conflict and Confrontation Invariably the needs arises during a performance appraisal to provide an employee with less than flattering feedback. They will need these skills during the initial stage of objective setting. Unfortunately. prone to all forms of perceptual bias. then the process of correction has failed. But if the result is an angry or hurt employee.autonomy and achievement. Supervisors and subordinates must have very good "reality checking" skills to use MBO appraisal methods. Objectives. all is well. and for the purposes of self-auditing and self-monitoring. One of the strengths of the MBO method is the clarity of purpose that flows from a set of well-articulated objectives. The performance of an employee in such cases is unlikely to improve and may deteriorate even Self-Auditing further. tend to impose a certain rigidity. It is also possible that fluid objectives may be distorted to disguise or justify failures in performance. It has become very apparent that the modern organization must be flexible to survive. Reality itself is an intensely personal experience. If the appraisee accepts the negative feedback and resolves to improve. Nor are these skills easily conveyed by training. Variable objectives may cause employee confusion. . research studies have shown repeatedly that human beings tend to lack the skills needed to do their own "reality checking". But the penalty for fluidity is loss of clarity. Of course. they can lead to unrealistic expectations about what can and cannot be reasonably accomplished. by their very nature. the obvious answer is to make the objectives more fluid and yielding. But on the downside. But this can be a source of weakness also. The skill and sensitivity used to handle these often difficult sessions is critical.

According to Krein (1990). half the battle is won. appraisers should not confront employees directly with criticism. This is much more likely when an employee does not feel accused of anything. an employee with problems will admit that weaknesses do exist. with just a gentle nudge from the appraiser here and there. If an appraiser can get an employee to the stage of voluntary admission. This is done by way of openended questioning techniques that encourage the employee to identify their own performance problems.) . Rather. The appraiser. This sense of ownership provides an effective basis for stimulating change and development.auditing process is that employees are more willing generally to accept personal "ownership" of problems that have been selfidentified. In many cases. the appraisers should encourage an employee to talk freely about their own impressions of their performance. For example. in accusatory mode. since it encourages the employee to confront themselves with their own work and performance issues. Ownership of Problems Perhaps the most powerful aspect of the self. might say: Your attendance record is unacceptable. consider the case of employee who has had too many absent days. The technique is useful because it is more likely to promote discussion and agreement on the need for change. A better way to handle this might be to say: Your attendance record shows that you had 7 days off work in 6 months.and that leads to denial and resentment. Confrontation techniques that rely on "charge and counter-charge" tend to promote adversarialism . The technique described by Krein is a type of self-auditing. Instead of blunt statements or accusations. they should aim to let the evidence of poor performance emerge "naturally" during the course of the appraisal interview. nor forced to make admissions that they do not wish to make. What can you tell me about this? The technique is to calmly present the evidence (resisting the temptation to label it as good or bad) and then invite the employee to comment. (Some would argue that it provides the only basis. You'll have to improve it.

Sometimes the shock of direct confrontation will result in the employee admitting that they do need to make improvements.especially negative feedback . We strive to make a positive and lasting business impact by going beyond a client-vendor relationship and becoming an extended part of our customers’ enterprise. Vague generalizations should be avoided. it may be best to exclude all mention of it. No wonder then of that our a large percentage revenues . In such cases. they will resist the process of selfauditing very strongly. Appraisers must carefully scrutinize their own perceptions. appraisers may have no choice but to confront the poor performer directly and firmly with the evidence they have. or touches on issues that are not job-related. MASTEK BACKGROUND Mastek actively collaborates with clients to create something valuable for them.appraisers should be willing and able to support their opinions with specific and clear examples. But sometimes it will just make their denial of the problem worse. If a specific observation cannot be supported by clear evidence. The focus should be on job-related behaviors and attitudes.Nevertheless there are individuals who will not admit to anything that appears to reflect poorly on them. motives and prejudices. With ego defenses on full-alert. In providing any feedback .

Total income has increased from Rs 19. consulting. including custom application development. legacy modernization and migration. It has implemented more than 1000 projects worldwide. financial services and government.16 crore in the quarter ended September 30.81 crore during the quarter ended September 30.comes from repeat business. publicly held company with more than 2800 employees and 7200 man-years of experience. The . application management outsourcing (AMO).62 crore during the corresponding period in the previous year. Mastek Group has posted a net profit of Rs 15. Our mature processes and robust methodologies enable us to deliver projects on time. We currently operate six world-class delivery centers in India and Malaysia. MASTEK Ltd has posted a net profit of Rs 10. 2002.2 crore for its first quarter ended September 30. Our IT development and delivery processes have been certified at ISO 9001:2000 and assessed at SEI-CMM Level 5 and P-CMM Level 3. Meanwhile.11 crore during the same period last year. 2001 to Rs 34. Mastek offers a full suite of IT solutions and services. Mastek is a US $156 million.25 crore for the quarter compared to Rs 4. within budget and to the highest levels of quality. We have delivered path-breaking solutions in key verticals such as insurance. and system integration. 2002 compared to Rs 1.

is to grow these accounts.92 crore for the quarter ended September 30. Mumbai.84 crore (Rs 20. insurance and retail space. A segment-wise break up of revenues shows that the company's UK operations clocked revenues of Rs 51. This focus ensured that our growth came mostly from doing mission critical and complex applications. according to the The company has also inaugurated its new software development centre at the Millennium Park. Mastek. At present. the Mastek and Deloitte Consulting joint venture (DCOTG) has reported revenues of Rs 9.group's total income stood at Rs 91. said a company release. however.63 crore against Rs 63. while US operations contributed Rs 23. Also. is the challenge we seek. Mr Ashank Desai. said.95 crore in the previous year period. and the . Mastek Way Twenty-three years ago. The centre has a total capacity of 1. In spite of this. we decided to focus our energies on enterprise applications and ground-up development.64 crore) . The company has acquired nine new customers during the quarter in the airline.'' During the quarter. we continue to be successful and on target as regards acquisition of strategic clients. Mahape. Chairman and Managing Director. particularly in the light of sluggishness in their IT budget increases. 2002.100 people. we are confident of achieving our annual goals. ``Due to our focussed efforts as well as growing interest in Indian offshore market. Commenting on the performance. the US contributes 26 per cent of the group's revenues while the European market contributes 60 per cent to total revenues.11 crore (Rs 31. Clients’ looking for solutions to complex problems.10 crore) . though in the first phase — by June 2003 — it will accommodate 600 to 700 people. The challenge. Mastek has billed 16 additional customers while its repeat business stood at 96 per cent.

leading to better management of expectations. At the heart of this success lies Mastek's ability to structure engagements around customer outcomes. This. mission-critical projects successfully. unlike typical IT engagements that are structured to meet service level agreements or to deliver to customer specifications. Customer Relationships Mastek has built strong relationships with its customers. Collaborating with our clients to find solutions and teaming to create something valuable for our client's customers and the community at large .opportunity to adopt new technologies.is what drives us. The depth of our relationships helps us capture a customer's business requirements rather than just their technology needs. in turn. The cornerstones of the Mastek Way are: Engagement Excellence Mastek has repeatedly executed several large-scale. Mastek is able to work with customers on innovative price value models and structure win-win contracts. enables us to articulate the benefits of an engagement more accurately. Several of our relationships are long-standing. Mastek has a lineage of building complex solutions and products. it has to make a positive impact on the world and the people who inhabit it. This provides us with a 360-degree perspective of the lifecycle of any engagement. We believe that technology on its own has no meaning. and in many of them our role has grown from that of a provider of . As a result.

Long and deeper relationships benefit all stakeholders. Partnering with established system integrators helps Mastek penetrate newer markets and create new revenue channels. Our ability to build strong relationships is underscored by the fact that a large percentage over 90% of our overall revenue comes from repeat business. long customer relationships bring stability and continuity. and increase the number of touch points at all levels of the two partners' organisations. its willingness to listen to a customer and its drive to make a valuable difference. For the customer. Network of Partnerships Mastek has executed some of its biggest projects such as London Congestion Charging and NHS Spine by partnering with global system integrators as part of a consortium. As a result.technology services to a provider of more critical business solutions. Mastek has been able to build and sustain deep relationships because of its commitment to a customer's success. we are able to increase our reach in different parts of a customer organisation. For Mastek. Customers avoid costs of transferring context and mitigate the risk of failure because they deal with a single partner over many engagements. In many of our relationships. Mastek is able to understand the customer's business better and become more proactive to the customer's needs. . it can provide greater value through its solutions. a consortium brings twin advantages: specialisation of each partner in the consortium as well as end-to-end. holistic solutions. with every passing year. increase levels of trust allowing us to engage customers at more strategic levels.

Less time is spent in transferring knowledge. Mastek's adaptability is also a big strength in the dynamic environment of consortium-driven projects. In addition. . Understanding a customer's business and domain enables Mastek to scale the value chain and play a strategic and consulting role. Mastek has acquired in-depth understanding and knowledge across several domains. Mastek's network of partnerships provides it access to highly skilled domain expertise and key program management skills to complement its own strengths and capabilities. particularly insurance. thereby providing customers a jump-start and reducing time-to-market. Mastek is already executing an engagement as a full-fledged system integrator. In fact. This domain knowledge makes it easier for customers to work with us since we already understand their business context. This shows our commitment to and our willingness to invest in a partnership. On the supply side. Mastek engages with partners right from pre-sales.Mastek's success in consortium-led projects comes from its culture of playing as a team and its ability to co-create solutions. We have been able to translate this domain knowledge into practice lines and intellectual property (for eg: Elixir). We are constantly enriching our domain expertise with the diversity and number of projects we do. Unlike many IT providers. Mastek's versatility helps it cross apply learnings from one domain to another domain and even to greenfield engagements. Domain Knowledge Over the years. Mastek is able to provide better quality of solutions because of greater clarity.

As a result. . to ensure that we stay ahead of the technology curve and create valuable solutions for our customers. Mastek has developed capabilities in a wide range of technologies and platforms. it has a strong product background and has always played a pioneering role in adopting new technology.Technological Capabilities Mastek has a long history of technological leadership. As a company. Mastek was ready with a complete DotNet Solution even before the DotNet was officially launched. The Technology Cell continuously tracks new and emerging technology and ensures that Mastek and its customers stay on the cutting edge of technology by absorbing relevant new technology. The Solutions and Strategy group strives for excellence in software engineering. adopts best practices in solution-building and creates ground-up solutions that meet customer visions. Our increasing focus on creating a solutioning culture within the company has resulted in more and more partners viewing us as providers of business solutions rather than just technology services. the Solutions and Strategy Group and the Technology Cell. That is the speed at which Mastek is able to adopt new technology. This enables us to integrate multiple technologies in a meaningful way to create powerful solutions. For instance. Mastek has created two specialised groups.

Security and business continuity are matters of concern for all our customers. Today. At the project level. Process excellence enables us to make successes repeatable and bring predictability to our deliveries in terms of timelines. we have developed tools such as ePMO to improve project management efficiency and implemented integrated decision support and management information systems. our delivery processes are IS0 9001:2000 certified. Zachman and so on. But that is not all. cost and quality. We are constantly improving our systems and processes. In addition. Our engineering processes also draw best practices from established models like Rational Unified Process (RUP). We have robust information security systems and fault-redundant business continuity processes. these tools provide for granularity of planning. Many of our information security processes are already BS 7799 certified. Our ability to 'processise' and institutionalise our learnings and experience enabled us to become the first company to be assessed at both SEI CMM Level 5 and P-CMM Level 3. Mastek also enables customers to inculcate best practices and create a process-oriented culture within their organisations. . Mastek has created a specialised Organisational Process Group (OPG) that is responsible for continuous adoption and correct execution of these processes. and also serve as early warning systems and a dashboard of performance.Systems and Processes Mastek is a process-driven company. At the management level they provide a single-view of the organisation.

Mastek Culture A successful organization is more than just the sum total of its systems. we believe we are more than the software we create. more than the people we nurture. more than the revenues we generate. As an organization. we are shaped by our Seven Values. processes and people. the culture we have built. These have been our guiding . At Mastek. We define ourselves by the values we keep.

Yet. 4. we pay a lot of attention to our building blocks: the individuals. To go beyond the call of duty. But you will find them being practised in every corner of the organization. the team is more important than the individual. The Mastek Culture is a blend of the values we follow. 5. We ensure that each of our people have the opportunity to rise to their potential. Values we have never deviated are: from. 7. and have fun together as a How do we Family. Seven Open Values atmosphere teamwork the in individual work relationship intimacy to results Outstanding Respect Pride Long-term Customer Commitment for You won’t find these Seven Values displayed on walls. To take on more than you are called for.lights The 1. always a Mastekeer’. do this? For us. on our path to success. we work together as a Team. Not surprisingly. 6. 3. and the fun we have. ‘Once a Mastekeer. We do not just shape careers. the challenging work we do. sometimes even . And to make a difference in every relationship. We mould character too. 2. This is what our alumni say. Being a Mastekeer is more than just being a successful professional. It means constantly growing to become an Inspired Leader.

Goodwill that makes us proud of our culture. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF MASTEK Rationale for Policy on Performance Appraisal Performance appraisal can be viewed as the process of assessing and recording staff performance for the purpose of making judgments about staff that lead to decisions. Resnick-West and Lawler (1989) identify the following: Increase motivation to perform effectively Increase staff self-esteem Gain new insight into staff and supervisors . selecting relevant appraisal criteria. It is this goodwill that we cherish most of all. and collecting interpreting. and reporting results. Performance appraisal should also be viewed as a system of highly interactive processes which involve personnel at all levels in differing degrees in determining job expectations. writing job descriptions. the Mastek Culture. Objectives for performance appraisal policy can best be understood in terms of potential benefits.years after they’ve been away from us. developing assessment tools and procedures. Mohrman.

judgments about performance appraisal. The overriding purpose of performance appraisal is to help staff to improve and. abilities. and development of training programs Using The Staffing Model in Performance Appraisal Performance appraisal should be viewed as a process. Performance appraisal therefore addresses institutional needs as well as staff member needs. Effective appraisal systems should address clarity. recognize productivity through rewards. The integrated staffing model suggests two integrated functions toward this purpose: the evaluation of staff relative to job requirements and the development of staff for improved performance. test validation. and fairness. motivation.Better clarify and define job functions and responsibilities Develop valuable communication among appraisal participants Encourage increased self-understanding among staff as well as insight into the kind of development activities that are of value Distribute rewards on a fair and credible basis Clarify organizational goals so they can be more readily accepted Improve institutional/departmental manpower planning. openness. Thus. performance appraisal and staff development are closely related and should operate in concert with one another. . The integrated staffing model also suggests that staffing practices occur within a larger context of institutional culture. to improve organizational effectiveness. Thus. and expectancies. thus. should be considered contextually. as well as the design and implementation of appraisal systems. and not simply as the creation of ubiquitous standards. and be cognizant of appraiser leadership qualities.

and fairness. Job Descriptions . and Fairness The performance appraisal system must possess the attributes of clarity.Effective performance appraisal systems conduct ongoing evaluations of both the position and the staff member occupying it. While specific implementation of these attributes may vary.g.Job descriptions should be reliable. With ongoing position analysis and performance appraisal. and changes in the environment are quickly incorporated into the official appraisal system. the following should be represented in effective performance appraisal: Ongoing Review of Position and Performance . openness. These attributes are related to the historic values of the student affairs profession. and specific enough to provide direction for staff behavior. valid. advises the student government association) and what outcomes .ATTRIBUTES Clarity. there are few surprises. Job descriptions should focus on what the staff member does (e. Openness. understandable.

While salary adjustment may be fixed. especially in state institutions. These outcomes should be clearly linked to departmental and institutional objectives and needs. Hypothetically. Checklists of performance criteria completed at the same time every year should be avoided. Job descriptions should use action words such "plans" or "supervises" rather than "demonstrates initiative" or "is likable. Adopting a format that includes the standards of clarity.are expected. openness. The responsibilities of the staff member should be listed in order of importance and weighted relative to importance. and practicing conscious or unconscious racial or gender prejudice. Participatory and Interactive Appraisal Appraisal system processes should be designed in concert with all stakeholders and open to constant interaction with them. Workable Formats that Avoid Systemic Bias . alternative reward structures may be initiated by departments to recognize productive .Effective performance appraisal systems must include workable formats that avoid systematic biases. rating all staff the same. This type of approach simply fails to produce any useful information for individual or organizational improvement. Appraisal systems are expected to reveal under-productive units and to serve as a response system to focus attention on problem areas. Other biases include giving preferential treatment to some but not all staff. if possible. Appraisal systems should also function to reward productive units and staff. Productivity and Rewards Appraisal systems are related to institutional productivity requirements." Job descriptions should provide guidelines for staff so they know the specific behaviors expected to perform. and fairness and that involves more than one appraiser may help to control some of these biases. being overly lenient or overly harsh toward some or all staff. One of the most crucial response systems is the institution's reward structure. performance appraisal is used to reward productive staff through upward salary adjustments. Plans made jointly by staff and administrators have a better chance of working than plans made independently by either party.

but rather a process that is ongoing.staff. appraisers and supervisors should design appraisal systems that are congruent with individual departmental and institutional contexts. Designing an Appraisal System With the above discussion in mind. Appraiser Leadership Attributes Supervisor or appraiser behavior may be more important than the format used in the performance appraisal system. Brown (1989) offers that the following questions be addressed when designing an appraisal system: Is the chief student affairs officer committed to performance appraisal? Are staff members involved in determining the appraisal criteria and standards? Are the organizational goals of student affairs and subunits integrated into the appraisal plan? Are staff members involved in planning and implementation of the appraisal process? Is the appraisal process congruent with the organizational climate and the management style of the administrators? Have adequate job descriptions based on job analysis been written? Have weights or priorities been assigned to job expectations? Is available expertise being employed for consultation? Is the purpose of the performance appraisal system clearly articulated and congruent with the staff and management needs and expectations? Has a process been worked out to monitor and evaluate the system? Practical Approaches to Performance Appraisal Creamer and Janosik (in press) note that performance appraisal is not about a single event. This modeling carries the advantage of organizational prestige and power associated with the position. . such as completing a standard review form. Concerns with under-productive staff may be addressed through targeted staff development activities or through other means as appropriate. Leaders can model desired behavior and prescribe behavior sought from staff. Appraisers who act like leaders in their organization are more likely to experience successful results from the appraisal system than will appraisers who behave as non-leaders.

and responsiveness to supervision. Behavior-Based Approaches These approaches tend to use specific performance factors to evaluate staff. One approach is the conventional rating scale.Appraisal activities. Categories for behaviorally anchored scales can be created from job descriptions. This method provides a list of performance related statements that are weighted. In this approach. Another way of approaching this type of appraisal is the behaviorally anchored scale. Categories such as these may be useful in framing evaluation criteria in this approach to appraisal. and appraisals of team performance. should connect the process to organizational functioning and have as their focus staff improvement. ideally through collaborations between supervisors and staff. If there are no appropriate behaviors or characteristics within job descriptions. Measures of staff member behavior are rated on a scale in relation to specific behavior items. Staff . desired behaviors are described and the staff member is evaluated on how often those behaviors occur. Another means of approaching behavior-based appraisal is the is the behavioral frequency scale." Henderson (1980) notes that job-dimensions usually yield similar broad categories. Creamer and Janosik outline several approaches to performance appraisal. Measures of performance can be either quantitative or qualitative. These scales use words or phrases to describe the degree to which certain behaviors or characteristics are displayed. The weighted checklist is another way of approaching behavior-based appraisal. setting priorities. supervisors should work with staff to determine what behaviors and characteristics would be most useful in an appraisal setting. such as "understands department functions. The model includes detailed suggestions for conducting an appraisal interview. such as planning. and Evaluation. Here. including behavior based approaches. Davis (2001) proposed a model of performance appraisal for use in student affairs that includes three phases: Getting started/renewal. results-focused approaches. not simply salary adjustment and/or disciplinary action. as an ongoing process. broad categories of practice are identified. Specific job behaviors are then linked to the categories. Achievement.

A final approach to behavior-based appraisal is the forced-choice method. and challenging organizational climate Additionally.members are judged on a scale indicating the degree to which the statement accurately describes performance. and they encourage a high level of participation and are thus defensible. On the positive side. If supervisors determine that the advantages outweigh disadvantages. Discrimination and desirability are multiplied to yield a total scale score.especially in educational organizations. On the negative side. Grote identifies the following core elements in MBO: Formation of trusting and open communication throughout the organization Mutual problem solving and negotiations in the establishment of objectives Creation of win-win relationships Organizational rewards and punishments based on job-related performance and achievement Minimal uses of political games. forces. are generally perceived as fair. MBO emphasizes participation by all organization members. 1996). proactive. Discrimination and desirability statements are placed on a grid in clusters that differ on discrimination but are closely related in desirability. tend to generate high levels of commitment to the organization. a list of performance related statements about job performance are evaluated on how well they discriminate among staff and how important they are to unit or institutional performance. and they may be inflexible. results-focused approaches may be incorporated. There are two general techniques of enacting resultsfocused approaches: Management by Objectives (MBO) and Accountabilities and Measures (Grote. and fear Development of a positive. Grote defines eight steps in the MBO Process: Formulate long-range goals and strategic plans . they can be overly results oriented . Results-Focused Approaches – Creamer and Janosik (in press) note that there are both advantages and disadvantages to results-based performance appraisal approaches. Here. they produce short and long-term results in the context of original performance and organizational objectives.

Performance is then forecast for each factor to enable quantifiable measures for each factor. Creamer and Janosik suggest a team appraisal matrix in which team members are listed on a vertical dimension. . reinforce behavior. as well as space for the evaluator to describe staff member performance using a mutually agreed upon scale. Thus. and strengthen motivation. and inadequate performance. however. Categories of performance can include: distinguished performance. Accountabilities and Measures approaches involve the supervisor and staff member agreeing on accountability and performance factors and including them in the job description. and collectively reflects the overall team performance. be problematic. with performance factor categories.Develop overall organizational objectives Establish derivative objectives for major operating units Set realistic and challenging objectives and standards of performance for members of the organization Formulate action plans for achieving the stated objectives Implement the action plans and take corrective action when required to ensure the attainment of objectives Periodically review performance against established goals and objectives Appraise overall performance. Appraisals of Team Performance Creamer and Janosik (in press) acknowledge that much of today's work is done in collaborative arrangements. Begin the cycle again Supervisors need to ensure that appraisal processes are congruent with objectives and goals. appraisal of team and team member performance should be integrated into team-based activities. provisional performance. competent performance. An Accountabilities and Measures form can be created. An MBO rating form needs to provide space to list staff member objectives in order of importance. Appraising teams and team members can. and specific tasks on the horizontal. Such an arrangement reelects individual performance. The successful performance of such teams can be critical to achieving organizational objectives and goals.

. the process of team performance evaluation will identify not only team performance. Commenting. Ideally. as well as individual expectations within the team. we start thinking of whether or not we agree with what the other person has said. Instead of listening. yet most of us are rather poor listeners. but individual deficiencies and paths of corrective action Communicating With Employees Part 1: Listening. that specific team performance objectives have been agreed upon. of course. or we being thinking of our own response. and Questioning Listening: This is the building block for successful communication. Some pointers include: Don’t interrupt unless to seek clarification. listening is a skill that can be learned and developed.Team appraisal approaches assume. Don’t continually glance at your watch or the clock. Don’t judge or criticize. Thankfully.

Do watch the employee’s facial expressions and body movements for hidden messages. Questioning: This is the best way to get information from an employee. Several effective types of comments include: Restatement (of what the employee said). Reflect feelings (demonstrates empathy).g. Questions that involve a choice in/of responses. Rethink a situation (e.. Some examples of techniques include: Restrictive or closed-ended questions. . Compare and contrast questions. when an employee tries to “pass the buck”). Different types of questions will yield different responses. Hypothetical or open-ended problem questions. Refocus from the negative to the positive. Do summarize by saying what you think the employee is feeling (empathy is the key to good listening).Do make eye contact and stay interested in what the employee is saying. Commenting: This is a necessary part of all discussions because is sustains a comfortable. related flow of conversations. Open-ended questions. Redirect a stalled conversation.

not opinions or 3rd party input. Criticizing Performance: Be constructive. Avoid name-calling and inflammatory language. Offer suggestions about what to do instead. Compliments give employees “positive reinforcement” which encourages them to repeat the action that earned praise. but remain firm. Praise the behavior rather than the person.Part 2: Praising and Criticizing Performance Praising Performance: Giving praise frequently. confidently. Be willing to work with the employee to improve the situation. Base any review of unsatisfactory performance on facts. not destructive. Give your support. Say if first (not in response to their praise of you). and constructively is a skill you can learn. Do it often. When giving constructive criticism. Give it publicly whenever possible. When giving praise. Complimenting good performance is as important as constructively criticizing poor performance. remember to: Be specific. Encourage the employee. remember to: Be specific. Be direct. Part 3: Handling Defensiveness .

Keep your cool and avoid any form of “counterattack. not the employee (use examples of behavior exhibited in the workplace.” Redirect the conversation. Two Legally Ambiguous Words to Avoid at Appraisal Time “Attitude” Bad: Ryan has a bad attitude. Best: Lori’s caustic comments during co-worker interactions have resulted in her alienating most of her department members. if any. “Personality” Bad: Lori’s personality is not suited for work in our department. Better: Lori’s negative comments make everyone feel that she just doesn’t “fit in” with our work group.While a certain amount of defensiveness is inevitable. much of it can be avoided by bearing a few things in mind: Attack the problem. We have discussed this previously. strides in improving her behavior or mending relationships with her co-workers. Lori has had great difficulty integrating herself into our team. Lori has made few. . despite repeated discussions about her abrasive comments. Choose your words carefully (use positive words like “development opportunity” and “growth opportunity. Further. As a result. if possible. but Ryan has made limited attempts to redirect his frustration into more productive behavior. Better: Ryan’s negative comments are unproductive.” rather than such negative words as “failure” or “inadequacy”). rather than attacking a personality trait or the like). Best: Ryan’s negative comments during departmental meetings are unprofessional and this behavior results in an unproductive environment in which the rest of the team must then work.

among which are: Mastek has been awarded the prestigious Jamanalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices in 2005 The award. Eastern Europe. instituted in 1988 recognizes and applauds efforts of business houses and business associations with an exemplary record of practising and promoting fair business practices Among top 20 Indian IT companies as per NASSCOM survey 2004 Mastek has been assigned a composite rating of 5A2 by D&B in 2004 Overall. Latin America & South Africa CONCLUSION . 2003 & 2004 among 25 emerging markets including Asia. 2001. 2002.e.RECOGNITION Mastek capabilities and performance have earned it several accolades.NET by an Indian SI’ in 2003 Mastek has continuously ranked among technology companies in a CLSA study on corporate governance. direct and indirect. in the last 4 consecutive years i. 5A2 indicates a Financially sound and Low risk trading record Awarded the ‘Best Solution developed on .

It is also questionable if much of what passes for feedback in formal performance appraisal sessions is deserving of the term. outside such systems. This is embarrassingly apparent when initiative after initiative pleads to have the performance appraisal system changed to support its aims. full-blown performance appraisal system. the books kept on those who are not poor performers can backfire in court. Consequently. This emphasis on compliance is the status quo that such systems maintain. traditional performance appraisal is worthless and. Perhaps the greatest cost of all is that performance appraisal systems silently mock senior executives who call for change. "The typical. Hence. grievances. As a purely practical matter. no matter how much they are redesigned. performance appraisal systems could be eliminated with no harm done and with great economic and emotional benefit. As Craig Brooks wrote. formal performance appraisal system. lawyers have told me the appraisal itself quite often is management’s worst enemy in disciplinary grievances and court challenges." Brooks is not alone. Worse. Indeed. Such pleas offer compelling testimony that performance appraisal systems are seen as a basic device for getting individuals to comply with the aims of management. in fact. Several people pointed out that performance appraisal systems might increase. not decrease the costs of appeals. Moreover. it seems unlikely that changes to performance appraisal systems can keep pace. it can be argued that the real coaching and counseling sessions that shape and improve employee performance occur informally. and lawsuits. keeping book on poor performers does not require an elaborate. change-minded executives should not listen to pleas to redesign their company’s performance appraisal system but should instead give serious thought to scrapping it. The legal protection provided by performance appraisal systems seems questionable.Performance-related discussions between bosses and subordinates do not require a formal. The same can be said of goal setting and feedback. This emphasis is out of place in a world where the ability to elicit contributions from employees matters more than the ability to ensure compliance. . given the time lag between changes in the aims of management and changes to performance appraisal systems to support those new aims.

 www.rediff.hindu.  www.google. .com  www.com.com.indexmundi.com.com.yahoo.BIBLIOGRAPHY  www.com.  www.hindustan times.  www.

.

.

*********************************************************************** * .