Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

1. About the Company (Formation, Vision, Mission, Objectives, Functions, Product & services,
Organizational Structure, SWOT Analysis)

2. Environmental Scanning

3. Porters five forces model of competition –Michael Porter

Chapter 2: Research Methodology

1. Statement of the Problem

2. Objectives & Scope of Study

3. Managerial usefulness of study

4. Type of Research and research Design

5. Data Collection Methods

6. Limitations of Study

Chapter 3: Conceptual Discussion

1. Review of Literature

2. Current Issues

3. History and Development of Company and Industry

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

1. Methods and techniques of data analysis

2. Primary Data Analysis

3. Secondary Data Analysis

Chapter 5: Findings & Conclusions

Chapter 6: Suggestions

ANNEXURE
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Human Resource Management (HRM) is the capacity inside an association that spotlights on
enrollment of, administration of, and giving guidance for the general population who work in the
association. Human Resource Management can likewise be performed by line administrators.
Human Resource Management is the authoritative capacity that arrangements with issues
identified with individuals, for example, remuneration, enlisting, execution administration,
association improvement, wellbeing, health, benefits, representative inspiration, correspondence,
organization, and preparing.
Human asset administration (HRM) is the key and sound way to deal with the administration of
an association's most esteemed resources - the general population working there who separately
and all in all add to the accomplishment of the targets of the business. The expressions "human
asset administration" and "HR" (HR) have to a great extent supplanted the expression "work
force administration" as a portrayal of the procedures associated with overseeing individuals in
associations. In straightforward words, HRM implies utilizing individuals, building up their
abilities, using, keeping up and repaying their administrations tuned in to the activity and
authoritative necessity.

Human Resources Development:

Human Resource Development (HRD) is the structure for helping representatives builds up their
own and authoritative aptitudes, information, and capacities. Human Resource Development
incorporates such open doors as representative preparing, worker vocation advancement,
execution administration and improvement, training, tutoring, progression arranging, key
representative ID, tution help and association advancement.
The focal point of all parts of Human Resource Development is on building up the most
unrivaled workforce with the goal that the association and individual representatives can achieve
their work objectives in support of clients.
Human Resource Development can be formal, for example, in classroom preparing, a school
course, or a hierarchical arranged change exertion. Or on the other hand, Human Resource
Development can be casual as in representative instructing by an administrator. Solid
associations put stock in Human Resource Development and consider every contingency.

Performance Appraisal System:

Execution examination alludes to all the formal systems used to assess an individual, his
commitments and potential. At the end of the day, it is to plan and measure the execution of a
person regarding the prerequisite of the activity or it is a procedure of discovering how
compelling the association has been at contracting and putting a worker.

Execution examination is a formal arrangement of survey and assessment of individual or group

errand execution. While assessment of group execution is basic when groups exist in an
association, the focal point of execution examination in many firms stays on the individual
representatives. Despite the accentuation, a compelling examination assesses achievements and
starts anticipates advancement, objectives and destinations.

ABOUT UNITED ABROAD COMPANY

1|Page
United Abroad was set up in 2006 by the Aliphatic siblings to help understudies looking to travel
to another country to understand their fantasy. Joined Abroad has its corporate office at Delhi
and a has an exceptionally solid system all through AP. Joined abroad began by giving
understudies direction and preparing to 1 nation. After some time it has differentiated into giving
instructive administrations to a full array nations and instructive courses.

We likewise have numerous examination choices join into our interesting projects and I trust you
can exploit these open door considering with us this guide is intended to enable you to find out
about the organization – our administration and then some. I welcome you to investigate all that
we bring to the table and in the event that you have additionally addresses, our group will gladly
help. In the event that you pick us, you will join an empowering and steady learning group that is
focused on helping you achieve your objectives and have your spot on the planet.

It has likewise extended to expand its administrations to other travel classes like changeless
occupant visas, Dependant visas and visit visas. Does it give these administrations as well as
backings its clients through each phase of their proposed travel beginning from customized
assessment of their profile and recognizing the best strategy to aiding through each stage
prompting the visa.

Joined Abroad does not stop here but rather proceeds to help in outside trade, air ticketing, and
pre flight and post landing support. In this limited ability to focus organization has developed
from a solitary office to an all around broadened and multi area association.

VISION & MISSION OF THE UNITED ABROAD COMPANY

Joined Abroad is loaded with a considerable measure of understanding and with parcel of
diligent work. Joined abroad has aced their field. The business was begun two years back and
notwithstanding when the opposition was too high United abroad has made a brilliant passage in
this field.

It has not exclusively completed a huge activity to fill the desires of the customer however has
likewise gone past to give specialist organizations.

The best part about United Abroad is its group. Group is loaded with both experience and
freshers who have learning and eagerness. The staff is devoted and settle all the inquiry of
competitor.

The best part about United Abroad is that they have bravery to state NO. No to individuals who
are not qualified. The staff is so resolved to take the organization to the following level and they
have gone routes far to accomplish it. Group has conveyed result through most extreme
information and right counseling's.

Joined Abroad is one of the developing examination abroad consultancies in India, with the
direction of expert advocates, colleagues to choose the best course and goal of nation for your
prerequisites selection of subjects and educational programs configuration will rely upon future
scholastic desires.

Joined abroad likewise gives abroad training in UK, USA, CAN, AUS, NZ. Joined Abroad
likewise gives administrations like migration and instructing. Joined Abroad has been a face in
the pack in abroad training with recognized administrations and best outcomes.

2|Page
SERVICE PROVIDED BY UNITED ABROAD COMPANY

Joined Abroad is The Youngest Corporate Travel Management Company in India With Long
Experience In Airlines And Travel Trade .We are an ISO 9001:2008 organization with solid
sponsorship and expert viewpoint in Today's aggressive world with solitary concentration
Customer .United Abroad is affirmed By IATA, TAAI, and IATO and perceived by Ministry of
Tourism (Govt. of India).

Joined together (UA) Is a Professional Organization Dedicated to Developing Long-term Client

Partnerships. We Are Committed To Establishing And Maintaining The Highest Standard Of
Integrity And Customer Service. We Remain Steadfast In Our Business Ethic, Never Losing
Sight Of The Needs You Our Clients.

We comprehend the requirements of business explorers since we are business voyagers

ourselves. From arranging your trek, checking in for your outing, to checking in your flight,
regardless of whether you have to roll out improvement from the street, or call one of our
accomplished travel experts. Joined Abroad is with you each progression of the influence your
business to movement fruitful.

 IN HOUSE TRAVEL SERVICES

We Offer In-house Travel Services to Our Corporate Clients by Implanting Our Own Staff and
Computerized Reservation System at Their Offices.

 ACCOUNTING MIS

We Can Provide You the MIS Report Which Will Help You to Assess Your Travel Pattern.

 ONE POINT CONTACT

To Strengthen Our Commitment of Providing Seamless Service, We Will Assign One Service
Executive To Service Your Account.

 FREQUENT FLIEYER PROGRAMME

We Assist In The Enrollment Of Your Frequent Travelers In The Airlines Frequent Flier
Programmer To Attract Maximum Benefit For Your Organization.

 MARKET UPDATE

We Will Keep You Updated Of The Market Trends & Environment Of The Travel Industry At
Regular Intervals.

 SAFER TRAVEL

United Abroad (UA) travel experts are accessible 24 hours per day, seven days seven days to
give remarkable administration and keep you protected and associated at whatever point issues
or crises emerge.

3|Page
  MOBILE ACCESS

United Abroad(UA) mobile keeps you informed and up to date with status alerts and flight delay
notification sent directly to your mobile device.

SWOT ANALYSIS PROCESS IN UNITED ABROAD COMPANY

SWOT examination is a business investigation process that guarantees that targets for a task are
unmistakably characterized and that all components identified with the undertaking are
legitimately distinguished. The SWOT examination process includes four territories: Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Both interior and outer parts are considered while doing
SWOT Analysis, as they both can possibly affect the achievement of a task or wander.

S.W.O.T. Analysis
The following is a brief summary of SWOT Analysis components:

1. Strengths
Qualities in SWOT examination are the properties inside an association that are thought
to be fundamental for a definitive accomplishment of a venture. Qualities are assets and
abilities that can be utilized for upper hand. Cases of qualities that are frequently refered
to include:

 Strong mark names

 Good notoriety

 Cost focal points of restrictive know-how

2. Weaknesses
The components inside the SWOT examination equation that could anticipate victories
inside a venture are Weaknesses. Shortcomings incorporate factors, for example, a
plenitude of contention between divisions, a feeble interior correspondence framework,
absence of subsidizing and a lacking measure of materials. Shortcomings can crash a task
before it even starts. Other Weaknesses include:

 Weak brand name

 Poor reputation

 Ineffective and high cost structure

3. Opportunities
Openings are named outside components that may be useful in accomplishing the
objectives set for the venture. These variables could include merchants who wish to work
with the organization to help make progress, the positive view of the organization by the
overall population, and economic situations that could make the undertaking alluring to
the a portion of the market. Additional Opportunities include:

4|Page
  Arrival of new technology

 Unfulfilled customer needs

 Taking business courses (training)

4. Threats
These outside variables could gravely influence the accomplishment of the undertaking
or business wander. The conceivable dangers that are basic to any SWOT investigation
incorporate a negative open picture, no instant market for the last item and the absence of
sellers who can supply crude materials for the task. Some other threats include:

 Trend changes

 New regulations

 New substitute products

PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS PROCESS IN UNITED ABROAD COMPANY

Definition: Execution Appraisal is characterized as a methodical procedure, in which the identity

and execution of a worker is surveyed by the chief or supervisor, against predefined models, for
example, learning of the activity, quality and amount of yield, authority capacities, disposition
towards work, participation, collaboration, judgment, flexibility, wellbeing, activity et cetera.

Relationship of Performance Appraisal and Job Analysis

Execution Appraisal identifies with work examination, as in work investigation sets up work
prerequisite, which changes over the examination into standard, on which execution is judged,
and brings about characterizing the reason for execution evaluation.

Objectives of Performance Appraisal

 To advance the representatives, based on execution and capability.

5|Page
  To distinguish the necessity for preparing and advancement of representatives.
 To give affirmation to those representatives who are enlisted as trial, endless supply of
the term.
 To take a choice in regards to the climb in representatives pay, impetuses and so forth.
 To encourage correspondence amongst unrivaled and subordinate.
 To enable representatives in understanding where they to remain as far as execution.
Data obtained from the appraisal of performance, are documented and used for different
organizational purposes.

Advantages of Performance Appraisal As per Watson and Wyatt Survey (2002),

"associations require vital help of representatives in new economy. Individuals are more
critical than any time in recent memory, individuals are the main reasonable wellspring of
upper hand". In this way, execution examination expect centrality for each business
association. A decent examination framework has the accompanying qualities:

 It is based on evidence

 It is highly individualized

 It is a joint activity

 It strives for understanding.

 It creates commitment

 It maximizes self-analysis and self-discovery

 It results in improved performance

The essential characteristics of an effective performance appraisal system are as follows:

1.Simple rating framework: The rating framework ought to be straightforward and in light of
occupation investigation for guaranteeing precision and decency of execution assessment of
representatives.

2.Training in examination framework: All representatives, including directors, ought to be

prepared to utilize the evaluation framework with the goal that they comprehend the targets,
technique and reason for execution evaluation.

6|Page
3.Quantifying execution: Performance examination ought to be founded on precise a la mode
sets of expectations and evaluations is made on discernible execution.

4.Freedom from predispositions: Evaluations ought to be done under standard conditions and
ought to be free from unfriendly effect emerging because of individual inclinations and sexual
orientation separation. A one-sided evaluation framework is more terrible than having no
examination framework as it harms the inspiration, resolve and efficiency of representatives and
impedes execution situated conduct.

5.Participative: Preliminary aftereffects of execution examination ought to be imparted to the

worker to create certainty of representatives in the framework and to give chances to dialogs.

6.Reviewing officer: There must be some upper level surveys with advance arrangement so
examination appraisals are standardized and workers have a chance to talk against unreasonable
treatment by their quick bosses.

7.Performance input: Performance advising and criticism ought to be given to representatives to

making joint activity gets ready for amending inadequacies in execution and looking for means
and measures for enhancing execution in future.

8.Combining supreme and relative guidelines: Appraisal ought to be done by consolidating

outright and relative execution principles with the goal that activity execution desires are relative
and achievable.

9.Using conduct based measures: Behavioral based measures ought to be utilized to rectify and
create suitable representative demeanors, inspiration and conduct for coordinating and
controlling worker endeavors and results.

10.Identification of execution objectives: Performance evaluation of representatives ought to

likewise be founded on concurred execution objectives and focuses for guaranteeing that
workers are appraised for the level of execution anticipated from them.

11.Training and Development: Performance ought to be utilized for worker advancement

purposes with the goal that holes in abilities and skills are tended to and Evacuated for better
execution and efficiency.

7|Page
12.Recognize and remunerate accomplishment: Appraisals ought to perceive, compensate,
fortify and announce representative accomplishments to inspire and fill in as a good example for
others to copy.

13.Identifying change territories: Appraisal ought to recognize zones where execution is great
and when it can be made strides.

14.Confidence and adequacy of workers: Performance examination process ought to be done

such that representatives reaction trust and trust in the framework. Without representative
acknowledgment, execution evaluation might fill no hierarchical needs and will get diminished
to a negligible custom on paper.

15.Documentation: Appraisal process ought to guarantee that execution objectives and particular
exercises for creating execution of workers are reported for additionally reference and as lawful
reinforcement.

What should be rated?

1.Quality: how much the procedure or aftereffect of doing a movement approaches

flawlessness as far as either standing up to some perfect method for playing out the action, or
satisfying the action's proposed reason.

2.Quantity: the sum delivered, communicated in fiscal terms, number of units, or number
finished movement cycles.

3.Timeliness: how much a movement is finished or result created, at the most punctual time
depict from the stances of both co-organizing with the yields of others and of expanding the
time accessible for different exercises

4.Cost viability: how much the utilization of association's assets i.e. money related, human,
innovative and material and so forth is augmented in the feeling of getting the most elevated
pick up or lessening in misfortune from every unit.

5.Need for supervision: how much an occupation entertainer can complete an occupation
work without either requesting supervisory intercession to keep an unfavorable result.

8|Page
6.Interpersonal effect: how much an entertainer advances feeling of confidence, altruism and
co-activity among associates and subordinates

9|Page
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES IN UNITED ABROAD
COMPANY

The figure appeared above is a standard execution examination process that happens in an
association, wherein each progression is imperative and masterminded in a deliberate way. The
procedure is led occasionally, more often than not twice per year, i.e. semi-every year and every year
called as mid-term survey and yearly audit separately.

Method of Performance Appraisal In United Abroad Company

During the time spent planning execution examination process, it is critical to distinguish the best
strategy for evaluation. There are various strategies acquainted with measure the amount and nature
of work performed by a person. These techniques are extensively grouped into two classifications:

Following are the tools used by the organizations for Performance Appraisals of their employees.

1. Ranking

10 | P a g e
 2. Paired Comparison

3. Forced Distribution

4. Confidential Report

5. Essay Evaluation

6. Critical Incident

7. Checklists

8. Graphic Rating Scale

9. BARS

10. Forced Choice Method

11. MBO

12. Field Review Technique

13. Performance Test

We will be discussing the important performance appraisal tools and techniques in detail.

1.Ranking Method

The positioning framework requires the rater to rank his subordinates on general execution. This
comprises in just putting a man in a rank request. Under this strategy, the positioning of a
representative in a work aggregate is done against that of another worker. The relative position of
every representative is tried as far as his numerical rank. It might likewise be finished by positioning
a man on his activity execution against another individual from the aggressive gathering.

Points of interest of Ranking Method

i.Employees are positioned by their execution levels.

ii.It is less demanding to rank the best and the most exceedingly awful representative.

Restrictions of Ranking Method

11 | P a g e
i.The "entire man" is contrasted and another "entire man" in this technique. By and by, it is extremely
hard to look at people having different individual qualities.

ii.This technique talks just of the position where a worker remains in his gathering. It doesn't test
anything about how much better or how much more terrible a representative is when contrasted with
another worker.

iii.When countless are working, positioning of people turn into a troublesome issue.

iv.There is no methodical strategy for positioning people in the association. The positioning
framework does not dispose of the likelihood of snap judgments.

1.Forced Distribution method

This is a ranking technique where raters are required to allocate a certain percentage of rates to
certain categories (eg: superior, above average, average) or percentiles (eg: top 10 percent, bottom 20
percent etc). Both the number of categories and percentage of employees to be allotted to each
category are a function of performance appraisal design and format. The workers of outstanding merit
may be placed at top 10 percent of the scale; the rest may be placed as 20 % good, 40 % outstanding,
20 % fair and 10 % fair.

Advantages of Forced Distribution

i. This method tends to eliminate raters bias

ii. By forcing the distribution according to pre-determined percentages, the problem of

making use of different raters with different scales is avoided.

Limitations of Forced Distribution

The limitation of using this method in salary administration, however, is that it may lead low morale,
low productivity and high absenteeism.

Employees who feel that they are productive, but find themselves in lower grade (than expected) feel
frustrated and exhibit over a period of time reluctance to work.

2.Critical Incident techniques

Under this method, the manager prepares lists of statements of very effective and ineffective behavior
of an employee. These critical incidents or events represent the outstanding or poor behavior of
employees or the job. The manager maintains logs of each employee, whereby he periodically records
critical incidents of the workers behavior. At the end of the rating period, these recorded critical
incidents are used in the evaluation of the worker’s performance. Example of a good critical incident
of a Customer Relations Officer is: March 12 - The Officer patiently attended to a customer’s
complaint. He was very polite and prompts in attending the customer’s problem.

12 | P a g e
Advantages of Critical Incident techniques

 This method provides an objective basis for conducting a thorough discussion of an

employee’s performance.

 This method avoids regency bias (most recent incidents are too much emphasized)

Limitations of Critical Incident techniques

 Negative incidents may be more noticeable than positive incidents.

 The supervisors have a tendency to unload a series of complaints about the incidents during
an annual performance review sessions.

 It results in very close supervision which may not be liked by an employee.

 The recording of incidents may be a chore for the manager concerned, who may be too busy
or may forget to do it.

3.Checklists and Weighted Checklists

In this system, a large number of statements that describe a specific job are given. Each statement has
a weight or scale value attached to it. While rating an employee the supervisor checks all those
statements that most closely describe the behavior of the individual under assessment. The rating
sheet is then scored by averaging the weights of all the statements checked by the rater. A checklist is
constructed for each job by having persons who are quite familiar with the jobs. These statements are
then categorized by the judges and weights are assigned to the statements in accordance with the
value attached by the judges.

Advantages of Checklists and Weighted Checklists

 Most frequently used method in evaluation of the employee’s performance.

Limitations of Checklists and Weighted Checklists

 This method is very expensive and time consuming

 Rater may be biased in distinguishing the positive and negative questions.

 It becomes difficult for the manager to assemble, analyze and weigh a number of statements
about the employee’s characteristics, contributions and behaviors.

4.Performance Appraisal Biases

13 | P a g e
Managers commit mistakes while evaluating employees and their performance. Biases and judgment
errors of various kinds may spoil the performance appraisal process. Bias here refers to inaccurate
distortion of a measurement. These are:

1. First Impression (primacy effect): Raters form an overall impression about the rate on the
basis of some particular characteristics of the rate identified by them. The identified qualities
and features may not provide adequate base for appraisal.

2. Halo Effect: The individual’s performance is completely appraised on the basis of a perceived
positive quality, feature or trait. In other words this is the tendency to rate a man uniformly
high or low in other traits if he is extra-ordinarily high or low in one particular trait. If a
worker has few absences, his supervisor might give him a high rating in all other areas of
work.

3. Horn Effect: The individual’s performance is completely appraised on the basis of a negative
quality or feature perceived. This results in an overall lower rating than may be warranted.
“He is not formally dressed up in the office. He may be casual at work too!”

4. Excessive Stiffness or Lenience: Depending upon the raters own standards, values and
physical and mental makeup at the time of appraisal, rates may be rated very strictly or
leniently. Some of the managers are likely to take the line of least resistance and rate people
high, whereas others, by nature, believe in the tyranny of exact assessment, considering more
particularly the drawbacks of the individual and thus making the assessment excessively
severe. The leniency error can render a system ineffective. If everyone is to be rated high, the
system has not done anything to differentiate among the employees.

5. Central Tendency: Appraisers rate all employees as average performers. That is, it is an
attitude to rate people as neither high nor low and follow the middle path. For example, a
professor, with a view to play it safe, might give a class grade near the equal to B, regardless
of the differences in individual performances.

6. Personal Biases: The way a supervisor feels about each of the individuals working under him
- whether he likes or dislikes them - as a tremendous effect on the rating of their
performances. Personal Bias can stem from various sources as a result of information
obtained from colleagues, considerations of faith and thinking, social and family background
and so on.

7. Spillover Effect: The present performance is evaluated much on the basis of past
performance. “The person who was a good performer in distant past is assured to be okay at
present also”.

8. Regency Effect: Rating is influenced by the most recent behavior ignoring the commonly
demonstrated behaviors during the entire appraisal period.

Therefore while appraising performances, all the above biases should be avoid.

Communicating Performance Appraisals

14 | P a g e
Performance appraisals enable superiors to know what their team members are up to, evaluate their
performances and also give them correct feedbacks so that they know where they are lacking and
work on their shortcomings.

The term “Performance Appraisal” generally causes anxiety among employees, which definitely
should not be the case. You really do not have to worry about your appraisal if you have worked hard
throughout the year.

There is definitely a certain way appraisals need to be communicated among employees. There are
organizations where management tends to create unnecessary hype about performance appraisal. In
such a scenario, trust me, employees think only about their appraisals and find it extremely difficult
to concentrate on their routine affairs. The appraisal process certainly should not disturb your daily
schedule.

Let us understand how performance appraisal needs to be communicated among employees.

The rating procedure, appraisal form or any other related information ought to be sent to each and
every individual separately. Do not mark a common mail to everyone. If you do not want to take the
pain of sending separate mails to everyone, create a common login id where each and every
individual can register using their passwords and pull out the appraisal form. The appraisal form
generally has information about employee’s designation, grade, level in the hierarchy, responsibilities
and thus must be kept confidential.

Counseling needs to be done on a one on one basis. Address their queries, confusions in private.
Remember, appraisal is a very sensitive subject and should be handled gracefully. Call the employees
one by one either in your cabin or conference room and try to find out if they need any help or
guidance. Trust me, if you call them in a group, they would never open up. It is unethical to discuss
one’s performance or salary in public.

Once the appraisals are done, communicating the same to the employees is another big challenge.
The increment letters or appraisal letters should be handed over to the employees either by the
functional head or human resource team personally. Do not ask your office peon to distribute the
letters. Trust me, it is very insulting. You are not doing any charity. It is their right.

Employee attrition is one of the major problems faced by organizations after performance appraisal.
Employees who work only for money quit after a salary hike to negotiate further with any other
organization. Individuals who do not get satisfactory appraisal in any case get demotivated and look
for a change. Any employee who does not agree to his/her appraisal or feel has not got what he/she
deserves needs to be addressed at the earliest. Sit with the individual concerned and try to make
him/her understand as to why he/she has got a certain rating. Employees cannot always be wrong. If
you feel, an employee deserves slightly more than what he has got, kindly reconsider your decision.
Remember, it is always better to give a decent salary hike to talented employees than losing them.
After all, if they leave, you in any case have to spend time and energy searching for a replacement.

Employees need to be motivated after their appraisals. Congratulate each and every one irrespective
of their salary hike or promotion. Appreciate everyone for being consistent and most importantly
loyal towards the organization. Make sure no one feels left out. Sit with them, give them new realistic

15 | P a g e
targets and guide them as to how can they work together, come out with more innovative ideas and
show better performances in the years to come.

Performance appraisal should not be the only method to evaluate or acknowledge employee’s
performance. Do not be rude to employees who did not perform well. It is absolutely okay to
handhold them and give a second chance.

Handling Employees after Performance Appraisals

Performance appraisal refers to the elaborate process of reviewing one’s performance and output over
a certain period of time and not only give correct feedbacks but also acknowledge and appreciate the
hard work. Appraisal letters cause a lot of anxiety and sometimes disappointment among employees.
Individuals never create problems when they get a good salary hike but trust me, handling employees
after a bad appraisal is a big challenge.

Let us go through few tips on how to handle employees after performance appraisals:

Never forget to congratulate employees who have got a decent appraisal or a promotion and a
positive review from the management. It will further motivate them and also instill a sense of pride
and most importantly responsibility in them. Make them feel important. If someone has worked really
hard all through the year, he/she definitely deserves to be praised for his/her efforts and encouraged to
perform better in the years to come. Celebrate his/her success.

Employees who had an unsatisfactory year and eventually a bad appraisal are the ones who need
most of your attention and care. One of the most common problems with such employees is that they
suddenly become negative about everything, find reviewing authorities as their biggest enemies and
also start hating their organization. Yes, logically such a behavior is not expected out of a mature
professional but we can’t completely blame the poor individual also who after slogging for a year did
not get appraisal as per his/her expectations.

As they say “with a little love, we can even change the world”. Such employees need to be handled
with utmost patience. Sit with such employees and first of all try to find out as to why they failed this
time. Try to understand their mood and also what they feel about their appraisal? It is obvious that
they would not be in a great mood but as a superior it is your duty to cheer them up so that they do
not lose their confidence and eventually interest in work and finally quit. Employees also need to
understand that there is always a next time and there is no point reacting and fighting with people
around. After all it would not solve your problem, instead earn you a bad name in the organization.

Understand where the individual went wrong. All negativities and confusions would disappear if you
make the individual understand where all he/she lacked and why his counterpart has got a decent
appraisal while he/she has not? Yes, employees at this point of time are really not in a mood to listen
to their superiors but you have to assure them that as a Boss, you are always there with them and
would certainly help in future as well. Understand if at all the individual is facing any problem or not
and most importantly try to provide a solution. Yes, after a bad appraisal, employees tend to become
negative but as a Boss it is your responsibility to change their perception.

Let them speak and come out with their frustrations. Employees should also be careful with their
words. Never cross your limits. Handhold such employees and provide necessary guidance whenever
required. Send them a motivational email. Such small initiatives go a long way in motivating

16 | P a g e
employees so that they become a little more serious and come back with a bang. Make them
understand that this is just a temporary phase and should not act as a demotivating factor for them.
Encourage them to work in unison with their fellow workers, read a lot and most importantly believe
in the organization and its process.

Importance of Performance Appraisals and How to conduct them effectively

THE IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS

People work in organizations for monetary and nonmonetary reasons. While monetarily, employees
look forward to increasing pay and perks, they also look for job satisfaction and fulfillment in their
jobs. Thus, the motivators that determine whether a particular employee would stick to the job or
leave the organization are based on the monetary and nonmonetary incentives.

For instance, monetarily, they might be expecting a pay rise every year in addition to healthy
bonuses. In the same manner, they expect recognition for their work as well as job satisfaction
through challenging assignments. As all these aspects are determined during the appraisal process
where not only the pay and perks but also the chances for promotion and being given more fulfilling
work are decided.

Thus, it is clear that performance appraisals must be taken seriously in addition to being accorded the
importance they deserve. Indeed, performance appraisals can be thought of the most important time
in an employee’s stint with the organization and hence, they must also be conducted with care and
caution.

In addition, given the fact that managers also share feedback, performance appraisals can be
occasions for letting the employee know where they are doing well and which aspects they need to
improve their performance.

Why Performance Appraisals Must be Conducted with Care and Caution

Given these reasons and factors that deem how important performance appraisals are, most
organizations have well-defined processes in place to conduct and review employee performance.
While some organizations conduct performance appraisals every six months, the others do an annual
review of performance.

Apart from this, the performance appraisals also involve multiple levels of employees wherein the
immediate manager and the manager’s manager usually take part in the reviews along with the
concerned employee.

Further, some organizations also require the Human Resources Manager to take part in the reviews in
addition to the designated people manager for that particular project. Indeed, while this is not the
norm in all organizations, the presence of the HR manager is required when the employees have to be
told about placing them on performance improvement plans and other enhancing initiatives so that
such programs can be reviewed and their work monitored for compliance or noncompliance.

17 | P a g e
Apart from this, performance appraisals usually entail multiple rounds of discussion wherein the
concerned employee first uploads his or her perceptions about how well he or she did on the HR
portal and then, the manager and the manager’s manager share their feedback which is followed by
face to face discussions and the final closure is given after all parties agree to the contents of the
review.

Indeed, most multinational organizations have a policy of requiring the consent of the employee with
regards to the rating and the feedback, and this is the reason, the presence of the HR manager helps in
cases where the employee refuses to give his or her consent.

Moreover, performance appraisals are usually tied to the financial or the operational year so that pay
and bonuses, as well as promotions, can be linked to these timelines. Indeed, many multinational
organizations conduct performance appraisals in the calendar year-end whereas Indian firms usually
conduct such reviews in the financial year-end.

Apart from this, the other reason why performance appraisals are so important is that the recognition
of employee performance and the subsequent rewards and incentives system follows the review
wherein the top performers usually are given awards during the organizational In-House and Town
Hall gatherings.

In other words, the review and the ratings are followed by such rewards for the top performers in
addition to placing them on the premium or fast-track career paths that are usually confidential
between the HR manager and the line manager.

How to Conduct Performance Appraisals Professionally

Given these aspects, performance appraisals must be conducted with care and caution. While good
reviews and top performers usually have a pleasant discussion with their managers, it is the middle
ranked employees who often lead to the most intense and difficult discussions. Indeed, while those at
the bottom would have been expecting such reviews or have resigned themselves to their fates
(literally as well as figuratively), it is the employees who expect their reviews to reflect their
performance in the top bracket but, instead are rated near the top or in the middle who often pose
challenges for the managers and the HR managers.

This is the reason why managers often budget quite some time for such reviews where they need to
convince the employees ranked near the top or in the middle that their ratings are warranted and
justified.

Indeed, such reviews often stretch into multiple rounds because the concerned employees need much
persuasion and convincing to make them agree and consent to the final rating. Also, sometimes, such
reviews often turn bitter and personal, and this is the reason why some HR managers often make it a
point to be present during such reviews to avoid unpleasant situations from developing.

Above all, our advice to both the employees and their managers is to ensure that such discussions do
not become bitter or personal and it is better to keep such meetings professional and pleasant
irrespective of whether the employees and the managers are “on the same page” in terms of the
contents of the reviews as well as the ratings.

18 | P a g e
To conclude, performance appraisals form a crucial and critical part of the employee experience and
hence, it is better to conduct them as professionally and as diligently as possible.

How Automation Can Help the Performance Appraisal Process Become More Efficient
How Automation Leads to Transparency and Accountability in the Appraisal Process

It would be an understatement to say that technology would be a game changer for all Human
Resource Management (HRM) Processes. By automating the routine tasks and using data analytics as
well as big data, HR Managers can ensure that the end to end HR value chain can scale up and
actualize synergies from the integration of disparate and discrete tasks.

For instance, by automating the Performance Appraisal process, HR Managers can derive the benefits
from the economies of scale wherein they have the capability of processing the appraisal activities on
a mass basis.

Indeed, the fact that once automated, the performance appraisal system can scale up or in other
words, cater to any number of employees means that there are time and effort savings through
automation.

Further, automation of the performance appraisal process ensures that all employees are covered as
well as a record or log of the activities of both employees and managers is maintained leading to
accountability.

To explain, automated performance appraisal tasks ensure that there is an audit trail or audit log of
the activities which helps make the concerned employee or manager accountable. Further, through
automation, there is an element of transparency wherein senior managers and the HR managers can
step in cases of disputes or disagreements and find out the root cause of the dispute by logging in to
the HR portal and checking who has noted what and when and where. In addition, the employees can
also log in and check the record for themselves thereby introducing transparency into the process.

Moreover, in cases of lawsuits and legal cases, the entire history as well as the archive that contains
the activities in the HR portal can be used as evidence by the organizations in courts of law. Apart
from this, the fact that third parties can also be given access to the HR portal means that in cases of
internal inquiries, the automated performance appraisal system can prove to be valuable for the
investigators to check and determine the culpability or otherwise of the various parties.

This means that automating the performance appraisal system does indeed make the entire process
more efficient given these benefits.

How AI and Big Data can Make the Appraisal Process Free from Human Bias

Apart from that, technology can also be a game changer for the performance appraisal processes as
by using data analytics and Big Data, HR managers and the line managers can assign the grades and
the ratings on a scientific basis instead of subjective attributes.

For instance, automation can help the HR managers and the line managers to sift through the
appraisals of all the team members and use analytics to determine the ratings.

19 | P a g e
How this works is by ensuring that the combined performance metrics are available and once they are
so, they can be fed into the analytics software or the AI or Artificial Intelligence enabled tool to
determine who ranks where and who is higher or lower in grades relative to the others.

One of the most common complaints in organizations during the performance appraisal process is
that the biases of the managers are making them assign bad grades and low bonuses and pay hikes for
those team members who are not their favorites.

Thus, this problem of human biases creeping into the appraisal process can be eliminated or even
minimized by using data analytics and AI to sift through the feedback and the comments and
determine the ratings in an objective and unbiased manner.

This would help the organizations to introduce more efficiency as well as transparency in addition to
removing the element of subjectivity and bias which makes many employees often quit the
organizations.

Remember that employees often leave due to their immediate managers rather than for any other
reason and this fact has been validated by research which confirms this aspect. Thus, organizations
can ensure that they retain their employees by convincing and proving to them that the entire
performance appraisal process is free from human bias and subjectivity.

Making the Appraisal Process Data Driven can Help All Stakeholders

The point to be noted here is that through automation, the entire performance appraisal process can be
data-driven which makes it scientific and rigorous in its methods. As the legendary founder of the
Indian IT (Information Technology) company, NR Narayana Murthy is fond of saying, “In God We
Trust and the Rest Have to Come with Data”.

Thus, what this means is that by making the performance appraisal system automated, organizations
can ensure that the data-driven methodology and the AI-powered rating system can make all
stakeholders happy and free from doubt.

It is also not the case that automation would completely solve all problems with the performance
appraisal process.

Indeed, AI and Big Data Analytics are still yet to evolve into such capabilities where they can replace
human decision making elements.

Moreover, by programming the software and configuring it, the person who is doing this can
introduce his or her own bias into the software. Thus, the key here is to ensure that the person-
machine interface and the human AI interactions do not drag the entire process down to the initial
level which as we have discussed is the problem that led to automation in the first place.

To conclude, using technology with due diligence and care and caution can indeed usher in a new
chapter in the way organizations undertake and conduct the performance appraisal process as well as
the rating system.

Why Making CSR Outcomes Part of Performance Appraisals Helps Organizations

20 | P a g e
Corporate are under Pressure to Meet their CSR Commitments

It is often the case that corporate struggle to meet their Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR
commitments and responsibilities due to a variety of reasons. Indeed, the fact that corporate often
sideline CSR in the pursuit of profits means that they often pay lip service to the concept without
actualizing any tangible outcomes in practice.

However, the fact that civil society and other stakeholders including regulators and activists put
pressure on corporate to show tangible and real CSR outcomes mean that corporate are often under
scrutiny by the media and the wider society as far as their CSR outcomes are concerned. Indeed, with
regulators such as SEBI (Stock Exchange Board of India) and the Indian Government making it
mandatory for corporate to spend a certain amount of their revenues and profits on CSR, there is
more than ever a push to make corporate accountable and responsible.

Thus, it is the case that many corporate in India and world over are taking their CSR commitments
more seriously in the wake of these developments and are experimenting with ways and means to
make their CSR commitments count.

Making Each Employee a Stakeholder in the CSR Process

A sure way to ensure that the rhetoric of CSR meets the reality of tangible results is by making each
employee a stakeholder in the overall process. What this means is that instead of CSR initiatives
being driven from the top, there can be a combination of top-down and bottom up approaches
wherein all employees are encouraged to take the CSR commitments as part of their individual
responsibilities, and at the same time, the entire organization works as a unit to achieving CSR goals.

In this context, it is important for corporate to incentivize the employees to take CSR seriously. This
can take the form of mandating employees to spend time with the wider society as part of their KRAs
or Key Result Areas in the Performance Appraisals wherein they are awarded and rewarded through
the regular appraisal process for meeting CSR commitments.

Making CSR Commitments Part of Performance Appraisal Process

Indeed, this is something that multinationals such as Goldman Sachs follow wherein they mandate
that each employee must spend time for a week or so during each appraisal period with the wider
communities and in rural areas as part of the identified CSR outreaches programs and is rewarded for
their time and efforts in the performance appraisals.

In this manner, multinationals such as Goldman believe that the theoretical and ideological aspects of
CSR are actualized in practical and realistic ways to ensure that each employee becomes a
stakeholder in the wider organizational outreach and contributes individually wherein synergies are
actualized.

In other words, by making CSR outcomes as part of performance appraisals, these organizations
believe that the sum substance of the total effort from the entire organization is greater than the
contributions of each employee thereby creating synergies for the entire organization in the process.

Further, by incentivizing the employees by rewarding them for their CSR deliverables during
performance appraisals, the combination or the melding together of ideology with practical steps
21 | P a g e
ensures that employee goes beyond the mandate and are encouraged and motivated to do more which
again creates value in the ultimate meaning of the word.

Why Making CSR Outcomes Part of Performance Appraisals is not an End in Itself

It is also not the case that making CSR commitments as part of performance appraisals would be an
end in itself. Instead, it is a means to an end and hence, must be viewed in that perspective.

In other words, if employees feel that spending time in the CSR outreach programs is something that
they do reluctantly, and then the whole purpose of the process is lost. Further, if employees do this
only for meeting their performance appraisal parameters, then again the purpose is defeated.

Moreover, the fact that there are logistical difficulties in measuring the success or otherwise of the
CSR deliverables means that such methods might sound good on paper but lack the needed
effectiveness to succeed in practice.

Apart from this, the fact that many employees view such commitments as a burden and a chore is
another reason why such initiatives must be monitored and appropriately regulated. Also, the fact that
most employees get into what is known as a “solutions mindset” in corporate jargon when they take
up their CSR commitments is another reason why such initiatives might fail to achieve the desired
outcomes.

To explain, if employees start thinking in terms of the corporate methods when they approach real-
world social and economic problems, then the situation would turn problematic as what works in the
corporate might not exactly work in the real world. Indeed, often the activists who are engaged in the
wider communities are engaged with these initiatives mainly because while the rhetoric is ok, the
reality is something altogether different.

A Good Start that can Lead to Better CSR Outcomes

Thus, what is needed is a mindset change that can only happen over time. At the same time, it is our
view that making CSR commitments part of the performance appraisals is a good first step that can
lead to better outcomes.

In other words, we have to start somewhere and hence, in this respect, ensuring that CSR and
incentives for the same can go together is a sure way to making the entire CSR outreach that much
more effective.

Lastly, by making the entire organization geared towards actualizing CSR commitments, corporate
can engage with the wider communities in a systemic and systematic manner.

Job Evaluation
Job evaluation is a process of determining the relative worth of a job. It is a process which is helpful
even for framing compensation plans by the personnel manager. Job evaluation as a process is
advantageous to a company in many ways:

1. Reduction in inequalities in salary structure - It is found that people and their motivation are
dependent upon how well they are being paid. Therefore the main objective of job evaluation

22 | P a g e
 is to have external and internal consistency in salary structure so that inequalities in salaries
are reduced.

2. Specialization - Because of division of labor and thereby specialization, a large number of

enterprises have got hundred jobs and many employees to perform them. Therefore, an
attempt should be made to define a job and thereby fix salaries for it. This is possible only
through job evaluation.

3. Helps in selection of employees - The job evaluation information can be helpful at the time of
selection of candidates. The factors that are determined for job evaluation can be taken into
account while selecting the employees.

4. Harmonious relationship between employees and manager - Through job evaluation,

harmonious and congenial relations can be maintained between employees and management,
so that all kinds of salaries controversies can be minimized.

5. Standardization - The process of determining the salary differentials for different jobs become
standardized through job evaluation. This helps in bringing uniformity into salary structure.

6. Relevance of new jobs - Through job evaluation, one can understand the relative value of new
jobs in a concern.

According to Kimball and Kimball, “Job evaluation represents an effort to determine the relative
value of every job in a plant and to determine what the fair basic wage for such a job should be.”

Thus, job evaluation is different from performance appraisal. In job evaluation, worth of a job is
calculated while in performance appraisal, the worth of employee is rated.

Performance Appraisal is a part of performance management. It helps in gaining the competitive

edge, by improving the performance level of the employees working in the organization, making
rational decisions regarding hike in salaries, promotions, transfers, discharge of the employees,
reducing job dissatisfaction and employee turnover.

An employee performance appraisal is a process—often combining both written and oral elements—
whereby management evaluates and provides feedback on employee job performance, including steps
to improve or redirect activities as needed. Documenting performance provides a basis for pay
increases and promotions. Appraisals are also important to help staff members improve their
performance and as an avenue by which they can be rewarded or recognized for a job well done. In
addition, they can serve a host of other functions, providing a launching point from which companies
can clarify and shape responsibilities in accordance with business trends, clear lines of management-
employee communication, and spur re-examinations of potentially hoary business practices. Yet Joel

23 | P a g e
Myers notes in Memphis Business Journal that "in many organizations, performance appraisals only
occur when management is building a case to terminate someone. It's no wonder that the result is a
mutual dread of the performance evaluation session—something to be avoided, if at all possible. This
is no way to manage and motivate people. Performance appraisal is supposed to be a developmental
experience for the employee and a 'teaching moment' for the manager."

ENVIRONMENT SCANNING

Organizational environment consists of both external and internal factors. Environment must be
scanned so as to determine development and forecasts of factors that will influence organizational
success. Environmental scanning refers to possession and utilization of information about
occasions, patterns, trends, and relationships within an organization’s internal and external
environment. It helps the managers to decide the future path of the organization. Scanning must
identify the threats and opportunities existing in the environment. While strategy formulation, an
organization must take advantage of the opportunities and minimize the threats. A threat for one
organization may be an opportunity for another.

Internal analysis of the environment is the first step of environment scanning. Organizations should
observe the internal organizational environment. This includes employee interaction with other
employees, employee interaction with management, manager interaction with other managers, and
management interaction with shareholders, access to natural resources, brand awareness,
organizational structure, main staff, operational potential, etc. Also, discussions, interviews, and
surveys can be used to assess the internal environment. Analysis of internal environment helps in
identifying strengths and weaknesses of an organization.

As business becomes more competitive, and there are rapid changes in the external environment,
information from external environment adds crucial elements to the effectiveness of long-term plans.
As environment is dynamic, it becomes essential to identify competitors’ moves and actions.
Organizations have also to update the core competencies and internal environment as per external
environment. Environmental factors are infinite, hence, organization should be agile and vigile to
accept and adjust to the environmental changes. For instance - Monitoring might indicate that an
original forecast of the prices of the raw materials that are involved in the product are no more
credible, which could imply the requirement for more focused scanning, forecasting and analysis to
create a more trustworthy prediction about the input costs. In a similar manner, there can be changes
in factors such as competitor’s activities, technology, market tastes and preferences.

While in external analysis, three correlated environment should be studied and analyzed —

 immediate / industry environment

 national environment

 broader socio-economic environment / macro-environment

24 | P a g e
Examining the industry environment needs an appraisal of the competitive structure of the
organization’s industry, including the competitive position of a particular organization and it’s main
rivals. Also, an assessment of the nature, stage, dynamics and history of the industry is essential. It
also implies evaluating the effect of globalization on competition within the industry. Analyzing
the national environment needs an appraisal of whether the national framework helps in achieving
competitive advantage in the globalized environment. Analysis of macro-environment includes
exploring macro-economic, social, government, legal, technological and international factors that
may influence the environment. The analysis of organization’s external environment reveals
opportunities and threats for an organization.

Strategic managers must not only recognize the present state of the environment and their industry
but also be able to predict its future positions.

25 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

After the objective of the study has clearly stated, the next step in formal research project
is to determine the source from which the data is required to be collected. The data collection is
an interesting aspect of the study achieving data effectively the information consists of two types
of data.

Data collections:

A) primary data
B) Secondary data

Statement of the Problem

Performance appraisal is important for organizations and employees. Unfortunately, performance

appraisals are not on the top of the list of "favorite things to do" for either managers or employees,
and there can be a number of problems with their administration. From managers not being trained to
conduct performance appraisals effectively to the failure to tie performance appraisal expectations to
desired business results, businesses are often challenged to use this tool effectively.

Poorly Trained Managers

Effective performance appraisal doesn't just happen and organizations shouldn't assume that
managers know how to conduct them effectively, even if they have many years of experience as
managers. In fact, since the process can differ from organization to organization, it is important that
training is provided to introduce managers to the philosophy of performance appraisal at the

26 | P a g e
organization, including a review of the forms, the rating system and how the data gathered is used.
Training should take place regularly as a refresher both for new and veteran managers.

Inconsistent Ratings

Inter-rater reliability is generally very low between managers at any organization. What one manager
considers to be "acceptable" performance, another may consider "not meeting expectations." This can
be a challenge for any organization and is made more of a challenge in situations where the criteria
used are subjective and not based on any measurable performance outcomes.

Lack of Outcome-Based Measures

Performance appraisals that ask managers to rate employees on subjective criteria such as "customer
service skills" or "leadership ability" lack specific outcomes that can be tied to measurable results.
The best performance appraisals provide the ability for both managers and employees to judge
performance based on measurable outcomes that are objective; level of sales, safety records and
evaluations from customers are all meaurable ways of providing insight into an employee's
performance.

Not Used for Performance Improvement

The purpose of performance appraisal is not only to provide input to employees about how they're
doing, but also to provide the organization with an indication of areas of employee strength and
opportunities for improvement. Unfortunately, few companies actually aggregate and use the results
of performance appraisal for performance improvement efforts. By analyzing results and taking
advantage of both best practices in areas where employees are performing well and opportunities for
improvement in areas where they're not, organizations can receive maximum value from their
performance appraisal efforts.

27 | P a g e
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To study the need and importance of “Performance Appraisal”.

 To portray the profile of “united abroad company”.

 To study the performance appraisal implementation in united abroad company.

 To make data analysis and interpretation based on the perception of the employee in the
organization.

 To summarize and find certain suggestions for the impotent of Performance Appraisal
system in the company.

28 | P a g e
 IMPORTANCE/SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Performance appraisals provide employees and managers with opportunities to discuss

areas in which employees excel and those in which employees need improvement. Performance
appraisals should be conducted on a regular basis, and they need not be directly attached to
promotion opportunities.

Personal Attention

During a performance appraisal review, a supervisor and an employee discuss the

employee's strengths and weaknesses. This gives the employee individual face time with the
supervisor and a chance to address personal concerns.

Feedback

Employees need to know when their job duties are being fulfilled and when there are
issues with their work performance. Managers should schedule this communication on a regular
basis.

Career Path

Performance appraisals allow employees and supervisors to discuss goals that must be met
to advance within the company. This can include identifying skills that must be acquired, areas in
which one must improve, and educational courses that must be completed.
29 | P a g e
Employee Accountability

When employees know there will be regularly scheduled evaluations, they realize that
they are accountable for their job performance.

Communicate Divisional and Company Goals

Besides communicating employees' individual goals, employee appraisals provide the

opportunity for managers to explain organizational goals and the ways in which employees can
participate in the achievement of those goals.

MANAGERIAL USEFULNESS OF STUDY

The performance appraisal is an essential part of the human resources department's contribution to an
organization. An effective appraisal may not only eliminate behavior and work-quality problems, it
can motivate an employee to contribute more. Often, a company will ask its employees to perform
"360-degree feedback” that assesses peers and subordinates as well as supervisors and management.
Regardless, the opportunity to give and receive constructive criticism shouldn't be ignored.

Improving Communication

All too often, employees and managers don't get along and can't understand why. Problems that stem
from a lack of communication can sometimes be resolved with a performance appraisal. If the
appraisal is used as an opportunity to describe the criteria on which performance is judged –using
meaningful and relevant examples – then the employee will walk away from the meeting with a
better understanding of how to best perform his job. For example, "John, when I say you need to be
more customer-focused, what I really want is to see you greet the customers with a smile when they
enter the store, and ask how you can help."

30 | P a g e
Providing a Career Path

The performance appraisal is the perfect opportunity to address long-term goals that may not be on
the everyday to-do list. Not only does this provide the employee with an opportunity to be of greater
use to an organization, the employee feels pleased and valued. Lighting the way toward a successful
career path inspires loyalty and stability and can improve the bottom line, especially when the
employee's first concern is the health of the business, and subsequently, her career.
Encouraging Good Work and Improvement

Celebrating a job well-done is the easy part of the performance appraisal. Noting areas of
improvement is not so easy. Nevertheless, no one is perfect, and the performance appraisal is an ideal
time to diplomatically highlight areas that need improvement. Even the most valuable employee
could benefit from additional training, while those who are on the cusp of dismissal need the heads-
up. Be specific by providing examples and clearly explain what needs to occur to turn things around.
Showing an employee that you care enough about them by taking the time to work with them may
make even the most hardened employee feel better.
Improving Decision-Making Ability

When a company has detailed information on employee performance, business decisions become
easier. Filling open positions with existing staff strengthens the organization and promotes loyalty.
Knowing which employees display what strengths improves the speed with which projects can be
assigned. Appraisals also provide a framework when making decisions about compensation – and
layoffs. If the organization becomes the unfortunate party to a lawsuit, the performance appraisal can
refute or support claims. As a result, the effective use of performance appraisals helps an organization
operate efficiently and with focus.

31 | P a g e
Types of Research

DATA COLLECTION METHOD

a) Primary data:

The primary data are those, which are collected freshly and for the first time, from the
employees directly. It is collected through the following methods.

1. Questionnaire: A structure of questionnaire was prepared and distributed among

the employees & workers.

2. Interview: Personal interviews and interaction with the employees and contractor
labour.

3. Observation: By observing the working environment.

b) Secondary data:

The secondary data are those which have already been collected by someone or else which
have been passed through statistical process. Sources of secondary data can be categorized into two
broad categories named published and unpublished statistics. Various sources are available namely
books, synergies monthly (Chakaravahini) books etc. and also collected from various files, records
and synergies casting Ltd.

32 | P a g e
Research Design

Size:

A sample of 40 employees has been selected .Although it looks to be a small sample keeping
in view the large number of employees it has to be limited because of time constraint(8
weeks).Even then the sample size is not considered to be small. It is enough to draw
conclusions.

Type:

Since employees from all levels (strata) namely the top level, the middle level, and the lower
level are bound to experience stress, the sample has to include employees from all levels.
Stratified random sampling technique was selected while preparing questionnaire as this was
the only technique that helped to draw conclusions accurately.

33 | P a g e
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

As the study revolves around the performance appraisal of human resources aspects the
overall organization performance cannot be ascertained. In spite of giving honest and sincere efforts
there are several limitations, which are as follows:

 The period of study is only for about 2months, which is a major constraint.

 The perception bias or attitude of the respondents may also act as hurdles to the study.

 The study is only confined to performance appraisal.

 The study cannot be oriented with all HRM practices followed by

 UNITED ABROAD COMPANY. because of the paucity of time requirements.

 The sample size taken for the research is small due to the constraint of time.

34 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The study of performance appraisal and training programmes has attracted many of the researchers
and practitioners. There has been continuous research in the field of sugar industries and its methods,
appraisal time, appraisal meeting, training programmes and their benefits in the industry. Though
there is no dearth of document any evidence in the field of sugar industries, studies, particularly in
Performance Appraisal and Training Programmes are rare. It is a field in the preschooler stage in
India, when compared to other countries in the west. However, the available contributions from the
following authors and researchers have been reviewed and a brief account of the review is given in
this chapter.

Cummings (1973)1 in an article titled, “A Field Experimental Study of the Effects of Two
Performance Appraisal Systems”, reported the results of a field experiment designed to test the
effects of manipulating several elements of an operative level performance appraisal system. First,
the multipurposive nature of appraisal in formal organizations is discussed. This is followed by a
brief overview of the literature on performance appraisal. The design and results of the study at hand
are then discussed.

Patton (1973)2 in his paper on “Does performance appraisal work?” states that performance appraisal
can be a powerful force for performance improvement at both the individual and the corporate level,
but few companies in the US and even fewer in Europe have learned to tap its full potential.
Examining the differences between European and US performance appraisal practices, the author
finds that some European companies have more than caught up with their American counterparts. He
offers guidelines to overcome some difficulties prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic.

Randell (1973)3 in his paper titled ““Performance appraisal: purposes, practices and conflicts”,
discusses the collection of information from and about people at work. It attempts to structure the

35 | P a g e
field, define key problems, expose sources of conflict and point the way to resolving major
difficulties.

Taylor and Wilsted (1974)4 in their article titled “Capturing Judgment Policies: A Field Study of
Performance Appraisal” used mathematical models of judgment policy for evaluating 625
performance reports during a single rating cycle. Linear and nonlinear analyses are used to describe
the cues most important in determining the overall ratings. In addition, performance rating policy is
compared with stated policy for each of the 40 raters.

Bedeian (1976)5 in his paper titled “Rater Characteristics Affecting the Validity of Performance
Appraisals” states that the task of developing effective performance appraisal systems is one of the
most preferred contemporary problems of personnel administration. An abundance of literature is
available detailing the problems and difficulties inherent in subordinate appraisals. Numerous studies
have made suggestions for rating format and content changes. Some have even suggested the
elimination of appraisal. More recently, an identifiable body of knowledge which seriously casts
doubt on the use of supervisor’s judgment in evaluating employee performance has begun to emerge.
The purpose of this paper is to explore this emerging body of knowledge and to examine its
ramifications for performance appraisal.

Allinson (1977)6 in his paper describes a study of the effects of a training course on performance
appraisal interviewing. Managers who had attended the course were asked, by means of a postal
questionnaire, to compare their pre-training and post-training interviewing performances. There were
three important findings. First, that the trainees had improved on almost every aspect of appraisal
interviewing; secondly, it is not just the skill of interviewing which is important, but also an
understanding of the role of performance appraisal; and finally, managers in mid-career may have the
most to gain from training of this type.

Decotiis and Petit (1978)7 in their article titled, “The Performance Appraisal Process: A Model and
Some Testable Propositions”, present a literature-based model of the determinants of the accuracy of
performance ratings. The model indicates that the major determinants of accuracy are: (a) rater
motivation; (b) rater ability; and (c) availability of appropriate judgmental norms. Several
propositions and suggestions for further research are derived from the components of the model.

Wilsted and Taylor (1978)8 in their article titled, “Identifying Criteria for Performance Appraisal
Decisions” states that appraising employee performance has long been regarded as an important part
of the management function, for purposes of salary administration and recognizing future

36 | P a g e
management potential. More recently performance appraisal has been recognized for its value as one
of the several tools available to organizations for employee motivation. Central to such programmes
as 'Management by Objectives,' for example, is the motivational value of participatively developed
goals, clearly communicated and supported with a clear and accurate perception by the subordinates
regarding the criteria to be applied in appraising his/her performance against those goals. Indeed,
what is perceived by individuals is often more important than 'reality' in influencing behaviour.
Selective filtration by superiors and subordinates depends on the trust established, and serves to set
expectations for performance in the work environment. Individuals function on the basis of
perceptions. Accurate perceptions of the performance appraisal criteria by those being evaluated is
essential to the motivational objectives of appraisal. Yet, even in the most formal rating programmes,
the ratee's perception of appraisal criteria often varies widely from that actually employed.

Kleiman and Durham (1981)9 in their article titled, “Performance Appraisal, Promotion and the
Courts: A Critical Review”, reviewed twentythree Title VII court cases in order to determine the
standards set by the courts in their assessment of performance appraisal systems when used as the
basis for promotion decisions. The topics covered were adverse impact determination, the courts'
adjudication strategy, and the evidence needed to justify the performance appraisal procedures.
Among the major findings were the courts': (1) failure to adhere to the “applicant flow technique” of
adverse impact determination, (2) interest in assessing performance appraisal systems regardless of
their adverse impact, (3) ignorance regarding acceptable validation procedures, and (4) focus on
objectivity in lieu of validity. The discussion offered suggestions to employers for developing a
professionally sound and legally defensible appraisal system.

Cederblom (1982)10 in his article titled, “The performance appraisal interview: a review,
implications and suggestions” reviewed the research on performance appraisal interview in the
context of recent performance appraisal models. Three factors seem consistently useful for producing
effective interviews: superior's knowledge of the subordinate's job and performance, superior's
support of the subordinate, and welcoming the subordinate's participation. The appropriate function,
frequency, and format of the interview, as well as goal setting and actual subordinate participation,
depend on the characteristics of the employee and job.

Davis and Mount (1984)11 in their study evaluated the effectiveness of performance appraisal
training in an organizational setting. Four hundred and two middle level managers were randomly
assigned to one of the three conditions: no training, computer assisted instruction only (CAI), or CAI
training plus a behavior modeling workshop (CAIW). Training effectiveness was assessed on two
categories of dependent variables, managerial learning and managerial job performance. As predicted
trained managers were found to be more knowledgeable of performance appraisal than untrained

37 | P a g e
managers. Also as predicted, managers in the CAIW group conducted appraisal discussions which
were perceived by employees as more satisfying than employees of managers in the no training
group. Only partial support was obtained for the hypothesis that trained managers would be more
effective in completing performance appraisal forms.

Lee (1985)12 in his article titled, “Increasing Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: Matching Task
Types, Appraisal Process, and Rater Training” states that the search for one best performance
appraisal format ignores differences among jobs. A performance appraisal system tailored to fit ratee
task characteristics is proposed. This approach, which involves systems designed to deal with tasks
where both availability of reliable and valid performance measures and knowledge of the
transformation process may be either high or low, is expected to increase the relationship between
observational accuracy and accuracy in rating performance, as well as to improve ratees' future
performance.

Ilgen and Favero (1985)13 in their article titled, “Limits in Generalization from Psychological
Research to Performance Appraisal Processes” states that most attempts to understand the
performance appraisal process have been borrowed from social psychology. It is argued here that the
experimental methods of social psychological research may not be well suited to the study of
particular issues in performance appraisal. Several of the methods used in the basic literature are
outlined, and the relevance of these methods in the study of performance appraisal is discussed.

Kerr (1985)14 in his article examines how a company’s diversification strategy affects the problem of
management control and the design of its management appraisal and reward systems. These systems
have always been critical control mechanisms through which superiors have communicated
expectations and given feedback to subordinates. The author argues that it is the extent and rate of
strategic change that determines the control relationship between corporate and division managers. As
the extent and pace of diversification increase, corporate managers can no longer exert knowledge-
based control on divisional subordinates. The nature of this control relationship is then inevitably
expressed in the way performance is evaluated and rewarded.

Smith (1986)15 in his article titled, “Training Programs for Performance Appraisal: A Review”, used
twenty-four studies to review the effects of rater training on the psychometric quality of performance
ratings. For comparison, training methods are categorized by (a) content of training; and (b) method
used to present training. The results suggest that the most widely used rater training approach is
inappropriate for improving rating accuracy. These findings are discussed in terms of Borman's
Model of Performance Appraisal (Borman, 1978). Training programs that improve rating accuracy
are identified.

38 | P a g e
Dorfman and Loveland (1986)16 in their study examined supervisor perceptions and subordinate
reactions to formal performance-appraisal reviews. The performance-appraisal behaviors of
supervisors and the reactions of their subordinates were studied in a sample of university employees.
A factor analysis revealed that there were three dimensions of formal performance appraisals: two
developmental dimensions (being supportive; emphasizing performance improvement) and one
administrative dimension (discussing pay and advancement). Regression analyses suggested that
supervisors supported highly rated individuals and stressed improvement efforts on poor performers.
After controlling for the level of previous performance ratings, results indicated that support in the
appraisal review was associated with higher levels of employee motivation, while pay and
advancement was associated with higher levels of employee satisfaction. Unfortunately, improvement
efforts by the supervisors did not influence job performance one year later.

Muczyk and Myron (1987)17 in their article titled “Managing sales performance through a
comprehensive performance appraisal system” state that to date, no single performance appraisal
technique lends itself to all the purposes to which performance appraisals should be applied, is
impervious to the errors that confound appraisals, is legally defensible, and readily accepted by
subordinates. Since the various performance appraisals possess different strengths and weaknesses,
the authors, by combining Management by Objectives, Behavioral Observation Scales, and Forced
Choice Ratings, have proposed an evaluation system that meets the above-mentioned criteria.

Waldman, Bass and Einstein (1987)18 in their article titled “Leadership and the outcomes of
performance appraisal processes” discuss the extent to which transactional and transformational
leadership practices are related to the attitudinal and rated performance outcomes of a performance
appraisal process. This study involves 256 managers in a large business organization. Results
indicated that only aspects of transformational leadership were related to performance appraisal
scores. However, the contingent reward factors of transactional leadership, as well as all factors of
transformational leadership, were related to satisfaction with performance appraisal processes.
Management-by-exception was associated with lower satisfaction. Conclusions were drawn regarding
the need for active transactional and transformational leadership in the performance appraisal
process.

Miner (1988)19 in his article titled, “Development and application of the rated ranking technique in
performance appraisal” states that a performance appraisal procedure called rated ranking is
described in which alternate rankings are followed by a rating of the individuals ranked within the
limits imposed by the initial rank orders. This procedure was used by 21 foremen in evaluating 185
semi-skilled mine and plant employees of a single company. The results of this application were used
to investigate the value of the rated ranking procedure including reliability, nature of the distributions,

39 | P a g e
differences between groups and individuals, halo, construct validity and potential bias in the
evaluations. The results provide an encouraging picture of ranking procedures when the rated ranking
process is incorporated. The approach has demonstrated value for the purpose of validating selection
procedures.

Gabris and Mitchell (1989)20 in their article titled “The impact of merit raise scores on employee
attitudes; the Matthew effect of performance appraisal” attempt to demonstrate that the score an
employee receives on his or her performance appraisal can influence attitudes toward general
management, organizational change, and fairness of evaluation instruments. Employees who score
will tend to be positive toward management and supportive of the evaluation process, whereas those
with average to low scores are more cynical towards management and feel that the evaluation process
in unfair. Thus, performance appraisal scores can alternate exactly those employees who most need to
improve, instead of trying harder, those with average to low scores rationalize why they are right and
the raters wrong. This hardens their attitude towards the organization and can lead to lower
performance. Hence, good employees tend to continue doing well and average to poor employees
can become worse. For this reason, performance appraisal, even though it is handled objectively, can
lead to a Mathew Effect. In general, employees don’t like hearing bad news, even if it is correct.

CURRENT ISSUES

In conversations with HR leaders and employees, the talent management process that suffers from the
most disdain around the world is the performance appraisal. It’s one of the few processes that even
the owners of the process dread.

40 | P a g e
If everyone hates it, but it still gets done nearly everywhere, you might assume some asinine
government regulation requires it, but in this case there is no such regulation. The only legal
justification pertains to showing just cause for termination and other disciplinary action.

While that is the justification used, no matter how strong their design, most performance appraisals
are executed so poorly that they may actually harm a legal case. (A major labor law firm found that
among a random sample of performance appraisals conducted in a retail environment, a majority
would damage the employer’s case versus support it.)

Most ignore the shortcomings of performance appraisals and suffer through it, but that’s hard to do
once you realize how incredibly expensive the process is. In 1996, Frederick Nickols estimated the
cost at just under $2,000 per employee. My estimate, which includes a managers preparation time,
employee time, HR processing time, opportunity costs, and advances in technology, still puts the
process cost at over $2,500 per employee per year. If you choose to take on the challenge of revising
your performance appraisal process, the first step is to fully understand the potential problems
associated with it.

Here are the Top 50 problems with performance appraisals (grouped into six categories):

Most Serious Performance Appraisal Problems

1. Don’t assess actual performance — most of the assessment that managers complete focuses on
“the person,” including characterizations of their personal “traits” (i.e. commitment), knowledge (i.e.
technical knowledge) or behaviors (i.e. attendance). While these factors may contribute to
performance, they are not measures of actual output. If you want to assess the person, call it “person
appraisal.” Performance is output quality, volume, dollar value, and responsiveness.

2. Infrequent feedback – if the primary goal of the process is to identify and resolve performance
issues, executing the process annually is silly. A quality assessment/control program anywhere else in
the business would operate in real time. At the very minimum, formal feedback needs to be given
quarterly, like the GE process.

3. Non-data-based assessment — most processes rely 100% on the memory of those completing the
assessment because pre-populating the forms with data to inform decisions would be too difficult
(cynicism). In addition, most assessment criteria are “fuzzy” and subjective.

4. Lack of effectiveness metrics — many accept that the goals of the process are to recognize
results, provide feedback to address weaknesses, determine training needs, and to identify poor
performers. Unfortunately, rarely do process owners ever measure their processes’ contribution to
attaining any of these goals. Instead, the most common measure relating to performance appraisal is
the percentage completed.

5. Lack of accountability – managers are not measured or held accountable for providing accurate
feedback. While they may be chastised for completing them late, there is no penalty for doing a half-
assed job or making mistakes on them, which is incredibly common. One firm attempting to remove

41 | P a g e
a troublesome employee found that the manager had rated the individual the highest within the
department and awarded them employee of the year.

Process related problems

6. Disconnected from rewards — in too many organizations, getting a merit raise, bonus, or
promotion is completely disconnected from an employee’s performance appraisal scores. When there
is a weak link, employees and managers are not likely to take the process seriously.

7. No integration — the process is not fully integrated with compensation, performance

management, development, or staffing (internal movement). A lack of integration and coordination
leads to duplication and missed opportunity.

8. Individual scores exceed team performance — without controls, quite often the average score of
team members exceeds the actual performance of the team (i.e. the team reached 80 percent of its
goals but the average performance appraisal for its members was 95 percent).

9. Each year stands alone — each performance appraisal by definition covers a finite period of time.
However, if the goal is to assess potential and identify patterns, an employee’s performance must be
assessed over multiple years.

10. No comprehensive team assessment – although individuals on the team are assessed, there is no
simultaneous overall assessment of the team. Often contingent workers on the team are not addressed
at all.

11. A focus on the squeaky wheel — most performance appraisal systems focus on weak performers.
There is significantly less focus on top performers and thus there is no system to capture their best
practices and then to share them with others.

12. Little legal support — performance appraisals may be an executive’s worst enemy in grievances
and legal proceedings. Even though the process may be flawless, poor execution by managers often
results in performance appraisals that do not aid in a disciplinary action. Errors may include
“unfettered discretion,” improper handwritten notes, generalizations about race, gender, or age, and
appraisals that do not match the performance data. At my university, a study demonstrated that while
Asians got the highest performance score, they somehow managed to get the lowest average pay
raise. When the HR director was confronted, he was furious that anyone would calculate and expose
the obvious discrimination.

13. No second review — even though the process may have impacts on salary, job security, and
promotion, in many firms the assessment is done by a single manager. If there is a second review, it
may be cursory, and therefore not ensure accuracy or fairness.

14. Not reliable or valid — most process managers do not regularly demonstrate with metrics that
the process is consistently repeatable (reliable) and that it accurately assesses performance (valid).

42 | P a g e
15. Cross-comparisons are not required — one of the goals of the process is often to compare the
performance of employees in the same job. Unfortunately, most appraisal processes (with the
exception of forced ranking) do not require managers to do a side-by-side comparison, comparing
each member of the team with one another.

16. Assessments are kept secret — although a salesperson’s performance ranking may be posted on
a wall, performance appraisals are often kept secret. An overemphasis on privacy concerns might
allow managers to play favorites, to discriminate, and to be extremely subjective. Keeping ratings
secret allows managers to avoid open conversations about equity.

17. Process manager is not powerful — often the process is managed by lower-level HR
administrators without a complete understanding of performance and productivity.

18. No process goals — the overall process operates without clear and measurable goals, and as a
result there is little focus.

19. Not global — most processes and forms are “headquarters centric,” failing to address cultural,
language, and legal differences.

20. Forced ranking issues — although forced ranking has some advantages, using it may result in
significant morale and PR issues.

21. No ROI calculation — HR fails to do a periodic business case justifying the value added
compared to the time and the cost of the process.

Instrument (form) problems

22. Doesn’t address diversity — all too often, the same appraisal form is applied to a large but not
homogeneous group of employees (i.e. all hourly, all exempts, all managers etc.). As a result, the
assessment form does not fit the job. Only management-by-objective-type approaches address
individual needs.

23. The process does not flex with the business – rarely does any portion of the appraisal process
flex to address changing business objectives.

24. The factors are all equal — most forms treat all assessment factors as if they are of equal
importance. Instead, they should be weighted based on their relative importance in a particular job
(i.e. a janitor’s customer service rating should be weighted lower than for a salesperson.

25. Inconsistent ratings on the same form — it is not uncommon for managers to put one level
(high, average or low) of ratings in the Likert scale portion of the form, but another level of rating in
the “overall assessment” box. The final narrative portion of the assessment may contain still another
completely different level of assessment.

43 | P a g e
26. Disconnected from job descriptions – in many cases, the factors on the form are completely
different from the factors on an employee’s job description, bonus criteria, or yearly goals. This can
confuse employees and cause them to lose focus.

Manager/execution problems

27. Managers are not trained — in most organizations, managers are not trained on how to assess
and give honest feedback. If the process includes a career development component, it is even more
likely that managers will not know how to enhance the career path of their employees.

28. Managers are “chickens” — some managers will do almost anything to avoid tough decisions
or confrontation. Some provide no differentiation and spread “peanut butter” (an even distribution) to
avoid it, while others give everyone “above average” ratings. Some managers will provide feedback
that is extremely vague in order not to offend anyone. Rarely if ever is anyone immediately
terminated as a result of the process.

29. Gaming the system — often managers artificially rate individual employees to save money or to
keep employees from becoming visible for promotion. Some selfishly give a score just below that
required for a pay increase, while others give scores just above the point where they would be
required to take disciplinary action.

30. Recency errors — managers, especially those who don’t consult employee files and data, have a
tendency to evaluate based primarily on events that occurred during the last few months (rather than
over the entire year).

31. Corporate culture issues — subjective appraisals can restrict cultural change in organizations. In
some organizations, there are cultural norms and values that influence performance appraisals. For
example, in one organization new hires were automatically given an average rating for their first year,
regardless of their actual performance. One top performing hire I knew abruptly quit after receiving
this cultural gift.

32. Inconsistency across managers — some managers are naturally “easy raters” while others are
not. As a result, employees working under easy managers have a better chance of promotion due to
their higher scores. In firms that rely heavily on the narrative portion of the assessment, having a
manager with poor writing skills may hamper an employee’s career. Without “benchmark” numbers
to set as a standard, inconsistency is guaranteed in large organizations.

33. Managers don’t know the employee — managers of large and global organizations, as well as
newly hired and “transferred in” managers may be forced to do appraisals on employees they barely
know. Recently promoted managers may be forced to assess their former friends and colleagues.
Following a merger, managers are likely to be confused about whether to focus on the whole year or
just “post-merger” work.

34. Secret codes — I did some work with an army unit where by custom literally everyone got a
perfect numerical score. So assessments by higher-ups were made as a result of interpreting “code

44 | P a g e
words” in the small written narrative portion of the assessment. Unfortunately, if your commander
didn’t know the code words, your army career was limited.

35. Mirror assessments — most people, and managers are no exception, have a tendency to rate
people like themselves more positively. This can result in discrimination issues.

36. Managers are not rewarded — managers that go out of their way to provide honest feedback
and actually improve the performance of their workers are not rewarded or recognized.

37. Managers don’t own it — managers often feel they don’t own the process, so they invest little in
it and proceed to blame HR for everything. Managers would embrace it instead of grumbling if they
were presented with a positive correlation proving that managers who did excellent performance
appraisals were among the highest performers with regards to business result and bonus awards.

Employee/subject problems

38. High anxiety — because the process is so subjective and no benchmark performance numbers
are set in advance, uncertainty can cause many employees high levels of anxiety weeks before the
process. Managers may also be anxious because of the uncertainty related to the an employee’s
reaction. I know one employee who sincerely thought she was going to be fired prior to her
assessment but ended up being the highest rated employee on the team. Employees should have an
accurate idea of their assessment long before any meeting is scheduled.

39. One-way communication — some managers simply give the employee the form to quickly sign
and they don’t even solicit feedback. Many employees are intimidated by managers and the process,
and as a result, they say nothing during or after the appraisal.

40. Self-assessment is not possible — if an ambitious employee wanted to self-assess their

performance midstream (in order to improve), most processes do not provide access to the
instrument. Providing each employee with a virtual assessment scoreboard and performance
management process would be an ideal solution.

41. No alerts — most processes do not allow an employee to be notified midstream should their
performance change to the point where it was suddenly dramatically below standards.

42. No choice of reviewers — although there are a few exceptions (Sun), in most cases, unlike with
360 reviews, employees are not allowed input into who does their assessment.

43. One-way process — in most cases, employees also have no input into the factors that they are
assessed on, how often they are assessed, and what type of feedback they can receive. It is
unfortunately even rare for a process manager to routinely survey their users for suggestions on how
to improve it.

44. No appeal process — employees who disagree with her appraisal are seldom given the
opportunity to challenge the results with a neutral party.

45 | P a g e
45. Retention issues — the ultimate cost of an “unfair” assessment may be that it actually drives
your top employees away because, for example, there was no differential in recognition and rewards
for their superior performance.

46. Many possible emotional consequences — if performance appraisal is blotched, you can expect
a decrease in employee engagement, trust, employer brand strength, teamwork, and innovation
contribution. Employee referrals from disgruntled employees will probably also drop.

Timing issues

47. A time-consuming process — most of the forms are incredibly long and time-consuming. As a
result, some managers routinely recycle “last year’s” evaluations. If HR is required to sit in on the
sessions, the amount of wasted time increases significantly.

48. It is historical — the process is focused on capturing feedback about last year rather than on
discussing necessary changes to job and skill requirements that must necessitated by the business
strategy.

49. Not coordinated with business cycles – some appraisal dates do not coincide with the end of
major business periods or seasons when all other business results are tabulated and reported.

50. Not simultaneous — if appraisals are done on the employee’s anniversary date, the entire team
will not be assessed at the same time.

HISTORY & DEVELOPMENT OF COMPANY

46 | P a g e
United Abroad was set up in 2006 by the Alapati brothers to help students seeking to go abroad to
realize their dream. United Abroad has its corporate office at Delhi and a has a very strong network
throughout AP. United abroad started by providing students guidance and processing for 1 country.
Over time it has diversified into providing educational services for a full gamut countries and
educational courses.

We also have many study options incorporate into our unique programs and I hope you can take
advantage of these opportunity studying with us this guide is designed to help you learn about the
company – our service and more. I invite you to explore all that we have to offer and if you have
further questions, our team will be more than happy to assist. If you choose us, you will join a
stimulating and supportive learning community that is committed to helping you reach your goals and
take your place in the world.

It has also expanded to increase its services to other travel categories like permanent resident visas,
Dependant visas and visit visas. Not only does it provide these services but also supports its
customers through every stage of their intended travel starting from personalized evaluation of their
profile and identifying the best course of action to helping through every stage leading to the visa.

United Abroad does not stop here but goes ahead to help in foreign exchange, air ticketing, and pre
departure and post landing support. In this short span the company has grown from a single office to
a well diversified and multi location organization.

47 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Human Resources are the greatest assets for any organization. These
recourses should be developed to their fullest extent for the efficient functioning of an
organization and their performance needs to appraise continuously.

The present study is aimed at analyzing the “Performance Appraisal system” at United
Abroad Company. There is a felt, need and justification to conduct surveys and to know the
perceptions of employees regarding existing practices. A structured questionnaire has been
surveyed among 40 respondents by adopting strata technique. And their perceptions are analyzed
and interpreted in this chapter.

For the purpose of survey, a sample of 40 employees has been taken into consideration
with a view to assess the "Performance Appraisal System" in UNITED ABROAD COMPANY
Performance appraisal helps in the assessment of individual potential.

48 | P a g e
Table-4.1 Performance Appraisal is the assessment of individual potential.

S.No. Rating Scale No. of In%

Respondents
1 Strongly Agree 7 17.5
2 Neutral 4 10
3 Strongly Disagree 0 0
4 Agree 29 72.5
5 Disagree 0 0
Total 40 100
Graph-4.1

30

25

20

15 Series1

10

0
Strongly Agree Neutral Srtongly Disagree Agree Disagree

Analysis:

From the above table-4.1 it can be known that 72 % of respondents have agreed about
the assessment of individual potential and 17.5 % of them have strongly agreed of the above
statement and 10 % of the employees are in a neutral stage and where none of them have
disagreed for the above statement. So majority of the respondents i.e. 72.5 % of the respondents
have agreed about the assessment of individual potential.

49 | P a g e
Interpretation:

From the above analysis we can interpret that, some of the employees were in neutral
position, because the appraisal system in the organization was not in a full fledge way.

Table-4.2

Performance Appraisal system followed in the organization is rational and fair.

S.No. Rating Scale No. of ln%

respondents
1. Strongly Agree 1 2.5
2. Neutral 12 30
3. Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
4. Agree 22 55
5. Disagree 4 10
Total 40 100
Graph-4.2

25

20

15
Series1
10

0
Strongly Agree Neutral Srtongly Disagree Agree Disagree

Analysis:

From the above table-4.2 it can be known that, 55% of respondents have agreed that die
performance appraisal system followed in the organization rational and fair and 30 of the
respondents are in neutral stage. Where as 2.5pciceiU of the respondents have agreed for the

50 | P a g e
 above statement and 2.5petce&t of the respondents have strongly disagreed, where 10 % of the
respondents have disagreed for the above statement.

Interpretation:

From the above analysis we can interpret that, some of the employees were in neutral
position. Because the organization doesn’t following the company’s policies fairly.

Table-4.3

Job expectations are informed and the superiors set the tasks.

S, No. Rating Scale No. of respondents In%

1. Strongly Agree 3 7.5
2. Neutral 10 25
3. Strongly Disagree 0 0
4. Agree 24 60
5. Disagree 3 7.5
Total 40 100

Graph-4.3

25

20

15
Series 1
10

0
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree

51 | P a g e
Analysis: From the above table-4.3 it can be known that, 60% of respondents have agreed
that the job expectations are informed and the superiors set die tasks. And 25% of die respondents
are in neutral stage and 7,5% strongly agree for above statement and where as 7.5% of the
respondents disagree for die above statement, none of them are in a stage of strongly disagree
opinion.

Interpretation: The above analysis shows that, some of employees were in neutral position.
Because the job expectations were not informed, and the tasks were not assigned by superiors
properly.

Table-4.4

Performance Appraisal followed in the Organization helps to the Training and development
needs of employee.

zS.No. RatingScale No. of In%

respondents

1. Strongly Agree 6 15
2. Neutral 4 10
3. Strongly Disagree 0 0
4. Agree 27 67.5
5. Disagree 3 7.5
Total 40 100

30

25

20

15 Series 1

10

0
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree
Graph4.4

52 | P a g e
Analysis:

From the above table-4.4 it is found that, 67.5% of respondents have agreed for the performance
appraisal followed in the organization helps to assess the training and development needs of
employee and I5 % of them have strongly agreed in ID-% of the respondents are in neutral stage
and the remaining 7.5% of the respondents are in disagreed opinion. Where none of them are is
strongly disagreed opinion.

Interpretation: The above analysis states that, majority of the employees opined that a good
performance appraisal system in the organization, helps to train and develop an employee in all
aspects.

Table-4.5

The Performance appraisal in the organization helps to recognize the competence and potential
of an individual.

S.No. Rating Scale No. of ln%

respondents

1. Strongly Agree 4 10

2. Neutral 3 7.5
3. Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
4. Agree 30 75
5. Disagree 2 5
Total 40 100

53 | P a g e
Graph-4.5

30

25

20

15 Series 1

10

0
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree

Analysis:

From the above table-4.5 it is found that, 75% of respondents have agreed for the performance
appraisal in the organization helps to recognize the competence and potential of individual and 10
% of the respondents have strongly agreed, and 7.5% of the respondents are in neutral stage and
5% are in disagreed opinion where as 2.5% of the respondents strongly disagree for the above
statement

Interpretation:
The above analysis elicits that, some of the employees were in neutral and disagree position.
Because the appraisal process in the organization is not that much effective.

54 | P a g e
Table-4.6

Employees are happy with the assessment of performance followed in the organization.

No. of
S.No. Rating Scale ln%
Graph-4.6 respondents
1. Strongly Agree 3 7.5

2. Neutral 14 35
3. Strongly Disagree 0 0
4. Agree 18 45
5. Disagree 5 12.5
Total 40 100

18
16
14
12
10
Series 1
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree

Analysis: From the above table-4.6 it is found that, 45% of respondents have agreed that
they are happy with the assessment of performance appraisal followed in the organization. And
35 % of the respondents are in neutral stage and 12.5% of the respondents are in a disagreed
stage where 7.5% have strongly agreed for the above statement but none of them have strongly
disagreed for this statement.
55 | P a g e
Interpretation:We can interpret that, most of the employees were in disagree and neutral
position. Because the assessment system in the organization was not up to the mark.

56 | P a g e
Table-4.7

Employees have been appraised fairly according to the company's policies.

S. No. Rating Scale No. of In %

respondents
1. Strongly Agree 2 5
2. Neutral 13 32.5
3. Strongly Disagree 0 0
4. Agree 23 57.5
5. Disagree 2 5
Total 40 100

Graph-4.7

25

20

15
Series 1
10

0
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree

Analysis: From the above table-4.7 it is found that, 57.5% of respondents have agreed that
the employees have been appraised fairly according to the company policies and 32.5% of the
respondents are neutral stage and 5% of them are strongly agree and where as 5% of the
respondents disagree for the above opinions and none of them have disagree for the above
opinion.

Interpretation: Here we can state that, most of the employees were in disagree and neutral
position. Because performance appraisal was not done fairly according to the companies policies.

57 | P a g e
Table-4.8 Advises and suggestions are given to the employees during the appraisal process.

S. No. Rating Scale No. of In%

respondents
1. Strongly Agree 3 7.5
2 Neutral 15 37.5
3. Strongly Disagree 0 0
4. Agree 10 25
5. Disagree 12 30
Total 40 100

Graph-4.8

16
14
12
10
8 Series 1
6
4
2
0
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree

Analysis: From the above table4.8 it is found that, 30 % of respondents have disagreed that
advises and suggestions are given to the employees during the appraisal process and 25% of them
have agreed and 7.5% of the respondents strongly agree and majority of the respondents i.e.
37.5% are in a neutral stage and none of them have disagreed for the above statement.

Interpretation: The above analysis exhibits that, employees are expecting many more
suggestions and advises, during the appraisal process that would be helpful for their career.

58 | P a g e
Table-4.9

The employees accept the appraisal feed back as.

S. No. Rating Scale No. Of %

respondents
1. Positive way 3 7.5
2. Uninteresting 15 37.5
3. Negative way 0 0
4. Neutral 10 25
Total 40 100

Graph-4.9:

16
14
12
10
8 Series 1

6
4
2
0
Positive way Uninteresting Negative way Netural

Analysis: From the above table-4.9 it is found that, 50% of respondents have a
positive way regarding acceptance of the appraisal feed back. And 47.55 of them are in a
neutral opinion and 2.5% of the respondents feel it uninteresting on the above statement.
And none of them have a negative acceptance of this statement

Interpretation:

This analysis shows that, employees are not much interested in taking the appraisal feedback.

59 | P a g e
Table-4.10 The appraiser of the company should be.

S.No. Rating Scale No. of In%

respondents
1. Superior 13 32.5
2. HOD 25 62.5
3. Subordinate 1 2.5
4. Peer groups 1 2.5
Total 40 100
Graph-4.10

25

20

15
Series 1
10

0
Superior HOD Subordinate Peer groups

Analysis: From the above table-4.10 it is found mat, 62.5perecent of respondents feel
that their HOD should be their appraiser and 32.5% of them feel that their superior should
be the appraisal and 2.5% of the respondents feel that their subordinates and peer groups
should be the appraiser.

Interpretation: This states that, the appraiser should be the head of the department, the
employee feel that he is the right person to evaluate their performance.

60 | P a g e
Table-4.11

Employee need to be assessed as.

No. of
S.No. Rating Scale In%
respond
1. Once in 3 months eents 8 20
2. Once in 6 months 11 27.5
3. Once in a year 21 52.5
Total 40 100

Graph-4.11

25

20

15
Series 1
10

0
Once in 3 months Once in 6 months Once in a year

Analysis: From the above table-4.11 it is found that, 52.5% of respondents feel that their
appraisal system should be once in a year and 27.5% of the respondents feel that it should be
twice in a year (6 months) and where as 20% of the respondents feel that it should be for every 3
months.

Interpretation: Here, the employees felt that, they need to be assessed once in a year, as
they felt it is a right period of time to assess the performance .

61 | P a g e
Table-4.12

The performance appraisal followed in the organization makes the employees.

S.No Rating Scale No. of In%

Respondents
1 Motivating 38 95
2 De motivating 2 5

Graph-4.12

40
35
30
25
Series 1
20
15
10
5
0
Motivating Demotivating

Analysis: From the above table-4.12 it is found that, 95% of respondents are motivated
towards performance appraisal followed in the organization and 5 % of the respondents
demotivates for the above statement.

So majority of the respondents i.e.. 95 % of the respondents have motivated towards the appraisal
system followed in the organization.

Interpretation: From the above study, employees felt performance appraisal system as a
motivating factor.

62 | P a g e
Table-4.13

Types of errors / problems have impact on performance rating in the Organization.

S. No Rating Scale No of In%

Respondents
1 Influence 9 22.5
2 Attitude 16 40
3 Biased 8 20
4 Personal Grudge 1 2.5
5 Subjectivity 5 12.5
6 Status Effect 1 2.5

Graph-4.13

16
14
12
10
8 Series 1
6
4
2
0
Influence Attitude Biased Personal Grudge Subjectivity Status Effect

Analysis: From the above table-4.13 it is observed that, appraisal system is rated by attitude
that is 40% and 22.5% of the respondents by influence and 20% by biased, 12.5% by subjectivity
and 2.5% by personal grudge and remaining 2.5% by status effect.

Interpretation: The employees opined that, attitude factor have a greater impact on the
performance appraisal system.

63 | P a g e
Table -4.14

Feedback on Performance is communicated after assessment of the Performance.

S.No Rating Scale No of In%

Respondents
1 Yes 19 47.5
2 No 21 52.5
Graph-4.14

21

20.5

20
Series 1
19.5

19

18.5

18
YES No

Analysis: From the above table-4.14 it is found that, 52.5% of respondents disagree that feed
back on performance is communicated after assessment of the performance appraisal. And 47.5%
of the respondents agree for the above statement.

So majority of the respondents i.e. 52.5 % of the respondents have disagreed that the
feedback on performance is communicated after assessment of the performance appraisals.

64 | P a g e
Interpretation: Here, the some of the employees express their view that, the
performance feedback need not be communicated after the assessment, while some of them
felt that it is essential.

65 | P a g e
Table-4.15

Employees are aware of 360-degree appraisal.

S.No Rating Scale No of Respondents In%

1 Yes 11 27.5
2 No 29 72.5

Graph-4.15

30

25

20
Series 1
15

10

0
YES No

Analysis:

From the above table-4.15 it is found that, 72.5% of respondents are aware of
360-degree appraisal and 27.5% of die respondents are not known of 360-degree
appraisal.

So majority of the respondents i.e.. 72.5 % of the respondents have agreed that
they were aware of 360 degree appraisal

Interpretation:

Here from the above study it is known that, the employees are not completely aware of
360-degrees appraisal system.

66 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

 More than half of the employees (72.5%) agree that Performance Appraisal is the
assessment of individual potential.
 Some of the employees (30%) neutral that Performance Appraisal system followed in
the organization is rational and fair.
 Some of the employees (25%) neutral that Job expectations are informed and the
superiors set the tasks.
 Most of the employees (67.5%) agree that Performance Appraisal followed in the
Organization helps to the Training and development needs of employee.

 Some of the employees (5%) disagrees that The Performance appraisal in the
organization helps to recognize the competence and potential of an individual
 Less than half of the employees (35%) disagrees that they are happy with the
assessment of performance followed in the organization.
 most of the employees (32.5%) neutral that they have been appraised fairly according
to the company's policies.
 Most of the employees (30%) disagrees that Advises and suggestions are given to the
employees during the appraisal process.
 Most of the employees (37.5%) uninterestingly accept the appraisal
feedback.
 Most of the employees (62.7%) feel that appraisal should be given by HOD.
 Most of the employees (52.5%) that they need to be assessed as once in a year.
 All most of the employees (95%) feels that the performance appraisal followed in the
organization makes the employees Motivated.
 Most of the employees (40%) think that attitude have impact on performance rating in
the Organization.
 Most of the employees (52.5%) do not agree that Performance is communicated after
assessment of the Performance.

67 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

■ The options required strong motivation to face the challenges.

■ Proper training and satisfaction at all levels will be the strongest foundation to

launch an assault on the challenges and convert the challenges to opportunities

through effective performance appraisal measures in the organization.

Industry most response like wise

 In future performance appraisal measures will have to be planned in relation to the

changes taking place.

 The performance measures leads exist both at fresh entry level as well as to

continuing education level for working personnel.

 An effective safety measures based on emerging trends suggests model for achieving

the targets which will make paper industry in India truly competitive.

68 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 6

SUGGESTIONS

As per the study the following are the suggestions:

 The Performance Appraisal in the organization should be in a full fledge way so that

the others will be accepting this.

 As the Performance Appraisal is helpful to the employees by the assignment of

superiors task by training & development which should be more effective so that the

other employees will also be attracted.

 The Performance Appraisal should be assist effectively to the employees as it

recognizes the competence and potential of an individual.

 Employee’s appraisal should be fairly done according to the companies policies so

that it will assist the performance of the employees.

 The company should give some advises and suggestions to the employees during the

process and should get there feedbacks about the process.

 The employees should assess and appraised by their HOD once in a year.

 The employees should be aware of 360 degrees appraisal and the organization should

follow this to motivate the employees.

69 | P a g e
 ANNEXURE

1. Is Performance Appraisal helps in the assessment of individual potential?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

2. Does the Performance Appraisal system followed in the organization is rational

and fair?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3. Whether the Job expectations are informed and the superiors set the tasks?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

70 | P a g e
4. Does the performance Appraisal followed in the organization helps to assess
the training and development needs of employee?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

5. Does the Performance appraisal in the organization helps to recognize the

competence and potential of an individual?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

6. Whether the employees happy with the assessment of Performance followed in the

organization?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

7. Does the Employees appraised fairly according to the company’s policies?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

71 | P a g e
8. Does the Advises and suggestions are given to the employees during the

appraisal process?

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

9. How do the employees accept the appraisal feedback?

Positive way Negative way

Uninteresting Neutral

10.Who should be the appraiser?

Superior Subordinate

HOD Peer group

11. How often should an employee be assessed?

Once in 3months

Once in 6months

Once in a year

72 | P a g e
12. How the performance appraisal followed in the organization?

Motivate

Denominative

13.What types of errors / problems have impact on performance rating in

the organization?

Influence Biased Subjectivity Status Effect

Attitude Personal Grudge

14. Whether the Feedback on performance communicated after assessment of the

Performance?

Yes No

15. Are you aware of 360-degree appraisal?

Yes No

73 | P a g e