WHAT IS Performance Appraisal?

Performance Appraisal is defined as the process of assessing the performance and progress of an employee or a group of employees on a given job and his / their potential for future development. It consists of all formal procedures used in working organizations and potential of employees. According to Flippo, Performance Appraisal is the systematic, periodic and an important rating of an employees excellence in matters pertaining to his present job and his potential for a better job. Characteristics 1. Performance Appraisal is a process. 2. It is the systematic examination of the strengths and weakness of an employee in terms of his job. 3. It is scientific and objective study. Formal procedures are used in the study. 4. It is an ongoing and continuous process wherein the evaluations are arranged periodically according to a definite plan. 5. The main purpose of Performance Appraisal is to secure information necessary for making objective and correct decision an employee. Process The process of performance appraisal: 1. Establishing performance standards 2. Communicating the Standards 3. Measuring Performance 4. Comparing the actual with the standards 5. Discussing the appraisal 6.Taking Corrective Action Limitations 1. Errors in Rating 2. Lack of reliability 3. Negative approach 4. Multiple objectives 5. Lack of knowledge

Methods of Performance appraisal

The foregoing list of major program pitfalls represents a formidable challenge, even considering the available battery of appraisal techniques. But attempting to avoid these pitfalls by doing away with appraisals themselves is like trying to solve the problems of life by committing suicide. The more logical task is to identify those appraisal practices that are (a) most likely to achieve a particular objective and (b) least vulnerable to the obstacles already discussed. Before relating the specific techniques to the goals of performance appraisal stated at the outset of the article, I shall briefly review each, taking them more or less in an order of increasing complexity. The best-known techniques will be treated most briefly.

Essay appraisal
In its simplest form, this technique asks the rater to write a paragraph or more covering an individual's strengths, weaknesses, potential, and so on. In most selection situations, particularly those involving professional, sales, or managerial positions, essay appraisals from former employers, teachers, or associates carry significant weight. .

Graphic rating scale

This technique may not yield the depth of an essay appraisal, but it is more consistent and reliable. Typically, a graphic scale assesses a person on the quality and quantity of his work (is he outstanding, above average, average, or unsatisfactory?) and on a variety of other factors that vary with the job but usually include personal traits like reliability and cooperation. It may also include specific performance items like oral and written communication.

Field review
The field review is one of several techniques for doing this. A member of the personnel or central administrative staff meets with small groups of raters from each supervisory unit and goes over each employee's rating with them to (a) identify areas of inter-rater disagreement, (b) help the group arrive at a consensus, and (c) determine that each rater conceives the standards similarly. .

Forced-choice rating
Like the field review, this technique was developed to reduce bias and establish objective standards of comparison between individuals, but it does not involve the intervention of a third party.

Management by objectives
To avoid, or to deal with, the feeling that they are being judged by unfairly high standards, employees in some organizations are being asked to set - or help set - their own performance goals. Within the past five or six years, MBO has become something of a fad and is so familiar to most managers that I will not dwell on it here.

Ranking methods
For comparative purposes, particularly when it is necessary to compare people who work for different supervisors, individual statements, ratings, or appraisal forms are not particularly useful. Instead, it is necessary to recognize that comparisons involve an overall subjective judgment to which a host of additional facts and impressions must somehow be added. There is no single form or way to do this. The best approach appears to be a ranking technique involving pooled judgment. The two most effective methods are alternation ranking and paired comparison ranking. 1. Alternation ranking: Ranking of employees from best to worst on a trait or traits is another method for evaluating employees. Since it is usually easier to distinguish between the worst and the best employees than to rank them, an alternation ranking method is most popular. Here subordinates to be rated are listed and the names of those not well enough to rank are crossed. Then on a form as shown below, the employee who is highest on the characteristic being measured and the one who is the lowest are indicated. Then chose the next highest and the next lowest, alternating between highest and lowest until all the employees to be rated have been ranked. 2. Paired-comparison ranking: This technique is probably just as accurate as alternation ranking and might be more so. But with large numbers of employees it becomes extremely time consuming and cumbersome. Both ranking techniques, particularly when combined with multiple rankings (i.e., when two or more people are asked to make independent rankings of the same work group and their lists are averaged), are among the best available for generating valid order-of-merit rankings for salary administration purposes.

Assessment centers
So far, we have been talking about assessing past performance. What about the assessment of future performance or potential? In any placement decision and even more so in promotion decisions, some prediction of future performance is necessary. How can this kind of prediction be made most validly and most fairly?

360 Degree Feedback

Many firms have expanded the idea of upward feedback into what the call 360-degree feedback. The feedback is generally used for training and development, rather than for pay increases. Most 360 Degree Feedback system contains several common features. Appropriate parties peers, supervisors, subordinates and customers, for instance complete survey, questionnaires on an individual. 360 degree feedback is also known as the multi-rater feedback, whereby ratings are not given just by the next manager up in the organizational hierarchy, but also by peers and subordinates. Appropriates customer ratings are also included, along with the element of self appraisal. Once gathered in, the assessment from the various quarters are compared with one another and the results communicated to the manager concerned. Another technique that is useful for coaching purposes is, of course, MBO. Like the critical incident method, it focuses on actual behavior and actual results, which can be discussed objectively and constructively, with little or no need for a supervisor to "play God."

Advantages
Instead of assuming traits, the MBO method concentrates on actual outcomes. If the employee meets or exceeds the set objectives, then he or she has demonstrated an acceptable level of job performance. Employees are judged according to real outcomes, and not on their potential for success, or on someone's subjective opinion of their abilities. The guiding principle of the MBO approach is that direct results can be observed easily. The MBO method recognizes the fact that it is difficult to neatly dissect all the complex and varied elements that go to make up employee performance. MBO advocates claim that the performance of employees cannot be broken up into so many constituent parts, but to put all the parts together and the performance may be directly observed and measured.

Disadvantages
This approach can lead to unrealistic expectations about what can and cannot be reasonably accomplished. Supervisors and subordinates must have very good "reality checking" skills to use MBO appraisal methods. They will need these skills during the initial stage of objective setting, and for the purposes of self-auditing and self-monitoring. Variable objectives may cause employee confusion. It is also possible that fluid objectives may be distorted to disguise or justify failures in performance.

Benefits of Performance Appraisals

Measures an employees performance. Helps in clarifying, defining, redefining priorities and objectives. Motivates the employee through achievement and feedback. Facilitates assessment and agreement of training needs. Helps in identification of personal strengths and weaknesses. Plays an important role in Personal career and succession planning. Clarifies team roles and facilitates team building. Plays major role in organizational training needs assessment and analysis. Improves understanding and relationship between the employee and the reporting manager and also helps in resolving confusions and misunderstandings. Plays an important tool for communicating the organizations philosophies, values, aims, strategies, priorities, etc among its employees. Helps in counseling and feedback.

Rating Errors in Performance Appraisals

Performance appraisals are subject to a wide variety of inaccuracies and biases referred to as 'rating errors'. These errors can seriously affect assessment results. Some of the most common rating errors are: Leniency or severity: - Leniency or severity on the part of the rater makes the assessment subjective. Subjective assessment defeats the very purpose of performance appraisal. Ratings are lenient for the following reasons: a) The rater may feel that anyone under his or her jurisdiction who is rated unfavorably will reflect poorly on his or her own worthiness. b) He/She may feel that a derogatory rating will be revealed to the rate to detriment the relations between the rater and the ratee. c) He/She may rate leniently in order to win promotions for the subordinates and therefore, indirectly increase his/her hold over him. Central tendency: - This occurs when employees are incorrectly rated near the average or middle of the scale. The attitude of the rater is to play safe. This safe playing attitude stems from certain doubts and anxieties, which the raters have been assessing the rates. Halo error: - A halo error takes place when one aspect of an individual's performance influences the evaluation of the entire performance of the individual. The halo error occurs when an employee who works late constantly might be rated high on productivity and quality of output as well ax on motivation. Similarly, an attractive or popular personality might be given a high overall rating. Rating employees separately on each of the performance measures and encouraging raters to guard against the halo effect are the two ways to reduce the halo effect. Rater effect: -This includes favoritism, stereotyping, and hostility. Extensively high or low score are given only to certain individuals or groups based on the rater's attitude towards them and not on actual outcomes or behaviors; sex, age, race and friendship biases are examples of this type of error. Primacy and Regency effects: - The rater's rating is heavily influenced either by behavior exhibited by the ratee during his early stage of the review period (primacy) or by the outcomes, or behavior exhibited by the ratee near the end of the review period (regency). For example, if a salesperson captures an important contract/sale just before the completion of the appraisal, the timing of the incident may inflate his or her standing, even though the overall performance of the sales person may not have been encouraging. One way of guarding against such an error is to ask the rater to consider the composite performance of the rate and not to be influenced by one incident or an achievement. Performance dimension order: - Two or more dimensions on a performance instrument follow each other and both describe or rotate to a similar quality. The rater rates the first dimensions accurately and then rates the second dimension to the first because of the proximity. If the dimensions had been arranged in a significantly different order, the ratings might have been different. Spillover effect: - This refers lo allowing past performance appraisal rating lo unjustifiably influence current ratings. Past ratings, good or bad, result in similar rating for current period although the demonstrated behavior docs not deserve the rating, good or bad.

ROLES IN THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROCESS

a) Reporting Manager Provide feedback to the reviewer / HOD on the employees behavioral traits indicated in the PMS Policy Manual

Ensures that employee is aware of the normalization / performance appraisal process Address employee concerns / queries on performance rating, in consultation with the reviewer b) Reviewer (Reporting Managers Reporting Manager) Discuss with the reporting managers on the behavioral traits of all the employees for whom he / she is the reviewer Where required, independently assess employees for the said behavioral traits; such assessments might require collecting data directly from other relevant employees c) HOD (In some cases, a reviewer may not be a HOD) Presents the proposed Performance Rating for every employee of his / her function to the Normalization committee. HOD also plays the role of a normalization committee member Owns the performance rating of every employee in the department d) HR Head Secretary to the normalization committee Assists HODs / Reporting Managers in communicating the performance rating of all the employees e) Normalization Committee Decides on the final bell curve for each function in the respective Business Unit / Circle Reviews the performance ratings proposed by the HODs, specifically on the upward / downward shift in ratings, to ensure an unbiased relative ranking of employees on overall performance, and thus finalize the performance rating of each employee

KEY CONCEPTS IN PMS

In order to understand the Performance Management System at BHARTI, some concepts need to be explained which play a very important role in using the PMS successfully. They are: KRAS (KEY RESULT AREAS): The performance of an employee is largely dependent on the KRA score achieved by the employee during that particular year. Thus, it is necessary to answer a few basic questions i.e. o What are the guidelines for setting the KRAs for an employee? o How does an employee write down his KRAs for a particular financial year? o KRAs: The Four Perspectives. o How is the KRA score calculated for an employee on the basis of the targets sets and targets achieved? BEHAVIORAL TRAITS: Some of the qualitative aspects of an employees performance combined with the general behavioral traits displayed by the employee during a year constitutes his behavior traits. An employee is assigned the rating on the basis of the intensity of the behavior displayed by him. They play a very important role in the deciding the final performance rating for an employee as is even capable of shifting the rating one level upwards/downwards. BHARTI 2010 LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK: This competency framework is a simple and structured way to describe the elements of behaviors required to perform a role effectively. This framework also tries to assess the performance of an employee objectively.

 THE PERFORMANCE RATING PROCESS: The rating process tries to explain the four different types of rating that an employee can achieve i.e. EC, SC, C and PC. It also explains the criteria, which is considered for awarding any of these ratings to the employee. PROMOTION AND RATING DISRTRIBUTION GUIDELINES: The promotion and normal distribution guidelines provide the framework within which the performance appraisal process has to work. It is very important that the HR department pays due attention to these guidelines while preparing the bell curves for various functions and the consolidated bell curve for all the functions. These guidelines also help in deciding upon the promotion cases in a year.

Performance Rating Process

EXCEPTIONAL CONTRIBUTOR (EC) Performs consistently and substantially above expectations in all areas Achieves a final score greater than or equal to 115% Consistently delivers on stretch targets Is proactive Spots and anticipates problems, implements solutions Sees and exploits opportunities Delivers ahead of time Sees the wider picture-impacts across business Focuses on whats good for the business Seen as role model by others Recognized as exceptional by other functions as well Motivates others to solve problems Develops others Provides open and honest feedback Able to establish and lead cross-functional teams SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR (SC) Performs above expectations in all areas Achieves final score between 100-114%

Versatile in his/ her area of operation Develops creative solutions and require little / minimal supervision Sets examples for others Take ownership of own development Coaches others Demonstrates business initiative Is self motivated Supportive team player Leads own team very effectively Demonstrate functional initiative