UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

PROJECT ON
PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

SUBMITTED BY: POOJA PARIHAR. TYBMS.

PROJECT GUIDANCE: PROF.MRUNALI APHALE.

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

Pooja Parihar TYBMS,ICLES,VASHI.

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

CONTENTS
SR.NO 1. 2. 3. i. ii. iii. iv. v. 4. i. ii. iii. iv. 5. 6. TOPIC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL. -INTRODUCTION. -IMPORTANCE. -STEPS. -OBJECTIVES. -METHODS. MASTEK COMPANY. -CULTURE. -PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL -ATTRIBUTES -RECOGNITION. CONCLUSION. BIBILOGRAPHY. PAGE NO.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this project we have covered all the aspects of performance appraisal i.e. Key objectives of performance appraisals include

(1) validating selection and other management or cultural practices; (2) helping employees understand and take responsibility for their performance; and (3) making decisions about pay or promotions. Important steps to obtaining useful traditional appraisals include determining the type of data to be collected as well as who will conduct the appraisal, establishing a rating philosophy, overcoming typical rating deficiencies, creating a rating instrument, and engaging the employee in making decisions on future performance changes. An effective negotiated performance appraisal helps the employee take additional ownership for both continuing effective performance and improving weak areas. Employee goals set through performance appraisals should be difficult but achievable, as goals that are overly ambitious are doomed for failure. Some employees tend to boycott their own progress by setting impossible goals to achieve. Finally, employees want to know what you think of their work. Letting workers know that you have noticed their efforts goes a long way towards having a more motivated workforce. If pay increases are warranted for other reasons, it is unlikely that they require a performance appraisal system to administer. Bonuses or other special increases can and should be tied to very specific, very visible, very measurable results, and this doesnt require a performance appraisal system. Profit sharing is another case in point.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Human resource management deals with human resource employed in a business unit.it is an approach to the management of the people in an organization.organisation are made up

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

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

INTRODUCTION

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

As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of work performance, appraisal really dates from the time of the Second World War - not more than 60 years ago.

Yet in a broader sense, the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art. In the scale of things historical, it might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession! There is, says Dulewicz (1989), "... a basic human tendency to make judgements about those one is working with, as well as about oneself." Appraisal, it seems, is both inevitable and universal. In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal, people will tend to judge the work performance of others, including subordinates, naturally, informally and arbitrarily. The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that the judgements made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate. Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income justification. That is, appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee was justified. The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's performance was found to be less than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their performance was better than the supervisor expected, a pay rise was in order. Little consideration, if any, was given to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide the only required impetus for an employee to either improve or continue to perform well.

Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but more often than not, it failed. For example, early motivational researchers were aware that different people with roughly equal work abilities could be paid the same amount of money and yet have quite

different

levels

of

motivation

and

performance.

These observations were confirmed in empirical studies. Pay rates were important, yes; but they were not the only element that had an impact on employee performance. It was found that other issues, such as morale and self-esteem, could also have a major influence. As a result, the traditional emphasis on reward outcomes was progressively rejected. In the 1950s in the United States, the potential usefulness of appraisal as tool for motivation and development was gradually recognized. The general model of performance appraisal:

A Basic Performance Appraisal System The general form of a basic performance appraisal system is depicted in Figure 1. A discussion follows. Based on his or her perceptions, a manager prepares an appraisal of another employee. Appraisals typically have two components: text, and a number. The number is usually the basis for determining the employees merit increase (i.e., the size of the pay raise for the subsequent year). This is often quite modest and amounts to little more than a cost-ofliving increase, an offset against inflation. Moreover, differences between the maximum and minimum increases are also quite modest. The merit carrot is not a very big one. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the structure depicted in Figure 1 is that the appraisal has as its primary input the perceptions of the manager. Technically speaking, they are the only input. Given this model, it is obvious that if the system is to work

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

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

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

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

Traditional Performance Appraisal Here are some key steps you can take toward achieving effective performance appraisals--ones that can be used to validate the selection process as well as to make decisions about pay or promotions: (1) Select what performance data to collect (2) Determine who conducts the appraisal (3) Decide on a rating philosophy (4) Overcome rating deficiencies (5) Create a rating instrument (6) Deliver useful information to employees Select what performance data to collect One way to classify on-the-job worker behavior is by considering the three "Ps"-productivity (what was done), personal traits (how it was done, conduct) and proficiency (skill). Productivity can be measured in terms of specific performance accomplishments. Examples include reducing calf mortality, increasing yield of the alfalfa crop, or diminishing bruises in the cherry harvest. Personal traits such as motivation, willingness to take criticism, cooperation, initiative, dependability, and appearance (dress and grooming) may be considered. Personal trait ratings are useful, even though they sometimes say more about how supervisors get along with an employee than how well the employee performs on the job. Farmers are unlikely to want to reward performanceno matter how excellent it isif a worker only performs grudgingly and after repeated admonitions.

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

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

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

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

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

criteria in advance. Such areas of evaluation can form the basis for an intelligent conversation about performance between supervisor and employee. In one farm operation a manager was able to not only discuss a foreman's performance within his present job, but also the types of skills that were needed if the foreman was interested in a potential promotion to assistant manager. Despite the importance of formal appraisals, an effective manager does not wait for formal performance appraisal interviews to communicate with employees. Sharing information about performance should be done frequently and in a positive manner. There should not be too many surprises for the employee when both discuss the evaluation. The negotiated performance appraisal, to a great extent, accomplishes the task of removing possible surprises at a much deeper level, as it encourages candid conversation between the individual being appraised and the supervisor. Regardless of the approach taken, it helps to involve the worker in making plans and taking responsibility for improvement. Allowing the worker to take a major role in the performance appraisal interview does not guarantee the interview will be fun, but it can do much to reduce its unpleasantness

Modern Appraisal Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed, with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills development. In many organizations - but not all - appraisal results are used, either directly or indirectly, to help determine reward outcomes. That is, the appraisal results are used to identify the better performing employees who should get the majority of available merit pay increases, bonuses, and promotions.

By the same token, appraisal results are used to identify the poorer performers who may

require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases, demotion, dismissal or decreases in pay. (Organizations need to be aware of laws in their country that might restrict their capacity to dismiss employees or decrease pay.)

Whether this is an appropriate use of performance appraisal - the assignment and justification of rewards and penalties - is a very uncertain and contentious matter.

IMPORTANCE.
So employee knows if he/she is doing something wrong (to improve future performance). Its a formal opportunity to speak with your employee. How would you feel if your boss didnt give you a performance appraisal or it was delivered very late? your boss didnt give you specific examples? your boss didnt make any comments on the appraisal? your performance appraisal contained only criticism? your supervisors performance appraisal were radically different from your selfappraisal?

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Help me improve my performance (4) Reward me for doing well. Organizational Viewpoint From the organization's viewpoint, one of the most important reasons for having a system of performance appraisal is to establish and uphold the principle of accountability.

For decades it has been known to researchers that one of the chief causes of organizational failure is "non-alignment of responsibility and accountability." Nonalignment occurs where employees are given responsibilities and duties, but are not held accountable for the way in which those responsibilities and duties are performed. What typically happens is that several individuals or work units appear to have overlapping roles. The overlap allows - indeed actively encourages - each individual or business unit to "pass the buck" to the others. Ultimately, in the severely non-aligned system, no one is accountable for anything. In this event, the principle of accountability breaks down completely. Organizational failure is the only possible outcome.

In cases where the non-alignment is not so severe, the organization may continue to function, albeit inefficiently. Like a poorly made or badly tuned engine, the non-aligned organization may run, but it will be sluggish, costly and unreliable. One of the principal aims of performance appraisal is to make people accountable. The objective is to align responsibility and accountability at every organizational level.

METHODS
In a landmark study, Locher & Teel (1977) found that the three most common appraisal methods in general use are rating scales (56%), essay methods (25%) and resultsoriented or MBO methods (13%). For a description of each, follow the button links on the left. Certain techniques in performance appraisal have been thoroughly investigated, and some have been found to yield better results than others. Encourage Discussion Research studies show that employees are likely to feel more satisfied with their appraisal

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

When these conditions exist, employees are more likely to view the appraisal process as accurate and fair. They also express more acceptance of the appraiser's feedback and a greater willingness to change. (Bannister, 1986) Rating Scales The rating scale method offers a high degree of structure for appraisals. Each employee trait or characteristic is rated on a bipolar scale that usually has several points ranging from "poor" to "excellent" (or some similar arrangement). The traits assessed on these scales include employee attributes such as cooperation, communications ability, initiative, punctuality and technical (work skills) competence. The nature and scope of the traits selected for inclusion is limited only by the imagination of the scale's designer, or by the organization's need to know. The one major provision in selecting traits is that they should be in some way relevant to the appraisee's job. The traits selected by some organizations have been unwise and have resulted in legal action on the grounds of discrimination.

Advantages The greatest advantage of rating scales is that they are structured and standardised. This allows ratings to be easily compared and contrasted - even for entire workforces. Each employee is subjected to the same basic appraisal process and rating criteria, with the same range of responses. This encourages equality in treatment for all appraisees and imposes standard measures of performance across all parts of the organization. Rating scale methods are easy to use and understand. The concept of the rating scale makes obvious sense; both appraisers and appraisees have an intuitive appreciation for the simple and efficient logic of the bipolar scale. The result is widespread acceptance and popularity for this approach. Disadvantages Trait Relevance

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

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

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

MBO (management by objectives) methods of performance appraisal are results-oriented. That is, they seek to measure employee performance by examining the extent to which predetermined work objectives have been met. Usually the objectives are established jointly by the supervisor and subordinate. An example of an objective for a sales manager might be: Increase the gross monthly sales volume to $250,000 by 30 June.

Once an objective is agreed, the employee is usually expected to self-audit; that is, to identify the skills needed to achieve the objective. Typically they do not rely on others to locate and specify their strengths and weaknesses. They are expected to monitor their own development and progress. Advantages The MBO approach overcomes some of the problems that arise as a result of assuming that the employee traits needed for job success can be reliably identified and measured. Instead of assuming traits, the 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, whereas the traits and attributes of employees (which may or may not contribute to performance) must be guessed at or inferred. 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 - as one might take apart an engine to study it. But put all the parts together and the performance may be directly observed and measured.

Disadvantages MBO methods of performance appraisal can give employees a satisfying sense of

autonomy and achievement. But on the downside, they 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. Unfortunately, research studies have shown repeatedly that human beings tend to lack the skills needed to do their own "reality checking". Nor are these skills easily conveyed by training. Reality itself is an intensely personal experience, prone to all forms of perceptual bias. One of the strengths of the MBO method is the clarity of purpose that flows from a set of well-articulated objectives. But this can be a source of weakness also. It has become very apparent that the modern organization must be flexible to survive. Objectives, by their very nature, tend to impose a certain rigidity. Of course, the obvious answer is to make the objectives more fluid and yielding. But the penalty for fluidity is loss of clarity. Variable objectives may cause employee confusion. It is also possible that fluid objectives may be distorted to disguise or justify failures in performance.

Conflict and Confrontation Invariably the needs arises during a performance appraisal to provide an employee with less than flattering feedback. The skill and sensitivity used to handle these often difficult sessions is critical. If the appraisee accepts the negative feedback and resolves to improve, all is well. But if the result is an angry or hurt employee, then the process of correction has failed. The performance of an employee in such cases is unlikely to improve and may deteriorate even Self-Auditing further.

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

Nevertheless there are individuals who will not admit to anything that appears to reflect poorly on them. With ego defenses on full-alert, they will resist the process of selfauditing very strongly. In such cases, appraisers may have no choice but to confront the poor performer directly and firmly with the evidence they have. Sometimes the shock of direct confrontation will result in the employee admitting that they do need to make improvements. But sometimes it will just make their denial of the problem worse. In providing any feedback - especially negative feedback - appraisers should be willing and able to support their opinions with specific and clear examples. Vague generalizations should be avoided. The focus should be on job-related behaviors and attitudes. If a specific observation cannot be supported by clear evidence, or touches on issues that are not job-related, it may be best to exclude all mention of it. Appraisers must carefully scrutinize their own perceptions, motives and prejudices.

MASTEK
BACKGROUND
Mastek actively collaborates with clients to create something valuable for them. We strive to make a positive and lasting business impact by going beyond a client-vendor relationship and becoming an extended part of our customers enterprise. No wonder then of that our a large percentage revenues

comes

from

repeat

business.

Mastek offers a full suite of IT solutions and services, including custom application development, application management outsourcing (AMO), consulting, legacy modernization and migration, and system integration. We have delivered path-breaking solutions in key verticals such as insurance, financial services and government. We currently operate six world-class delivery centers in India and Malaysia. Our IT development and delivery processes have been certified at ISO 9001:2000 and assessed at SEI-CMM Level 5 and P-CMM Level 3. Our mature processes and robust methodologies enable us to deliver projects on time, within budget and to the highest levels of quality. Mastek is a US $156 million, publicly held company with more than 2800 employees and 7200 man-years of experience. It has implemented more than 1000 projects worldwide.

MASTEK Ltd has posted a net profit of Rs 10.2 crore for its first quarter ended September 30, 2002 compared to Rs 1.62 crore during the corresponding period in the previous year. Total income has increased from Rs 19.81 crore during the quarter ended September 30, 2001 to Rs 34.16 crore in the quarter ended September 30, 2002. Meanwhile, Mastek Group has posted a net profit of Rs 15.25 crore for the quarter compared to Rs 4.11 crore during the same period last year. The

group's total income stood at Rs 91.63 crore against Rs 63.95 crore in the previous year period. A segment-wise break up of revenues shows that the company's UK operations clocked revenues of Rs 51.11 crore (Rs 31.64 crore) , while US operations contributed Rs 23.84 crore (Rs 20.10 crore) . Commenting on the performance, Mr Ashank Desai, Chairman and Managing Director, Mastek, said, ``Due to our focussed efforts as well as growing interest in Indian offshore market, we continue to be successful and on target as regards acquisition of strategic clients. The challenge, however, is to grow these accounts, particularly in the light of sluggishness in their IT budget increases. In spite of this, we are confident of achieving our annual goals.'' During the quarter, Mastek has billed 16 additional customers while its repeat business stood at 96 per cent, said a company release. The company has acquired nine new customers during the quarter in the airline, insurance and retail space. Also, the Mastek and Deloitte Consulting joint venture (DCOTG) has reported revenues of Rs 9.92 crore for the quarter ended September 30, 2002. At present, the US contributes 26 per cent of the group's revenues while the European market contributes 60 per cent to total revenues, according to the The company has also inaugurated its new software development centre at the Millennium Park, Mahape, Mumbai. The centre has a total capacity of 1,100 people, though in the first phase by June 2003 it will accommodate 600 to 700 people. Mastek Way Twenty-three years ago, we decided to focus our energies on enterprise applications and ground-up development. This focus ensured that our growth came mostly from doing mission critical and complex applications. Clients looking for solutions to complex problems, is the challenge we seek; and the

opportunity to adopt new technologies. Collaborating with our clients to find solutions and teaming to create something valuable for our client's customers and the community at large - is what drives us. We believe that technology on its own has no meaning; it has to make a positive impact on the world and the people who inhabit it. The cornerstones of the Mastek Way are:

Engagement Excellence Mastek has repeatedly executed several large-scale, mission-critical projects successfully. At the heart of this success lies Mastek's ability to structure engagements around customer outcomes, unlike typical IT engagements that are structured to meet service level agreements or to deliver to customer specifications. The depth of our relationships helps us capture a customer's business requirements rather than just their technology needs. This, in turn, enables us to articulate the benefits of an engagement more accurately, leading to better management of expectations. Mastek has a lineage of building complex solutions and products. This provides us with a 360-degree perspective of the lifecycle of any engagement. As a result, Mastek is able to work with customers on innovative price value models and structure win-win contracts.

Customer Relationships Mastek has built strong relationships with its customers. Several of our relationships are long-standing, and in many of them our role has grown from that of a provider of

technology services to a provider of more critical business solutions. In many of our relationships, with every passing year, we are able to increase our reach in different parts of a customer organisation, increase levels of trust allowing us to engage customers at more strategic levels, and increase the number of touch points at all levels of the two partners' organisations. Mastek has been able to build and sustain deep relationships because of its commitment to a customer's success, its willingness to listen to a customer and its drive to make a valuable difference. Long and deeper relationships benefit all stakeholders. Mastek is able to understand the customer's business better and become more proactive to the customer's needs. As a result, it can provide greater value through its solutions. Customers avoid costs of transferring context and mitigate the risk of failure because they deal with a single partner over many engagements. For Mastek, long customer relationships bring stability and continuity. Our ability to build strong relationships is underscored by the fact that a large percentage over 90% of our overall revenue comes from repeat business.

Network of Partnerships Mastek has executed some of its biggest projects such as London Congestion Charging and NHS Spine by partnering with global system integrators as part of a consortium. Partnering with established system integrators helps Mastek penetrate newer markets and create new revenue channels. For the customer, a consortium brings twin advantages: specialisation of each partner in the consortium as well as end-to-end, holistic solutions.

Mastek's success in consortium-led projects comes from its culture of playing as a team and its ability to co-create solutions. Mastek's adaptability is also a big strength in the dynamic environment of consortium-driven projects. Unlike many IT providers, Mastek engages with partners right from pre-sales. This shows our commitment to and our willingness to invest in a partnership. On the supply side, Mastek's network of partnerships provides it access to highly skilled domain expertise and key program management skills to complement its own strengths and capabilities. In fact, Mastek is already executing an engagement as a full-fledged system integrator.

Domain Knowledge Over the years, Mastek has acquired in-depth understanding and knowledge across several domains, particularly insurance. We have been able to translate this domain knowledge into practice lines and intellectual property (for eg: Elixir). This domain knowledge makes it easier for customers to work with us since we already understand their business context. Less time is spent in transferring knowledge, thereby providing customers a jump-start and reducing time-to-market. In addition, Mastek is able to provide better quality of solutions because of greater clarity. Understanding a customer's business and domain enables Mastek to scale the value chain and play a strategic and consulting role. We are constantly enriching our domain expertise with the diversity and number of projects we do. Mastek's versatility helps it cross apply learnings from one domain to another domain and even to greenfield engagements.

Technological Capabilities Mastek has a long history of technological leadership. As a company, it has a strong product background and has always played a pioneering role in adopting new technology.

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

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

Mastek Culture
A successful organization is more than just the sum total of its systems, processes and people. At Mastek, we believe we are more than the software we create, more than the people we nurture, more than the revenues we generate. We define ourselves by the values we keep, the culture we have built.

As an organization, we are shaped by our Seven Values. These have been our guiding

lights The 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

on

our

path

to

success.

Values

we

have

never

deviated are:

from.

Seven Open

Values

atmosphere teamwork the in individual work relationship intimacy to results

Outstanding Respect Pride Long-term Customer Commitment for

You wont find these Seven Values displayed on walls. But you will find them being practised in every corner of the organization.

The Mastek Culture is a blend of the values we follow, the challenging work we do, and the fun we have. Not surprisingly, we work together as a Team, and have fun together as a How do we Family. do this?

For us, the team is more important than the individual. Yet, we pay a lot of attention to our building blocks: the individuals. We do not just shape careers. We mould character too. We ensure that each of our people have the opportunity to rise to their potential. Being a Mastekeer is more than just being a successful professional. It means constantly growing to become an Inspired Leader. To go beyond the call of duty. To take on more than you are called for. And to make a difference in every relationship. Once a Mastekeer, always a Mastekeer. This is what our alumni say, sometimes even

years after theyve been away from us. It is this goodwill that we cherish most of all. Goodwill that makes us proud of our culture, the Mastek Culture.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF MASTEK

Rationale for Policy on Performance Appraisal Performance appraisal can be viewed as the process of assessing and recording staff performance for the purpose of making judgments about staff that lead to decisions. Performance appraisal should also be viewed as a system of highly interactive processes which involve personnel at all levels in differing degrees in determining job expectations, writing job descriptions, selecting relevant appraisal criteria, developing assessment tools and procedures, and collecting interpreting, and reporting results. Objectives for performance appraisal policy can best be understood in terms of potential benefits. Mohrman, Resnick-West and Lawler (1989) identify the following: Increase motivation to perform effectively Increase staff self-esteem Gain new insight into staff and supervisors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Team appraisal approaches assume, of course, that specific team performance objectives have been agreed upon, as well as individual expectations within the team. Ideally, the process of team performance evaluation will identify not only team performance, but individual deficiencies and paths of corrective action

Communicating With Employees

Part 1: Listening, Commenting, and Questioning Listening: This is the building block for successful communication, yet most of us are rather poor listeners. Instead of listening, we start thinking of whether or not we agree with what the other person has said, or we being thinking of our own response. Thankfully, listening is a skill that can be learned and developed. Some pointers include: Dont interrupt unless to seek clarification. Dont continually glance at your watch or the clock. Dont judge or criticize.

Do make eye contact and stay interested in what the employee is saying. Do watch the employees facial expressions and body movements for hidden messages. Do summarize by saying what you think the employee is feeling (empathy is the key to good listening). Commenting: This is a necessary part of all discussions because is sustains a comfortable, related flow of conversations. Several effective types of comments include: Restatement (of what the employee said). Refocus from the negative to the positive. Reflect feelings (demonstrates empathy). Redirect a stalled conversation. Rethink a situation (e.g., when an employee tries to pass the buck).

Questioning: This is the best way to get information from an employee. Different types of questions will yield different responses. Some examples of techniques include: Restrictive or closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions. Hypothetical or open-ended problem questions. Compare and contrast questions. Questions that involve a choice in/of responses.

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

While a certain amount of defensiveness is inevitable, much of it can be avoided by bearing a few things in mind: Attack the problem, not the employee (use examples of behavior exhibited in the workplace, rather than attacking a personality trait or the like). Choose your words carefully (use positive words like development opportunity and growth opportunity, rather than such negative words as failure or inadequacy). Keep your cool and avoid any form of counterattack. Redirect the conversation, if possible. Two Legally Ambiguous Words to Avoid at Appraisal Time Attitude Bad: Ryan has a bad attitude.

Better: Ryans negative comments are unproductive. Best: Ryans negative comments during departmental meetings are unprofessional and this behavior results in an unproductive environment in which the rest of the team must then work. We have discussed this previously, but Ryan has made limited attempts to redirect his frustration into more productive behavior. Personality Bad: Loris personality is not suited for work in our department.

Better: Loris negative comments make everyone feel that she just doesnt fit in with our work group. Best: Loris caustic comments during co-worker interactions have resulted in her alienating most of her department members. As a result, Lori has had great difficulty integrating herself into our team. Further, despite repeated discussions about her abrasive comments, Lori has made few, if any, strides in improving her behavior or mending relationships with her co-workers.

RECOGNITION
Mastek capabilities and performance have earned it several accolades, direct and indirect, among which are: Mastek has been awarded the prestigious Jamanalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices in 2005 The award, instituted in 1988 recognizes and applauds efforts of business houses and business associations with an exemplary record of practising and promoting fair business practices Among top 20 Indian IT companies as per NASSCOM survey 2004 Mastek has been assigned a composite rating of 5A2 by D&B in 2004 Overall, 5A2 indicates a Financially sound and Low risk trading record Awarded the Best Solution developed on .NET by an Indian SI in 2003 Mastek has continuously ranked among

technology companies in a CLSA study on corporate governance, in the last 4 consecutive years i.e. 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004 among 25 emerging markets including Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America & South Africa

CONCLUSION

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

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

*********************************************************************** *