Summer Training Report

On

Analysis of
Performance Appraisal system
Of Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Submitted by

SONAM SINGH
Registration No.-3510930138
M.B.A. Batch 2009-2011

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of

Business Administration

Submitted To

Corporate Guide Academic Guide

Mrs. Aabha Mathur Ms. Ruhi Jain
Assistant of Personnel Manager SRM University
Recruitment and R&D, Department Delhi-Meerut Road
Bharat Electronics Ltd. Modinagar

SRM University
Ghaziabad Campus

Date
 DECLARATION

I Sonam Singh, Registration no.-3510930138, MBA programme,

SRM University, batch of 2009-2011 do hereby solemnly declare
that this dissertation is an original work of mine and this has not
been submitted to any other institute/University towards any other
degree/diploma.

(Signature)

(Date)
 Acknowledgements

Preparing a project of this nature is an arduous task and I was

fortunate enough to get support from a large number of persons to
whom I shall always remain grateful. I would like to record my
gratitude to Bharat Electronics Ltd for allowing me to undertake
this project. I take this opportunity to thanks Miss Aabha Mathur,
Assistant of personal manager for providing me an opportunity to
work for Bharat Electronics Ltd.

I am also desirous of placing on record profound indebtedness to

Ms. Ruhi Jain, faculty member,for the valuable advice, guidance,
and precious time and support that she offered.

Last but not least, I would also like to thanks all the respondents for
give me their precious time and relevant information and experience,
I require which this project would have been different stories.
(Signature)

(date)
 Contents

Chapter Topic Page No.

Declaration
Acknowlegments
Certificate (by faculty)
Certificate (by company)
Executive Summary (not more than 5/6 pages)

1. A Brief Introduction to the area under Study

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2 Company Profile

•
•
•
•

3 Objectives of the Study

4 Research Methodology

•
•
•
•
•
5

6 Conclusions

Recommendtions
Annexures (including research instruments – questionnaire etc.)
Bibliography
 Executive summary

Performance management is a vital activity in building and

maintaining an effective Management. This guide is intended to
provide an introduction to some of the critical aspects of
performance management.

Performance management can be broadly defined as-

The process of assessing the performance of an

individual(s) against
agrees criteria and standards to recognize achievements
and identify opportunities for improvement.

Taking the time to develop and use effective performance

management is necessary because:

1.It will greatly assist in building a strong and respectful

relationship between Employees and the Management.

2.Performance feedback and structured reviews are

critical in terms governance and organizational
effectiveness.

3.There is a trend towards more frequent feedback and

coaching, and a inclusive
approach to managing dynamic performance rather than
measuring static tasks.

4. More focus is placed on behaviors and processes than on

tasks.
 5. Firms keep top talent through development programmes
rather than

financial rewards.

There is no single ‘best practice’ model of performance

management. The most important aspect to consider is that the
model or framework you choose matches the needs and culture
of your council. However, there is a set of reasonably consistent
steps in all appraisal or review processes that are listed in the
table below.

Step 1 Establish performance goals or objectives

Clearly define what is expected in terms of outcomes and

behaviors.

Step 2 Set standards and measures

Clearly define what standard or level of performance is

expected for each goal and/or the way it will be assessed.

Step 3 Assess performance against agreed goals

standards and measures

Step 4 Conduct the feedback discussion

Step 5 Capture agreed outcomes and future action

…And the process then repeats itself with step 1 taking

place at the end of every appraisal or review to establish
performance expectations for the coming months.
 There are also a number of other ‘critical success factors’ to
keep in mind:

• Meaningful feedback must be specific, relate to the

performance criteria and assist in the process of defining future
action or goals.

• Providing relevant, open and honest feedback is critical to

allow improvement.

• Be aware of the barriers to feedback – timing, setting, delivery,

relevance and objectivity.

• An ongoing performance management cycle, versus an

annual review, will assist in addressing issues and identifying
opportunities in a timely and meaningful manner.

Spend the time working to develop and use a clear and

effective performance management process and it will greatly
assist in building relationships and achieving council’s
objectives.

The research conducted was descriptive in nature. Performance

appraisal system of Bharat Electronics Ltd was surveyed to attain
results. The survey was conducted to analyze the performance
appraisal system of Bharat Electronics Ltd, to find Strengths and
drawbacks.

With this objective in mind, as survey was conducted in Bharat

Electronics Ltd. Personal interview method was used. Convenient
sampling was used as a mode of conducting the survey. Care was
taken that the respondents were also diversified as possible with the
entire Department being given equal weight age and the sampling
size being suitably divided among department. A sample size of
about 15 manager and 15 subordinates were taken for this purpose
from 5 departments. After survey was completed, the data was first
sorted, then analyze on chosen parameters. This analyzed data was
later converted into form of graphs such as pie chart bar graphs, etc.
This was to make result easily comprehensible by any one going
through the report.

This also made it easy to draw conclusion based on research and

provide a presentable format of report. Later on, all this information
was compiled in the form of presentable and highly comprehensible
report.

The important findings are:

1. Organizational and individuals goals are properly aligned.

2. Clearly define what standard or level of performance is

expected for each goal.

3. There is no performance review meeting for an open one-on-

one dialogue between the superior and subordinate.

4. There is lot of subjective elements in the performance

appraisal system.

5. Bad relationship will affect the rating and lenient rating is given
to the subordinates to provide something.

6. Managers have good coaching skills.

7. There is no training and counseling given to the managers

that, how to rate subordinates?
 8. The performance appraisal system is only a tool of giving
promotion, pay increment, training, layoff, demotion, and
dismissal only.

9. Continuous feedbacks to the subordinates are not giving,

feedback are given only when the performance of subordinate
is not acceptable.

10. No positive or recognition is given to the achiever.

B
Introduction

Performance management is currently being evaluated in terms of

its role in the context of globalization and other trends. Although
Performance management has undergone quite dramatic change in
the last 15 years or so, that change was associated with the long
overdue recognition of Performance management as an important
strategic consideration. Bharat Electronics Ltd is paying more
attention on employees performance and productivity as never
before in a bid to not only remain competitive, but to survive.
Increased competition, rapid change, reduce resource employee
expectation, have all combined in such a way that organization is
being expected to achieve more with less.
Bharat Electronics Ltd with committed to Quality, Productivity
and Innovation, wanted to direct its Human Resource towards
achievement of its Objectives.

Is objectives properly aligned and how to increase motivational level

of employees without financial incentives?
 Bharat Electronics Ltd has commissioned this study to
analyze the performance appraisal system to find out the strength
and drawbacks of the performance appraisal system.

Objectives

BEL’s Objective

To be the market leader in defense electronics and in other chosen

field and product through motivating and developing human resource.

Project Objective

The objective of this report is to analyze the performance appraisal

system of Bharat Electronics Ltd and discover strengths and
drawbacks.

Sub-Objectives

To analyze the performance appraisal system on the basis of

following factors.

1. Objectives of performance appraisal system.

 2. Alignment of organization and individual goals.

3. Banking performance to compensation and promotion

decision.

4. Objectivity of performance criteria’s

5. Willingness and ability of appraiser to evaluate appraises.

6. Employee’s development counseling training.

7. Providing feedback and coaching.

8. Performance review meeting and continuous feedback

D
Research Methodology

The research will be based on systematic research design to meet

the objectives of study.

Research design : Descriptive research

Research instrument : Personal interview in the from of Direct

personal
investigation. The interviewer has to
collect the
information personally from
source concern. This
method of collecting information through
personal
interview is carried out in a structured
way. Interviews
involves the use set of predetermined
question.
Sampling
 The sampling shall be selected from the officers involve in this
field and will be

interviewed to gather the data related to the project study.

Sample size : 30

Sample units : Managers & Subordinates

Sample design : 3 managers and 3 subordinate

from five departments
each.

Primary Data

Personal
interview of managers and subordinates of Bharat Electronics
Ltd.

Secondary Data

Executive annul files, Journals, books, Internet

Performance appraisal

The literature on performance appraisal and performance

management is, perhaps, the most extensive in HRM research. It is
also the most problematic, with organizations continually adapting,
modifying and re-inventing schemes to try and find one that works.
The measurement and/or judgment of performance is inevitable in
any organization. There are certain decisions which must be made,
and which require an assessment of performance, whether on a
subjective or objective basis. The following decisions are usually
based on a perception about performance. Managers have to decide
whether an employee:

 s hould gain permanency after a trial period;

should be promoted;

should be given a merit raise in pay or a bonus;

should be made redundant;

should receive training and development towards further

advancement.

These are all decisions that are personally important to

individuals and affect their motivation, self-worth, security and
livelihood. It is a “truism” that a decision can be no better than the
quality of the information on which it is based. It follows that if the
quality of information about performance is poor, then the decisions
made about performance will be poor and will engender resentment,
lowered morale and a sense of injustice, all of which are
dysfunctional.

It also follows that in poorly designed systems or informal

systems, where dysfunctional consequences are most likely to
occur, there will be no useful feedback to help employees improve
their performance, because no useful performance information is
generated. This is a classic “Catch-22” situation!

Because performance appraisal has a long history, most of

the theory and practice underpinning it was developed in a period of
relative stability, when employees expected long, secure tenure and
regular promotion. In this era, the primary means of organizing work
was through functional departments with strong boundaries and
individual task assignments based on job analysis.

The goals of performance appraisal were mostly related to the

individual and they may still be relevant for many organizations.
These goals were either concerned with evaluation and judgment or
with coaching and developing individuals. Even in companies where
teams were featured, performance appraisal still focused mainly on
individual evaluation.

The following points summarize the two types of goals:

Evaluation goals (judgmental)

validating selection techniques;

giving feedback so that people know where they stand;

developing valid data for pay and promotion decisions and

communicating these;

assessing individual productivity and contribution;

guiding the managers in discharge and retention decisions

and warning
Subordinates about unsatisfactory performance.

Coaching and developmental goals

counseling and coaching subordinates so they will improve

performance and
develop future potential;

developing commitment to the organization through career

opportunities and
career planning;
 motivating subordinates through recognition and support;

strengthening supervisor-subordinate relations;

diagnosing individual and organizational problems;

identifying training needs.

Although there were, and still are, many variations of performance

system measures,

figure 7 outlines the three main approaches to performance

measurement.

What people what people

what people
Are Achieve
Do

Characteri Results/ Behavior/

stics Outputs Processes
Competen

Competenc MBO BARS

ies

What people are describes the oldest approach to performance

evaluation, which was based on personal characteristics (traits) and
perceived competencies. Terms like initiative, energy and drive,
adaptability, responsibility, leadership and productivity were common
on forms known as “trait rating scales”. Managers and supervisors
were required to rate employees on a numeric (there are other types
of scales) scale from low to high or on broad descriptors, such as
unsatisfactory to excellent. There were a number of problems with
this approach.

First, none of the descriptors of the traits were defined, and hence
there was no common nderstanding of what they meant. This
resulted in highly subjective reviews, which were neither reliable nor
valid. Second, because of the subjectivity and lack of descriptors
that defined meaning, raters could not provide meaningful feedback
to employees to help them improve perceived deficiencies in
performance. This made both supervisors and subordinates distrust
and basically resent the process.

What people achieve was popularized by the term “management

by objectives” (MBO), coined by Peter Drucker in 1954. MBO is a
results-oriented system that measures employees’ performance by
what they achieve. This system is used extensively with sales
representatives, workers on piece-rate systems and others whose
output can be measured individually. This includes managers if they
have specific goals. A results-oriented system is probably the most
objective form of performance measurement where it is appropriate.
However, a results – only performance measurement system has a
number of potential problems. First, and most important, is that
many jobs do not have discrete, measurable outcomes. They have a
high level of task interdependency, which means that more than one
individual is responsible for an outcome. This is also true for groups
and teams. Second, results-focused performance measurement
tends to recognize and reward outcomes at the expense of process.
In many cases, the way that a job is done is just as important as the
outcome. For instance, after-sales service may be just as important
as selling in terms of building and retaining a customer base, but
service may be ignored in a system that only rewards sales.

A third potential weakness is that results-focused performance

measurement does not always provide useful feedback if results are
not good. Processes, how things get done, are better described by
behaviors than by results. For these reasons, if a results-based
system is to be used, it is wise to build in behavioral measures as
well, which is always possible.

What people do refers to performance appraisal systems that are

based mainly on behavioral criteria. These are derived through
some form of job-, work-, or role analysis that describes and defines
desirable behaviors for how work is performed. As such, in its pure
form, performance measurement based on behavior is concerned
with processes rather than end results. However, the two concepts
are not mutually exclusive and should be combined in an appraisal
system where results can be clearly identified and measured. The
strength of behavioral measures is that they are defined in sufficient
detail to provide a common understanding to both raters and ratees
as to what is meant by a measure and what represents poor or good
performance. On this basis, feedback can recognize good
performance and help to correct inadequacies. In essence,
behaviours are anchored by descriptions of behaviour.

For example, the job of a university professor is usually assessed on

the criteria of teaching, research, university and community service.
One important aspect of teaching is classroom presentation. The
following points could be used to evaluate classroom presentation:

• speaks in a clear expressive manner that avoids a dull

monotone;

• delivers lectures at a pace students can follow;

• explains complex ideas clearly with appropriate illustrations;

• invites questions and feedback from the audience;

• maintains eye contact with the audience;

• uses attractive audio-visuals to introduce subject matter;

• provides class notes/ handouts to supplement lectures.

All the above points are measurable by student evaluations,

observation and examination of materials.

Some form of performance measurement is inevitable in all

organizations because decisions have to be made that require
some judgment about performance. In the absence of a formal
system, subjective judgments will be made because there is no
common understanding about what constitutes performance. This
practice will not only produce unjust and inequitable decisions, but is
also wide open to legal challenge.

We have discussed three broad approaches to current and past

practice. Trait-based systems with undefined criteria have largely
disappeared, partly because of their dismal record in courts of law
on questions of unfair dismissal and other forms of disciplinary
action. The other two approaches represent a wide variety of current
practice. Table 12 (Banks and May, 1999) summarizes typical
practice.

Structure A set of performance dimensions derived from an

organizational analysis as well as a job analysis

Unit of analysis Tasks and activities defined in behavioral terms

Important and critical aspects of the job as identified

Content through the organizational and job analyses

A rating scale calibrated from “low” to “high”

Measurement method
effectiveness
Descriptors that anchor different points along the rating
continuum
Evaluation criteria

Specific (for example, “constructs an expert presentation

Specificity of criteria with all relevant facts in their appropriate order”)

A formal evaluation conducted several times a year (e.g.

monthly, quarterly, or at the conclusion of assignments
Evaluation frequency or projects); informal evaluation perhaps almost daily

Everyone who had an opportunity to observe and

evaluate performance; can
Who evaluates incorporate multiple sources of feedback

Comparison between performance expectations (e.g.

Table 12. The typicalpersonal
approach toperformance
goals, assessment standards) and actual job
Focus of evaluation performance (e.g. typical job behaviors, performance
Element outcomes)
Element
Description
Description Feedback meeting between appraiser and appraisee
Feedback process
Evaluation criteria whenever either party desires; appraiser shares
observations and relates them to performance criteria,
appraisee seeks clarification on the observations or on
the criteria
Appraiser’s role
To understand the performance criteria and to help the
appraisee understand how his or her performance fits
Follow up within the criteria; also to look for ways appraisee can
improve performance

To understand the performance criteria and to help the

appraiser understand how his or her performance fits
Table 12 highlights a number of factors that may not be compatible
with the changed circumstances brought about by globalization.
Because of its focus on the individual through job analysis,
traditional performance measurement rarely included broader
organizational criteria (Banks and May, 2000). In theory, this was
believed to occur through a cascade flowing downward from
strategic plans at the corporate level to operating units, sub-units
and the individual. There are two reasons why this generally did not
happen.
 First, performance measurement was usually static rather than
dynamic, that is, it captured, at one point in time, a summary of a
whole year’s work in terms of behaviors and outcomes. Second,
because of their focus on the individual rather than the organization,
performance interviews tend to concentrate on reaching agreement
about individual performance and where improvement may be
needed (Banks and May, 2000). This may be exacerbated by strong
departmental boundaries, in which departmental goals predominate
over organizational goals.
Table 12 highlights several variables that have changed from
the 1960s-1970s to the 1980s-2000. These changes bring into
question the effectiveness of current practice outlined in the table.
Stable and independent work practices were mainly
procedural and observable. Stable work relationships underpinned
many performance appraisal practices. Jobs were fairly well defined.
Managers’ spans of control were relatively small, enabling them to
delegate work and oversee outcomes. These conditions no longer
prevail.

Organizations have changed from tall hierarchies of

authority to flatter, decentralized structures where managers have
much wider spans of control, employees may
be geographically dispersed and work practice may not be easily
overseen.
The nature of work has changed from individual, function-
based jobs, to team-based, process-oriented jobs, and other non-
traditional work arrangements such as home workers, contract
workers and alliance workers. These contingent workers are less
familiar to
management, they may have little or no commitment to the
organization and may not care about performance improvement.
The traditional ways of motivating and rewarding
performance, such as promotion
and job security, are less available than in previous eras and new
ways must be found to realign employees’ focus to the factors that
produce business success in the new era.

Performance management

The performance appraisal practices listed in table 12 and the

changes to that environment clearly demand a re-think and
adaptation of the traditional approaches to performance
assessment. The demands on HRM to do this are both challenging
and paradoxical. On the one hand we ask fewer employees to do
more with fewer resources, to do it faster and at a higher level of
quality. On the other hand, we ask them to accept less job security,
to manage their own career and be principally responsible for their
own professional
development.

One of the main strategies to accomplish this transition is to

move from performance measurement to performance management.
Performance management includes a broader set of management
practices than traditional performance appraisal. It moves from the
individual management of an employee’s performance over the last
year, to an approach, which connects individual performance with
organizational performance.
 Performance measurement thus becomes something more
than just a personal report card made once or twice a year. Rather it
becomes a continuous dialogue that provides feedback about
performance issues, accomplishments and how the individual
contributes to organizational goals. Two things differentiate
performance management from performance measurement. The
focus shifts from static, individual tasks that are measured at fixed
points in time, to a fairly continuous assessment of individual
employees’ roles and how they relate to goal accomplishment. Thus,
performance assessment is transformed from a tool of evaluation
and review to one that moulds performance through continuous
Structure A set of performance dimensions derived from an
feedback. organizational analysis as well as a job analysis

Unit of analysis Tasks and activities defined in behavioral terms

Content Important and critical aspects of the job as identified

through the organizational and job analyses

Measurement A rating scale calibrated from “low” to “high”

method effectiveness

Evaluation Descriptors that anchor different points along the rating

criteria continuum

Specificity of Specific (for example, “constructs an expert

criteria presentation with all relevant facts in their appropriate
order”)

Evaluation A formal evaluation conducted several times a year

frequency (e.g. monthly, quarterly, or at the conclusion of
assignments or projects); informal evaluation perhaps
almost daily
Table 13 highlights the major elements of performance management
Who evaluates Everyone who had an opportunity to observe and
and provides a evaluate performance; can
useful
incorporate multiple sources of feedback
contrast to the traditional approach shown in table 12.
Focus of
evaluation Comparison between performance expectations (e.g.
personal goals, performance standards) and actual job
performance (e.g. typical job behaviors, performance
Table 13. Major elements of performance management
outcomes)
Feedback
process Element Feedback meeting between appraiser and appraisee
whenever either party desires; appraiser shares
observations and relates them to performance criteria,
appraisee seeks clarification on the observations or on
Appraiser’s role the criteria

To understand the performance criteria and to help the

appraisee understand how his or her performance fits
Appraisee’s role within the criteria; also to look for ways appraisee can
The essence of performance management is that it is a broader
approach to managing performance in a dynamic environment
towards the accomplishment of organizational goals. The idea is to
help employees see the connection between their personal
performance and organizational success. This concept is an integral
part of the notion of “goal alignment” and MBO. The concept behind
those approaches was a cascade effect where strategic goals were
translated into more specific operational goals for units, subunits and
individuals. This was supposed to connect individuals with the
strategic goals of the organization so that they could see the impact
of their own behaviours. This generally did not work for the reasons
discussed above.

In this era organizations were fairly tall and work was largely
organized by functions. The translation through several levels of
hierarchy tended to lose any real meaning for individuals who could
only remotely relate to distant goals. The functional unit in this
instance was the more immediate focus. Within the functional unit
individuals pursued static tasks, defined through job analysis that
had more immediacy for individual, as this was the basis of their
rewards. The lack of frequent feedback also contributed to this
disconnectedness, with one or two meetings a year being more like
a ritual to be endured, rather than a continuous dialogue focused on
performance. The actual goals were very much the same, that is, to
connect individual performance with organizational performance in
such a way that individual could understand the impact of their
actions.

How does performance management connect individual

performance with organizational performance so that individuals can
understand the impact of their actions? The following points
summarize the discussion:
organization structures have become flatter, bringing the top
and bottom much closer together;
organizational goals are now much more visible to
individuals;
work is organized around interacting processes where the
consequences of an
 individual’s actions are more visible;
work is defined dynamically in terms of processes rather
than discrete, static tasks;
rewards are more of a by-product of effective work than the
focus of appraisal;
managers see performance management as the focal point
of their job rather than
an administrative add-on that interrupts their work.

PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The eight major purposes pointed out by Ivancevich and Matteson

(1996) earlier are listed below, the first four are more in line with
judgmental orientation and the remaining four have a developmental
orientation focus.
1
21. Provide a basis for reward allocation, including raises,
promotions, transfers, layoffs, and so on.
3
42. Identify high potential employees.
5
63. Validate the effectiveness of employee selection
procedures.
7
84. Evaluate previous training programs.
9
105. Facilitate future performance improvement.
11
126. Develop ways of overcoming obstacles and performance
barriers.
13
147. Identify training and development opportunities.
15
168. Establish supervisor-employee agreement on
performance expectations.
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROBLEMS

1. Paperwork: Systems demand

documentation and reporting.

2. Formality: Formal evaluation is

inhibiting; managers dislike
being judges of careers social
distance is
counterproductive
.

3. Outcomes are ignored: “Personalities” still rewarded,

politics override
performance criteria.

4. Performance measured by proxy : Performance not

consistently observed or
measured; characteristics
rated are NOT related
to productive performance.

5. “Just-above-average”: Reluctance to rate people

“poor” or outstanding.
 Most people are rated “Just
above average” – a
impossible result.

6. Incomplete coverage: Appraisal schemes must be

applied to ALL and
employees perceived as
FAIR to all.

7. Ill-informed appraisals : Manager/supervisors not

trained in appraisal of
behavior, not familiar with
performance
measurement.

8. Context problems : How can individual

performance be evaluated
uniformly in varied and
different contexts;
environments/situations or
philosophies and
objectives.

9. Performance criteria : What constitutes “THE

STANDARD”; standards
and measurements often
erroneous, misidentified,
wrongly emphasized etc.

10. Evaluator bias: Individual managers biases,

values and
prejudices can influence and distort
open
communications and
judgments. Poor
communication skills and
strong ego drives
create false appraisals. Evaluator
bias
creates lack of consistency
despite “uniform”
criteria.
 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

Ability is enhanced: Strengths, assignments and

changes can be
understood and utilized.

Motivation : Reassurance and

confirmation of encouragement.
Appraisals should create
new enthusiasms and
commitments.

Communications : Improved understanding,

feedback and openness
can be achieved between
boss and subordinate.
Greater rapport and respect.

Goal clarity : Common purpose and

objectives can be mutually
established. Wasted effort
and counter-productive
activities can be eliminated.

Career objectives : Job changes can be guided

and career aspirations
are clarified.

Career development : Promotions, pay evaluations

and training needs
can be discussed and assessed,
counseling given
and agreed directions targeted.
 Some common flaws in all systems

Whatever appraisal system is used, if the standards are vague, the procedure
will suffer from one of two main flaws:

A. The Halo Effect

The halo effect is the tendency of the boss to hang a halo over the rating of a
“favoured” employee. This can happen for a variety of reasons:

1. Effect of past record

Because people have done good work in the distant past, their performance is
assumed to be OK in the recent past too. Their good work tends to carry over
into the current rating period.

2. Compatibility

There is a tendency to rate people who we find pleasing in manner and

personality higher than they deserve. Those who agree with us, nod their heads
when we talk, or even better, make notes of our words, get better ratings than
their performance justifies.

3. Effect of recency
The person who did an outstanding job last week or yesterday can offset a
mediocre performance over the rest of the review period by this single act.

4. One strong asset

The glib talker, the person with the impressive appearance, the one with the
advanced degrees, or the graduate of the boss’s own university gets a more
favourable rating than the subordinate lacking these often irrelevant attributes.

5. The blind spot effect

This is the case where the boss does not see certain types of defects because
they are just like his/her own. The boss who is a broad strategic thinker may not
appreciate a detail man for example.

6. The high potential effect

We judge employees’ paper records rather than what they have achieved for the
organization.

7. The no complaint bias

Here the appraiser treats no news as good news. If the subordinate has no
complaints everything is terrific. The employee who pesters the boss but gets the
job done is rated lower than the silent solitary dud.

B. The hypercritical or Horns effect

This is the reverse of the halo effect -the tendency to rate people lower than the
circumstances justify. Some specific causes of this are the following:

1. The Boss Is A Perfectionist

With expectations so high, the boss is more often disappointed and so rates
people lower than they deserve.

2. The Subordinate Is Contrary

Here the boss vents private irritation with the employee's tendency to disagree
with him or her too often on too many issues.

3. The Odd-Ball Effect

Despite all the lip service to nonconformity, it all too seldom finds its way into
practice when appraisal time comes around. The odd ball, the ~ maverick, and
the nonconformist get low ratings simply because they are "different."
4. .Membership In A Weak Team

A good player on a weak team will end up with lower ratings than one playing on
a winning team.

5. The Built-by-Association'-Effect

The company they keep will often judge people who are not really known. If they
hang out with a frivolous crown or work for the wrong boss, they are due for
some reductions in rating.

6. The Dramatic-Incident Effect

A recent goof can wipe out the effect of years of good work and give a person a
low rating on the latest appraisal.

7. The Personality- Trait Effect

People who are too cocky, too brash, too meek, too passive, or otherwise, lack
some trait the boss associates with "good" subordinates will suffer in their rating
accordingly.

8. The Self-Comparison Effect

People who don't do the job as their bosses remember they did it when they held
that job will suffer more than those whose jobs the bosses are not too familiar
with.
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REVIEW PROCESS

A. Performance Appraisal Review Process

Divisions and Department Heads (or designees) should use standardized

employee performance appraisal forms (sample attached). These forms should
include different sections in which the supervisor can record the employee’s job-
specific duties and responsibilities for the period of time covered by the
performance appraisal. The performance appraisal form should also include
additional sections for general comments regarding the employee’s performance,
the employee goals and objectives for the coming year, and the employee’s
comments. In addition, the performance appraisal should include spaces for the
signatures of the employee, the supervisor, and the next reviewing level. The
supervisor should prepare the performance appraisal in “final draft” and schedule
a date and time within which to meet and discuss with the employee his or her
performance appraisal. The “final draft” is intended to allow for employee
comments and input regarding information about his or her performance of which
the manager or supervisor may be unaware. Alternatively, division or
departments, at their discretion, may elect to have employees submit self-
assessments prior to preparing the final performance appraisal and conducting
the performance appraisal meeting.

B. Performance Appraisal Meeting

The performance appraisal meeting and discussion between the employee and
his or her supervisor should take place in person. It is also strongly
recommended that the meeting be based on an interactive exchange wherein the
employee is encouraged to offer comments, ask questions, and/or make
suggestions, as appropriate. In cases where there are performance deficiencies,
it is recommended that supervisors identify the specific performance areas that
need improvement, provide the employee with feedback and advice regarding
how to correct such deficiencies, inform the employee of the measurement
criteria to be used in determining a satisfactory level of performance, and give
the employee a timeframe within which to improve his or her performance. In
addition, supervisors may, at their discretion, develop improvement plans,
provide special performance appraisals, schedule weekly follow-up meetings,
and/or offer suggestions for additional training and other resources, as needed.
Performance appraisals are non-disciplinary in nature, here appropriate, the
source of any information solicited or received and used by the supervisor in the
performance appraisal may be identified to the employee upon her/his request.

CONDUCTING THE PERFORMANCE MEETING

1. Put the employee at ease by creating a sincere and open atmosphere for joint
discussion.

2. Establish the purpose of the discussion. Advise the employee what you would
like to accomplish during the meeting.
3. Review the employee’s overall job requirements and responsibilities. Going
over the job description with the employee allows you to discuss the work that
the employee does on a daily basis. If the two of you disagree on the relative
importance of specific job aspects, it will come out now, and it will also give you
the opportunity to discuss any problems the employee is having performing the
various job responsibilities.

4. Review the performance objectives and goals established during the last
performance meeting with the employee.
(A) Discuss objectives/goals that have been reached. How has that improved
the employee’s skills and performance?
(B) Discuss objectives/goals that need further work. What obstacles have
prevented the employee from reaching any objectives? Decide if time
frames set for reaching the objectives need to be adjusted.

5. Provide recognition for desirable behavior, especially since the last review. Let
employees know how much you value and appreciate their work.

6. Ask for the employee’s views on problems, suggestions for changes,

improvements, etc. (A) Do not interrupt the employee’s commentary. If the
employee is upset, let him/her blow off steam. Be a good listener.
(B) Thank the employee for his/her input. If the meeting has included
discussion of major concerns about the quality of the employee’s
performance, express confidence that the two of you can successfully
work through the difficulties together.

7. Outline one or two areas of performance where improvements are needed and
ask for the employee’s suggestions.
(A) Do not unload—keep the meeting as upbeat and positive as possible but be
honest and accurate.
 (B) Avoid using subjective, vague or overly broad descriptions such as “poor
attitude” or “no initiative.” Give specific, objective comments or examples.
Examples of Subjective Comments Example of Objective
Comments
Lacks customer orientation Does not greet customers
quickly
Chronically absent Absent six days in last month
Does not care about quality Has an error rate of 10%
Lacks interest in the work Missed the due date for
assignment

(C) Be consistent. If an issue (weakness of performance) was mentioned on

the previous performance appraisal, it should be mentioned again if it is
still an issue. An omission may assume the problem has been resolved.
Conversely, if there has been improvement since the last appraisal,
acknowledge it.

8. Problems that are not related to work performance, such as absenteeism or

tardiness generally should be handled, as they occur, not as part of the annual
performance appraisal. If it appears that the problems may be related to personal
or family medical issues, refer the employee to Human Resource Services so
a determination may be made as to whether the Family Medical Leave Act
may apply.

9. Outline and discuss action plans for improvement with the employee. Let the
employee know what behavior you expect, whether you desire to reinforce
positive behavior or make changes. Encourage the employee to make as
many suggestions for self-improvement as possible. Include training or
development plans when appropriate. Se t a realistic timeline for improvement
—if you need assistance, consult with Human Resource Services.

10. Discuss whether the employee’s ultimate career objective as identified at

his/her last performance review remains the same or has changed. If it has
changed, how will this affect the objectives that have already been set?

11. Ask the employee if there are any remaining items on the Discussion Guide
that they would like to address.
12. Set new career objectives for the upcoming year. Discuss what the employee
needs to learn to reach these objectives and how the employee can obtain
the knowledge and experience needed.
(A) Assign responsibility for reaching these goals. Let the employee know to
what extent you will help him/her and what the employee must do
independently.
(B) Decide together on a first step that will start the employee towards
reaching a tangible goal.
13. Be prepared to discuss the employee’s concerns regarding wage increases,
promotional opportunities, etc. Be as honest as possible—do not set unreachable
expectations.
14. Summarize the appraisal meeting interview and review any objectives/goals
set for performance improvement. Attempt to obtain an acknowledgment
from the employee that indicates there is a clear and mutual understanding and
agreement.

Bring the interview to a close by:

(A) Commenting on the positive aspects of the employee’s performance;
(B) Providing a word of encouragement;
 (C) Offering assistance;
(D) An invitation for formal discussion anytime the employee wishes.

DOCUMENTING JOB PERFORMANCE

Documenting workplace behavior, both positive and negative, for all employees
will assist you in the performance appraisal process more than anything else you
can do. In addition, documentation provides the examples you need to discuss
performance issues or concerns with an employee. In the event an employee’s
performance does not improve, documentation is critical to the progressive
disciplinary process.

1. A Critical Incident File should be established by the supervisor for every

employee supervised.

 T his file should contain both positive and negative information about the
Employee’s performance.

Documenting observed performance (who, what, when, where, how) takes the
subjective judgment factor out and enables you to base your evaluations on
specific, objective, job-related behaviors.

Allows you to be specific when meeting with an employee to discuss job

performance.
Examples can help the employee focus on past behavior and clarify future
expectations.

2. Documentation provides accurate reflections of what a person did or did not do

on the job over a period of time. It eliminates the need to remember details for
a year or more.

3. Documentation allows you to focus on the issue at hand, including the

employee’s behavior, and not focus on the employee personally.

4. Documentation of continued poor performance provides support for the

progressive disciplinary process.

5. Notes from the critical incident file are kept by the supervisor and are not part
of the employee's personnel file in Human Resource Services. They can,
however, be used as documents during the investigation of any subsequent
complaints made by the employee.
 COACHING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

Through coaching, you can actively involve employees in the problem-solving

process and encourage them to take responsibility for their own professional
development and success on the job. This will not only improve productivity but
will also build job satisfaction and motivation as employees begin to participate in
decisions that affect their job performance.

The coaching process can be broken into three main segments:

• planning and preparation;

• conducting the coaching session; and
• action-planning and follow-up.

Within each segment are a number of individual steps, as defined below:

Planning and Preparation

Step 1: Clarify your expectations.

(a) State your expectations in terms of behaviors—specific, observable actions

that can be measured.

(b) Describe specifically what kind of behavior you want—or don’t want—
someone in the employee’s position to demonstrate.
(c) Make a list of the performance behaviors you hope the employee will change
before you begin your session so that you will be ready to discuss them.

Step 2: Observe the employee’s performance.

(a) Focus on specific behaviors that can be measured and changed.

(b) Don’t just make note of what the employee is doing wrong. Keep track of
what the employee is doing right so that you can build on his/her strengths
during the coaching session.

(c) Determine the priority of the behaviors that the employee needs to improve.
Don’t try to work on everything at once; select the behaviors that are most
important for the employee’s success and concentrate on them first. You can
work on other behaviors in future coaching sessions.

Step 3: Analyze the problem.

(a) What aspects of the employee’s performance are unsatisfactory?

(b) Is it worth my time to coach in this situation?

(c) Does the employee know my expectations?

(d) What obstacles are there to meeting those expectations? Are extenuating
circumstances preventing the employee from doing his or her best?

(e) What negative or positive consequences follow performance?

(f) Could the employee change if he/she wanted to?

Step 4: Plan your strategy or approach for the coaching session.

(a) Plan how to present the information to the employee in the most effective
manner.

(b) Adapt your coaching method to the employee’s personality.

Conducting the Coaching Session

Step 1: Create a comfortable coaching environment.

(a) Choose an appropriate time and place for coaching. If possible, select a
location in which you can sit next to the employee rather than across a desk.

(b) Establish rapport with the employee and clearly state the purpose for the
meeting.

Step 2: Describe the performance problem and your expectations for

performance.

(a) Begin by describing the performance problem you identified in your

observation of the employee, and compares the employee’s current
performance to your expectations.

(b) Describe employee performance in precise, objective terms, such as

speed/rate, quantity, accuracy, thoroughness, and timeliness.

Step 3: Encourage employee self-assessment.

(a) Give the employee a chance to evaluate his/her own performance.

Employees will be much more willing to participate actively in the coaching
session if they have a chance to describe their own side of the situation.
Hearing the employee’s perspective will also help you determine what
extenuating circumstances could be affecting his/her performance.

(b) If employees are hesitant to offer their own ideas about their performance,
ask open-ended questions that start with the words, “who,” “what”, “where,”
“when,” “why,” and “how.”
(c) To be fully effective, a coach’s open-ended questions must be paired with
active listening techniques. Listening involves keeping an open mind and
interpreting, evaluating, and reacting to what the employee says.

Step 4: Agree on the nature of the problem and the employee’s role in it.

(a) In order for coaching to be successful—and to determine whether it is needed

at all—you and the employee must agree on the nature of the performance
problem and the employee’s role in it.

(b) If you don’t agree with the employee’s view of the situation, you will need to
provide more detailed feedback on performance to help the employee
acknowledge the problem and take responsibility.

(c) If you are persuaded that the problem lies outside the employee, then this
might be a good time to arrange for further training or some other option.

Step 5: Explore alternative solutions.

(a) After you and the employee have agreed on the nature of the problem, the
two of you can collaboratively explore solutions to it.

(b) The employee’s involvement in the problem-solving process will lead to a

better solution, which in turn will lead to better performance and improved
productivity for your entire team.

(c) Encourage the initiative, independence, and self-expression necessary for

successful collaboration through indirect influence. Indirect influence consists
of four basic techniques: accepting feelings, developing ideas, giving praise
and encouragement, and asking open-ended questions.

(d) Provide detailed feedback to the employee regarding your performance

observations.

Step 6: Agree on a solution to the problem.

(a) As the employee and you collaborate on a specific solution, keep in mind that
your solution must be realistic and workable in order to succeed. State your
solution in terms of behaviors that the employee can perform and that you can
observe and measure rather than in terms of attitude or emotions.

(b) You can help your employee choose the best solution by asking open-ended
“What if…?” questions to help the employee identify possible barriers to
enacting the solution.
Action-Planning and Follow-up

Step 1: Create an action plan.

(a) Once you and the employee have agreed on a workable solution, ask the
employee to outline a plan for putting the solution into action. Then ask the
employee to state it verbally.

(b) Developing an action plan will not only give the employee direction for
making the solution a reality, but it will also help build employee commitment
to seeing the solution work.
Step 2: Monitor employee progress.

(a) After you and the employee have agreed on an action plan, schedule a time
when you can meet and discuss the employee’s progress. Schedule your
follow-up meeting far enough in the future that the employee will have time to
put the solution into practice but not so far off that he/she will begin to think
that you’ve forgotten about the matter.

(b) During the time period between, make note of what you observe, both the
behaviors you want to reinforce and the behaviors that need further
improvement. Record specific examples of each that you can share with the
employee during the follow-up session.
Step 3: Provide follow-up coaching.

(a) Like your original coaching session, your follow-up coaching session will
give you a chance to provide the employee with feedback on what you have
observed about the employee’s performance and give the employee a chance
to describe any barriers he/she may have encountered.

(b) You can also provide the employee with informal follow-up coaching as you
observe his/her performance. Informal follow-up coaching is most effective if
done immediately after you have observed the behavior in question.
 Graphic Rating Scales

The first known method of graphically representing an employee’s performance

emerged from the disenchantment about the fairness of a seniority-based system
for promotions and raises. In 1922, Paterson developed, and published, what he
called the graphic rating scale. The scale was a straight line for each dimension
of performance to be measured with adjectives placed underneath the line to
indicate level of proficiency. However, these labels were not anchors of any kind,
they were simply guides. The rater was free to place a check mark anywhere
along the continuum he felt best evaluated the ratee on that dimension. To
translate this check mark into a score, a stencil was placed over the line,
indicating a corresponding numerical value for the rater’s evaluation. The rater
would repeat this procedure for all of the dimensions for a specific employee.
Paterson (1922) felt this method had several advantages over other methods of
evaluation. First, the procedure is very simple. All the rater is required to do is
place a check mark on a line indicating performance on a certain dimension.
Secondly, the rater can make a precise judgment about a worker’s performance.
The rater is not restricted in his responses and is not forced to place the ratee in
a category or class. Finally, the rater is freed from quantitative terms such as
numbers to describe a worker’s performance. Paterson felt that these
quantitative terms influenced a rater’s judgment. With this method, the rater can
evaluate performance without numbers biasing his judgment.

The reaction to this method of ratings was overwhelming. Graphic rating scales
rapidly grew in popularity. Within 30 years of Paterson’s publication, the graphic
rating scale was the most popular method for assigning merit-based ratings in
organizations. Ryan (1958) observed that the graphic rating scale was used in
almost any organizational activity where it was necessary to evaluate an
individual’s performance. Over the years, with the advent of new methods of
ratings, popularity of the graphic rating scales has declined somewhat. However,
it still continues to be one of the most widely used and distributed methods for
evaluating performance

The reason why this method still retains its popularity more than 75 years
after its inception is most likely due to its many advantages. To begin with,
graphical rating scales are very simple. They are easily constructed and
implemented, and they are a cost- effective method of evaluating employees. In
comparison, other methods of evaluating performance are very expensive and
require a more complex development process. Another advantage of graphical
rating scales is that the results from this method are standardized This means
that once the employees have been evaluated, comparison can be made to
other ratees for the purposes of disciplinary action, feedback and development
promotions and advancement decisions, etc. Also, graphical rating scales have
the advantage of being appealing to the actual evaluator, or rater. Some
research has demonstrated that raters actually prefer to rate using graphic rating
scales due to their simplicity and ease of rating. Raters are typically more
reluctant to use a rating method

that is rather complex and involved. Ease of development, simplicity of use,

relatively little expense, and generalizablity across ratees all make for a method
of evaluation that is attractive to organizations. As originally proposed by
Paterson, a graphic rating scale was a check mark, or

evaluation, made on a continuous line. However, this began to change very

rapidly. Soon, graphic rating scales were being scored on computers used by
researchers to make their jobs easier. Instead of using continuous lines,
however, researchers were designing scales with anchor points along a
continuum. Each anchor was given a certain value to facilitate entry into the
computer. Limiting answers to a set number of anchor points (e.g., five, seven or
nine) on a line replaced answering on a continuum. Instead of a graphic rating
scale, this format could have been more appropriately labeled a ‘forced interval’
format. For better or for worse, this new format was soon being referred to as the
“traditional” graphical rating scale format.

Graphic rating scales are relatively simple to develop. The first step is to
use job analysis to identify and define the most important and most relevant
dimensions of job performance to be evaluated It is also recommended that after
relevant dimensions have been identified, they should be carefully refined to
echo exactly what facets of job performance the rater wants to measure.

Following this, the rater should decide how many scale points, or anchors,
are needed on the rating scale. [This begs the question of whether anchors are
needed at all (However, Barrett, Taylor, Parker, & Martens (1958) conducted a
study on clerical workers in the Navy that helps to resolve this issue. In reviewing
different rating formats to measure performance, he found that anchored scales,
on average, are more effective than scales without anchors.] Bendig (1952a,
1952b) conducted studies with students who were to rate the performance of
their college teachers. He found that increasing the anchoring on the rating
scales led to increased reliability of the scale. It was assumed, for a while at
least, that more anchors lead to better ratings. However, other research disputes
this claim. Lissitz and Green (1975) conducted a Monte Carlo study that
investigated this matter. They noted that previous studies concerned with the
number of anchor points on graphic rating scales have advocated either one
specific number or no specific number of anchor points. They felt that deciding
the proper number of points on a scale is based on the objectives and purpose of
the study. However, they did suggest that 7 points are

optimal for a scale, but the increase in reliability begins to level off after 5 points.
The idea that a smaller number of scale points (for example, seven as compared
to twelve or fifteen) is preferable is a sentiment echoed by other researchers.
McKelvie, (1978) investigated the effects of different anchoring formats by having
students rate personality characteristics of certain groups of people. His results
were consistent with those of Lissitz and Greene (1975).

Once the number of scale points has been decided, the scale developer
should decide the format of the anchors. Anchors can either be numerical,
adjectival, or behavioral in nature. French-Lazovik and Gibson (1984) claimed
that both verbal (behavioral and/or adjectival) and numerical anchors are
preferable when anchoring a rating scale. Barrett et al. (1958), however,
demonstrated that behavioral anchors tend to clearly be more effective than
numerical or adjectival ones. Other research has also arrived at the same
conclusion. Jacobs (1986) notes that this is most likely because these types of
anchors communicate more clearly, to the raters, what each point on the scale
represents. (In fact, it was interest in these behavioral anchors that spawned
research into a new type of rating format, which will be discussed in more detail
later in this paper.) However, it should be cautioned that anchors could become
too complicated. Barrett et al. (1958) found that scale effectiveness decreased
when too much information was included in the anchors. The extra information
seems to confuse the rater and interfere with the rating process. There is also
evidence that reliability does not necessarily increase for scales with more
specifically defined levels. However, there is a general consensus that behavioral
anchors are preferable to adjectives or numbers. In general, it seems that when
constructing graphic rating scales, one should make sure to have approximately
seven anchor points that are behavioral in nature, taking care not to include too
much information in any one anchor. Graphic rating scales are not without their
critics or criticisms. Although their use was very popular and widespread, graphic
rating scales were not subjected too much empirical testing until the years
following World War II. However, it became clear very quickly that problems
existed with graphic rating s cales. Questions were raised, and many researchers
soon became concerned with how these problems could impact the effectiveness
and appropriateness of graphic rating scales’ widespread use in organizations.

One of the problems with graphic rating scales that quickly became
apparent after their introduction is the so-called ‘halo effect.’ When examining
graphic ratings of performance, Ford (1931) found that there was a tendency for
raters to give similar scores to a ratee on all dimensions of performance. To rate
a worker in this manner would be the equivalent of rating the worker on one
single scale, as opposed to many different scales that measure different aspects
of work performance. Other researchers also discovered this problem. Soon,
there was a great deal of literature documenting the problem of halo when using
graphic rating scales. More current literature has also documented the problem
of halo, indicating that it continues to be a pervasive problem with graphic rating
scales. For a while, it was thought that halo could be eliminated, or at least
attenuated, by training. By warning raters of this pitfall associated with the
graphic rating scales, scores would contain less halo, and the ratings would be
more appropriate. However, research has shown this not to be the case. Some
have proposed the alternative of statistical correction to compensate for halo.
However, this process, also, seems to lack promise. Halo has traditionally been
considered a serious problem for the effectiveness of an appraisal system.
Organizations typically use performance evaluations to make some sort of
decision about a worker and his job. When evaluating a person, the organization
attempts to measure the worker on several different criteria. In this way, the
worker, with the help of the organization, is able to be aware of his strengths and
can target areas for improvement. Halo eliminates the variance between
measurements of different performance dimensions. The person scores similarly
across all dimensions and, thus, is unable to know which areas are strengths and
which areas should be targeted for development.
 In addition to halo, a leniency bias also plagues the use of graphic rating
scales. Leniency is characterized by the tendency of a rater to be generous in his
evaluation of an employee’s performance across all dimensions of performance
and across all ratees. Like halo, leniency has been well documented as a source
of error when using graphic rating scales

Leniency presents a problem for organizations in the following way.

Performance appraisals are used to establish variance between the performance
levels of employees. Typically, these evaluations are used so that some merit-
based decision can be made about the employees for the purposes of raises,
promotions, benefits, etc. These evaluations could also be used for employment
decisions, deciding which employees should be terminated due to poor
performance or which employees should be kept in an era of downsizing and
layoffs. Leniency eliminates the variance between employees, making it very
difficult, if not impossible, to make organization al decisions based on the
measurement of employees’ performance.
New research, however, challenges the traditional notion of associating
these so-called rating errors with poor judgements of worker performance. One
of the first scientists to challenge the traditional conception of leniency and halo
error was Borman (1979). He noted that the literature of the time supported the
idea that most performance ratings were probably contaminated by error (e.g.,
halo, leniency), thereby rendering inaccurate ratings of employees. However, the
results from his study failed to support this notion, and he suggested that an
increase in accuracy was not as strongly correlated with a decrease in rating
errors as once believed.

Over time, greater numbers of researchers began to realize the danger of

equating “rating error” with a lack of accuracy. Murphy & Balzer (1989) found that
the average correlation between rating errors and measures of accuracy was
near zero. Based on the data, they felt that rating errors were not very likely to
contribute to the decrease in rating accuracy. Jackson (1996) also found
evidence that the point of maximum accuracy for a task does not necessarily
coincide with the lowest measures of rating errors. Some researchers went on to
claim that any relation (high, low, or zero) could be empirically found between
accuracy and rating errors. Nathan & Tippins (1990) were even so bold as to
claim that ratings errors might actually contribute to an increase in accuracy.

Gradually, performance appraisal researchers were beginning to realize

that rating errors are not reliable or consistent indicators as to the effectiveness
of performance ratings despite what was thought in the past. The traditional
conception that leniency and halo were only measures of error was wrong. A
more plausible conceptualization was that these “rating errors” actually contained
some true score variance, not just error. Regardless, the traditional criticism of
the graphic rating scale’s susceptibility to these “errors” no longer holds the same
concern that it once did. There are other problems associated with graphic rating
scales besides the traditional problems of halo and leniency. Graphic rating
scales have also been accused of having problems associated with validity, poor
inter-rater agreement, and personal biases of a rater. Though important, these
other problems associated with graphic rating scales are not as prevalent in the
research literature and have not traditionally been attributed the same level of
importance and influence as halo and leniency.
DEFINITION
What do we mean by performance management? It can refer to many aspects
of monitoring, reviewing and addressing performance issues within an
organization. For this introduction we define performance management broadly
as:

th e process of assessing the performance of an individual against

agreed criteria and standards to recognize achievements and identify
opportunities for improvement.

WHY BOTHER?

Performance management should be an ongoing process and clearly link

strategic objectives to specific actions. It will also ensure that people are
accountable for their performance and clearly understand the
expectations. Performance management contributes greatly in developing and
retaining your people – your most valuable resource. Relevant and structured
feedback provides the opportunity to recognize and reward good performance
and identify performance shortfalls to assist in a development and improvement
process.

CRITICAL STEPS
The challenge in deciding what performance management process to use is
that there is not a single ‘best practice’ model. The approach or model you use
must match the needs and culture of your council now. There is, however, a set
of consistent steps in most effective models. The key steps in assessing
performance with the following sections providing more detail about each step.

Step 1 Establish performance goals or Objectives

Step 2 Set standards and measures

Step 3 Assess performance against agreed goals standards and measures

Step 4 Conduct the feedback discussion

Step 5 Capture agreed outcomes and future action

.
… and the process then repeats itself with step 1 taking place at the end of every
appraisal to establish performance expectations for the coming months.

Step 1: Establish Performance Goals or Objectives

It is impossible to review or assess performance if you are not clear on the critical
objectives for the individual. It is also difficult for any of us to perform to the level
expected and achieve if we do not know what the expectations are. Ideally these
individual performance objectives are established and agreed upon by
Management and the employees at the start of the review period. They should
reflect or align clearly with:

• The goals or objectives in your corporate or community plan;

•Management’s values if you have defined them;

• The performance criteria listed in the Employee’s contract.

Examples of an individual performance objectives or measures may be:

1. Accept and achieve the medium-long term goals and key strategies contained
in the business Plan, through the development and full implementation of annual
Business Plans.

2. Deals equally and promptly with all employees’ concerns regardless of their
nature.

Note: there may be different terms used for these individual performance
objectives or goals, such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Key
Performance Objectives (KPOs), Key Result Areas (KRAs). Make sure you
understand the terms used and what they refer to.

Step 2: Standards and Measures

Once the performance objectives or indicators are established the next step is to
determine what standard of performance is required and what measures will be
used. For some this process may be familiar through involvement in developing
corporate or community plans and associated performance indicators. For
qualitative performance measures, such as behaviors like ‘developing effective
relationships with councilors’, you may need to rely on observation or judgment.
It is still important to provide a scale to use to make the assessment. If you are
using a rating scale, which can be numeric or descriptive, it is recommended the
documents or process be structured to encourage supporting comments. It is
difficult to understand what performance issue is or what needs to change if the
feedback is simply “you got 3 out of 10”. With more measurable objectives it is
possible to clearly describe what standard will be expected and how

performance will be assessed. While this can be time-consuming in developing,

the benefits are that there is little confusion about expectations and the
method of assessment. The following table provides an example of this:

Objectives Expected performance Method of Assessment

(Or goal) (Or standard) (Or measure)

1. Achievement of 90% of Capital Works Audit of performance by

Capital Works program Program is completed. external auditor.

2. Demonstrates a (a)Increase in community (a) Annual Community

service culture to the satisfaction by 10%. Satisfaction Survey.
community and (b)Improvement in (b)Customer Service data
considers all requests response rate to customer and reports.
promptly and complaints.
impartially.
Step 3: Assessment
The process of assessment is determining the gap between the expected
outcomes and actual performance. This difference may be in the positive
direction when performance exceeds expectations or may be where performance
has fallen short of expectations. The method of assessment may incorporate one
or several components with some examples listed in the following list: -

• Self-assessment where the person being reviewed reports, whether verbally or

in writing, on their performance against the performance criteria.

• Review of relevant performance data – for example, achievement against

corporate plan objectives, community satisfaction surveys, staff climate surveys,
or financial performance against set targets.

• Surveys or questionnaires completed by the individuals the position reports to,

in this instance all managers or a committee.

• 360o feedback tools where direct reports, councilors and others provide
feedback either by completing surveys or through a structured interview process.

A primary objective with assessment is to increase objectivity and reduce

subjectivity. There will usually be some aspects of performance that are more
challenging to assess objectively. Examples of these performance areas would
be judgments relating to behaviors, for example effective leadership or
developing relationships. One approach to reducing the impact of personal bias
is through involving all councilors in the assessment process rather than just a
committee.

These assessments form the basis for the performance feedback. If a number of
assessment approaches have been used, or more than a few individuals
contributed, then the information may need to be consolidated. You may choose
to use an external consultant to do this for you. Pulling all the feedback together
will streamline the process and identify overall trends. Consolidation of
assessment data will also assist in prioritizing the issues to be discussed in the
feedback process.

Step 4: Feedback

The assessment process is meaningless if it is not used to provide direct

feedback. Face-to-face feedback that is structured around the performance
objectives and criteria establishes the starting point for change and improvement.
It also provides the opportunity to celebrate and recognize achievements and
what is working well. It is also important to ensure that performance related
feedback is objective and relates directly to the CEO’s performance in their role.
Using the structure of the performance criteria and a well thought out process will
greatly assist in this regard. When providing feedback clearly indicate which
performance ‘expectation’ it relates to and provide examples of specific situations
to ensure your meaning is clearly understood. It may be desirable to have a third
party facilitate the performance review process, however, you will add great
value by providing the feedback yourself. In normal circumstances be brave
enough to give feedback directly and verbally rather than rely on a facilitator or
third party to deliver the message. Once you have gained the confidence and
skills to do this you will be greatly contributing to developing and maintaining that
highly effective relationship of openness and trust. When providing feedback
schedule sufficient time and prioritize it in everyone’s diary– this is an important
conversation and shouldn’t be rushed. Don’t keep canceling or delaying the
feedback conversation as the message this sends is that the process is not
valued or seen as important.

It is also important to make sure the feedback discussions are captured in

writing. This valuable information will summarize what has and hasn’t worked
and ideas for the future and will greatly assist maintaining and improving
performance.

Step 5: Future Action/Outcomes

Capturing the outcomes of the review process and the agreed actions to address
performance shortfalls is another critical step in the process. Developing an
action plan based on the feedback greatly facilitates the process of improvement
and change.

Elaborate on feedback by developing and agreeing upon a strategy or set of

actions that will overcome the issues raised and leads to improvement. This is
often a difficult task but to start this process it is useful to ask –

“What will this look like when it is done well?

What needs to change – is it a system or a behaviour?
How can we assist and support this change or required action?”

Producing a summary of the feedback and outcomes is also important if this is

the annual and formal performance review. This documentation will provide an
accurate record of the assessment given and any required actions. It will also
provide a useful starting point for future performance assessments and ensure
the process of improvement is continuous and meaningful.
 OPEN AND HONEST

Unfortunately providing open and honest feedback is often avoided or found to

be the most difficult part of a performance discussion. Think about your own
experiences of giving and getting feedback, in the workplace or any other
situation. How often have you avoided or put off addressing a performance
issue? How often have you taken the time to clarify your expectations?

We all often find it easy to critically appraise the performance of an individual or

an organization from a distance. It is generally observed that providing face-to-
face feedback relating to performance is found to be extremely difficult. Some of
the common concerns that stop people avoid giving ‘warts and all’ feedback are:

• Fear of hurting an individual’s feelings;

• Anticipating an angry or violent response;

• Fear of ruining a good relationship; and

• Feeling unqualified or lacking in sufficient experience to provide

feedback.

Honest feedback given in a constructive and positive way is highly valued by

most people. Feedback is even more valued when it is linked to determining
ways to address the performance shortfall. A further advantage of this approach
is that people who receive honest and open feedback are also more likely to do
the same in return.
 BARRIERS TO FEEDBACK

There will always be a number of situations or factors that hold back the flow of
feedback in both directions. Consider the following ‘barriers’ before you speak
and you will find that when you do communicate it will be more effective and
better received.

1. Timing – is the moment appropriate and have you allowed sufficient time for a
meaningful and productive discussion?

2. Location /setting – is the environment and setting intimidating or overly

formal and prohibitive to open and honest communication?

3. Delivery – is the communication style, wording conducive to feedback being

taken on board? Keys to success here are that verbal feedback,
provided face to face by you, couched in constructive terms and supported with
specific examples will always be much better received.

4. Relevance – Is the feedback related to the individual work performance,

based on specific experience and something that they can personally
address?
 CYCLE OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

Unfortunately for many organizations, performance feedback for executives is an

annual affair. This approach does little to build a team and encourage regular
and useful conversations about challenges and opportunities for improvement.
Waiting for an annual performance review also can allow performance ‘molehills’
to become ‘mountains’ by the time they are addressed. This situation will also
make the process of change particularly challenging if not impossible. There are
a number of simple strategies to encourage regular performance conversation.
The success of each of these will be in part determined by the commitment of all
involved and the current relationships between managers and executives.
However, you may find it useful to consider one of the two following approaches:

• Schedule and commit to a regular time, perhaps quarterly, for managers

and to executives have a performance ‘discussion’ using the performance
objectives or criteria developed for the annual review.

• Use performance discussions to seek feedback on your own performance

managers as and what you can do differently to make a positive difference.

• Conduct formal performance reviews twice a year, not annually, to allow

achievements or shortfalls to be discussed more immediately.
 PERFORMANCE BASED COMPONENT OR NOT

The debate over whether to include a ‘performance based’ component within the
salary package f senior executives continues within the local government sector.
This ‘at risk’ or bonus component is determined by assessment of performance
against an agreed set of objectives or performance criteria. While there appears
to have been a shift in local government, both in Australia and overseas, away
from this approach, there is still support in the private sector for performance-
based incentives.

Research indicates that performance based approaches can be successful

when:

• Bonuses are clearly linked to performance with clear goals;

• The bar is raised each year;

• Bonus awarded against the established targets using the agreed
framework;

• Achievement is celebrated and recognized in other non-financial ways.

An ‘at risk’ component usually refers to a proportion of an officer’s salary that is

based on achieving the agreed level of performance and is therefore ‘at risk’ if
performance should drop. The term bonus usually refers to payment of additional
remuneration when performance exceeds specific objectives and goals.

A performance based model can add value and drive improvement when:

1. The bonus is clearly linked to specific goals that clearly align with
strategic
objectives.

2. Specific and clear benchmarks are set to assess performance against

these
 goals.

3. There is a specific and established formula or method used to determine

whether a bonus should be awarded and the amount that is used.

Supervisor’s Tips for Effective Performance Appraisals

1. Planning Performance

• Develop performance plans that are accurate, measurable, attainable,

reasonable, and allow for performance above the fully successful level.
• Describe standards in terms of quality, quantity, timeliness and/or method
of work. Focus on expected results and outcomes and ensure that
expectations are aligned with agency/unit strategic goals and objectives.
Avoid duty statements. Standards should tell the employee how well they
must perform in order to meet the fully successful level.
• Involve employees in the development of performance plans.
• Be timely in setting performance plans in place.
• Revise plans if performance expectations change during the rating cycle.
• Be prepared to explain to employees how they can exceed their standards.
• Communicate to employees that "Fully Successful" performance is good
performance…work is at the expected level of performance and is of good
quality, quantity, and accomplished within established time frames.
• Ensure that plans are consistent and equitable with in your unit.
• Establish meetings with employees to set plans in place. Clearly
communicate expectations and clarify generic or vague standards. To the
extent possible, ensure employees understand expectations.

2. Monitoring Performance
 • Continuously monitor and provide performance feedback often during the
rating cycle.
• Maintain written records of feedback and specific accounts of employee
performance during rating cycle.
• Conduct timely mid-year reviews.
• Inform employees of performance falling below last formal appraisal of
performance. Performance should not be a surprise at the end of the rating
cycle.
• Notify your Employee Relations Specialist immediately when performance
problems begin.
• Ensure continued accuracy of performance plans.

3. Developing Performance

• Develop performance through use of an Individual Development Plan

(IDP), i.e. formal training, developmental assignments, coaching,
mentoring, etc.
• Encourage teamwork, employee ideas, and improvement in processes,
involvement in committees, and other innovation.
• Coach and mentor employees, help them succeed in their positions.

4. Rating Performance

• Consider your own observations of performance, feedback from others and

accomplishment reports when preparing your ratings of record.
• Consider results, outcomes, and relevant facts when rating performance,
not personalities and other subjective factors…Stick to the standards!
• Discuss a rating of record with an employee only after you obtain
Reviewing Official approval.
 • Notify your ER Specialist for guidance if you plan to rate an employee
below the fully successful level.
• Ensure that ratings of record are fair and equitable within your unit.

5. Rewarding Performance

• Recognize outstanding accomplishments and achievements of employees

during the rating cycle through the use of monetary and non-monetary
awards, and nomination for Agency/Departmental awards programs and
external award programs announced by the Human Resources Division.
• Reward employees for true accomplishments and achievements. Reward
results, outcomes and impact.
• Recognize high performance at the end of the rating cycle. Reward
employees soon after accomplishments, achievements or results have
occurred…. be timely.

Seven Stupid Things Human Resource Departments Do To Screw Up

Performance Appraisals
Stupid Thing #1: Focusing on and stressing the paperwork and forms.

We can understand why human resource people want some sort of paper trail
related to performance appraisal. But when the emphasis on the forms and
paperwork overshadows the real purpose of doing appraisals, then huge
amounts of resources are wasted. When HR departments focus on getting the
forms done, that's exactly what they get. Forms done. If that's all this is about,
hire a monkey to do it. Any fool (no insult to the monkey) can tick off boxes on a
form and send it on.

Stupid Thing #2: Believing that a ratings based form of appraisal will serve as
protection against lawsuits by employees.

Big mistake. If you are caught speeding, do you think the court is going to accept
as evidence a policeman's statement that "On a scale of 1-5 the driver was a 4?"
I don't think so. But HR departments believe that THEIR form is going to
withstand legal scrutiny. It's not. It's too subjective and too vague. This desire for
false security is one reason HR folks feel they need to pressure managers to get
the forms done. At least until their first lawsuit.
 Stupid Thing #3: Using an automated system

This is a new development. You can purchase software that automates the
performance appraisal process. What it does is it takes a lousy paper process,
then makes it a lousy computerized process, so now we go much faster
pretending we are doing something useful.

Performance appraisal is an interpersonal communication process. Even

between two people, it's often not done well. Automating the process is a waste
of money and time, and HR departments that go that route are doing charitable
work for the vendors of the software.

It's bad enough we mechanize a human process using paper forms. Now we can
take it one step further. Heck, now managers never have to speak to staff. This is
progress?

Stupid Thing #4: Undertraining or mis-training managers in the process

Take some HR folks. They design some new forms, and a new way of doing
performance appraisals. They print out some basic instructions, print out some
forms, and distribute them to managers. The assumption is managers will know
the purpose goes much further than "getting the forms done".

That's not going to happen. If the HR folks yell and scream, they probably WILL
get the forms back, but not much more. Managers need extensive training, not
only regarding the nuts and bolts of the appraisal process, but about the why's
and interpersonal parts of it. Without that, one gets an empty paper chase (while
people pretend it is a useful way to expend energy).

Stupid Thing #4: Not training employees

Why would you train employees in their role in the appraisal process. First,
because the only way it works is when employee and manager work together, in
partnership. Both manager and employee need to hold the same understanding
about why they are doing appraisal, how it will be done, and what is expected.

Very few organizations offer anything but a superficial orientation to the appraisal
process. That's because they see it as something done TO employees. It isn't,
except of course when the HR department treats it as something done to
employees. Then managers will probably do it that way.

Stupid Thing #5: Thinking pressuring managers to get the forms in is

productive.
One reason managers procrastinate with respect to doing appraisals is that they
don't see the point, or see it as a waste of time. There are other reasons, too.
Most can be dealt with by using flexible approaches that take into account the
needs of managers. Unfortunately, a good many HR departments believe it's just
a question of ordering, yelling, coercing or begging managers to get them done.

That doesn't address the reasons why managers aren't doing them. If they felt
they were useful, they would do them. The key to getting them done is to make
them useful. Unless of course the HR folks want to spend their days ordering,
yelling coercing and begging.

Stupid Thing #6: One size fits all fantasy

Imagine the difficulty for HR staff if every manager used a different form, or
different method. How would you keep track? How would you file them? We can
understand the desire to standardize the forms across a company.

But if you think about it, does it make sense? Can we evaluate a teacher in the
same way as we evaluate the school custodian? Do we evaluate a baseball
umpire the same way we evaluate a baseball player? Of course not. But still, HR
departments expect managers to use a single tool for everyone, often a rating
form. This kind of inflexibility addresses a filing problem. Is that why we do
appraisals? To make it easier for the HR department? No, we do it to improve
performance.

Stupid Thing #7: Playing the appraisal cop.

Unfortunately, HR and personnel departments get stuck with the responsibility of

getting appraisals done by managers. Perhaps it isn't their fault, but it is a strong
indicator that the system being used is or has failed. How come?

In a properly functioning system, each manager is assessed on a number of

things, one of which will be their fulfillment of the performance management and
appraisal function. The responsibility lies with management. If a manager is not
carrying out the responsibility, it is his or her boss that should be evaluating the
manager. It's a cascading process. No appraisal system is going to work until
each manager's boss makes it clear that getting it done is going to be a factor in
the manager's own appraisal.

HR departments shouldn't be appraisal cops If anyone is to do that, it should be

the manager's boss. Anything less is going to be a waste of time and effort
 G
DATA ANALYSIS & IN TERPRETRATION

The data collected from the primary source (through collection of the responses
to the interviews) was assembled, sorted selected and analyzed. The
analysis of data is as under.

Managers

Q.1 Do you feel that organization and individual goals are specifically
aligns?

Cann't say
No
0%
13%

Yes
No
Cann't say

Yes
87%

Among the managers 86.67% managers say “yes” and 13.33% of managers
are “No” say about alignment but no one “cannot say” .

Q2.Did you get training or counseling about performance appraisal?

 Cann't say Yes
20% 13%

Yes
No
Cann't say
No
67%

Out of total manager surveyed 66.67% say “No” that they get training about
performance appraisal, 20% “Cannot Say” and 13.33% say “Yes” they get
training.

Q.3 Do you feel that there should be training or counseling is given about
the performance
appraisal?
Cann't say
13%

No
7%

Yes
No
Cann't say
Yes
80%

Among the managers 80% of managers say “Yes”, 13.33% “Cannot Say” and
6.67% of managers say “No” that they like to get training or counseling.

Q4. Do you provide your subordinates ongoing feedback on performance?

 Cann't say
20% Yes
27%

Yes
No
Cann't say
No
53%

From the survey conducted 26.67% of manager say “Yes”, 53.33% of say
“No” and 20% of say “Cannot Say” that they give continuous feedback.

Q5. Do you give feedback immediate after evaluation of performance of the

subordinate?
Cann't say
7%
Yes
33%

Yes
No
No Cann't say
60%

Out of the total manager covered 33.33% say “yes”, 60% of manager say “ No”
And 6.67% “Cannot say” about the immediate feedback to the subordinates.
Q6. Do you give positive feedback or recognition to subordinates for their
achievements?
Cann't say
7%

Yes
33%

Yes
No
No
60% Cann't say

Among the managers 33.33% of managers say “Yes”, 60% of managers say
“No” and 6.67% of managers “Cannot Say” about recognition to employees.

Q7. Do you give negative feedback, when subordinate’s performance is not

acceptable?
Cann't say
No 0%
20%

Yes
No
Cann't say
Yes
80%
 Out of total managers covered 80% of managers say “yes” and 20% of managers
say “No” that they give negative feedback when subordinates are not performing
well.

Q8 Is relationship affects the rating?

Cann't say
27%

Yes Yes
No 60% No
13%
Cann't say

Among the managers, 60% of managers say “Yes”, 13.33 say “NO” and 26.67%
Of manager “Cannot Say” that relationship affect rating.

Q9. Is rating is effected by the emotional pressure and give lenient rating to
the subordinate
to provide them something?

Cann't say
27%

No Yes
7% Yes No
66% Cann't say

Among the managers 66.67% 0f managers say “yes”, 6.66% say “No” and
26.67% “Cannot Say”.
Q10. Do you willing to perform of performance appraisal?
Cann't say
No 0%
20%

Yes
No
Yes Cann't say
80%

From the survey conducted, 80% of managers say, “Yes” and 20% of managers
say “No” that they willing to perform the duty of performance appraisal.

Q11. Is there any specific time is given to you to devote on each appraisal
form? cannot
say
0% Yes
No
cannot say
Yes
No 47%
53%

Among the managers 46.67% of managers say “Yes” and 53.33 of managers say
“No”.
Q12. Dose the appraisal form easy to fill?

cannot
say
13%
No
7%
Yes
No
cannot say

Yes
80%

Out of total managers 80% of managers say “Yes”, 6.67% say “NO” and
13.33 “Cannot Say”.

13 If the rating is scored on the on computer network (BELNET). Dose it

make your job easy?

cannot say
13%

Yes
Yes No
No 54% cannot say
33%

Among the managers covered, 53.33% of managers say, “yes” 33.33

managers, says “No” and 13.34% “Cannot Say” that forms is easy to fill.
Q14. Dose there is any performance review program in which you and your
superior discuss the performance?
cannot say
0%

Yes
40% Yes
No
No cannot say
60%

Among the managers 40% of managers say “Yes” and 60% of managers
say “No”.
 Subordinates

Q1. The daily task you get is specific, Meaningful, Achievable, Reliable, and
Timely.

cannot say
13%
No
7%
Yes
No
cannot say

Yes
80%

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say
“Yes”, 6.67% of employees say “No” and 13.33 of employees “Cannot Say”.

Q2. Is performance appraisal directly affecting the promotion and pay

increment?

Cannot say
No 0%
20%

Yes
No
Cannot say

Yes
80%

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say
“Yes”, and 20% of employees “Cannot Say”.
Q3. Do you get continuous feedback from your superior about your
performance?

Cannot say Yes

13% 20%

Yes
No
Cannot say

No
67%

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 20% of employees say
“Yes”, 66.67% of employees say “No” and 13.33 of employees “Cannot Say”.

Q4. Do you get positive feedback or recognition for your achievements?

Cannot say Yes

7% 13%

Yes
No
Cannot say

No
80%

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 13.33% of employees say
“Yes”, 80% of employees say “No” and 6.67%of employees “Cannot Say”.
Q5. Dose there is any performance review program in which you and your
superior discuss the performance?

Cannot say
0% Yes
27%
Yes
No
Cannot say

No
73%

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 26.67%of employees say
“Yes”, and 73.33% of employees “No”.

Q6. Maintain an affective, viable working relationship with superior affect rating?

Cannot say
No 0%
20%

Yes
No
Cannot say

Yes
80%

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say
“Yes”, and 20% of employees “Cannot Say”.
Q7. Dose superior show leniency in given rating to ensure that subordinate
get something?

Cannot say
No 0%
20%

Yes
No
Cannot say

Yes
80%

Out of total employees covered, it was found that about 80% of employees say
“Yes”, and 20% of employees “Cannot Say”.

H
Conclusion
The data analysis and its interpretation lead to the following conclusion.

• Alignment of organization and individual goals. Strategic plan of the

Bharat Electronic Ltd is objectively broken down into annul operating
plans at the unit level, and is further broken down to team and individual
goals /KRA (Key result area).Bharat Electronic Ltd does not measure “
what goals are achieved, but also force on how goals are achieved.
Bharat Electronic Ltd spends substantial resources in linking the
strategy plan to individual/ KRAs.
• Nature of goals /KRA are specific, Meaningful, Achievable, Reliable,
and Timely.
• Managers rating are inherently subjective and this subjectivity only
increase because the appraisals are linked to financial incentives such
as merits pay raise. Managers are often lenient on the appraisal in
order to ensure that the employees get something.
• When ask most employees, and they told that appraisal are more about
the increment they going to receive or not receive rather than real
performance management system. The performance appraisal is
“annual ritual” and treated it as nothing more than an exercise to fill up
countless form. The subordinate already know the kind of increment
that the top management would allow and employees try to tailor their
appraisal to justify the predetermined increment.
• Apart from deciding increment or promotion, performance appraisal
system also find out the common set of weaknesses on which
employees have to be trained, have to improve the performance of
under performers.
• At the end of the appraisal process, employees not given an instant
feedback on their performance and the aspect in which they feel more
 improvements can be made. The employee gets feedback only when
their performance is not acceptable and they do not get any recognition
or positive feedback. The management gives reason for it that if they do
that the employees put pressure through Trade Union to increase their
salary and other rewords.
• Managers are feeling, the need of training or counseling about the
performance appraisal.
• No performance review meeting programmes in the end of the period to
discuss the performance of the employee and the employee don’t able
to know their rating.
 I
Recommendations
• The only way to improve corporate performance is by motivating
employees to put in their best efforts. This means recognizing their
contribution in a way that is meaningful to them, reword system of
the BEL is very good, but to ensuring that rewards and recognition
together result in higher returns on human investment.
• The training BEL need to build skills for effective performance
feedback in the manager by give them training.

• E-enabled performance management system: Bharat Electronics

Ltd can use its BELNET for performing various task of performance
appraisal, e.g., it can use BELNET for filling the appraisal form
online. There is lot of software on the performance appraisal, which
perform or make easy to perform task. It is also save time and help
in cutting the cost.
• There should performance reviews done in BEL. There should an
open one-on-one dialogue between the superior and subordinate.
An atmosphere of trust is imperative for such a dialogue.
• I suggest giving recognition to achiever is motivating the employees.
A employees, who have perform well, recognition keeps them doing
well. If the good work is not recognized, it creates frustration.
 F
Company’s profile

Corporate Motto, Mission and Objectives

 The passionate pursuit of excellence at BEL is reflected in a reputation
with its customers that can be described in its motto, mission and objectives:

CORPORATE MOTTO
“Quality, Technology and innovation.”
CORPORATE MISSION
To be the market leader in Defense Electronics and in other chosen fields and
products.

CORPORATE OBJECTIVES
• To become a customer-driven company supplying products at competitive
prices at the expected time and providing excellent customer support.
• To achieve growth in the operations commensurate with the growth of
professional electronics industry in the country.

• To generate internal resources for financing the investments required for

modernization, expansion and growth for ensuring a fair return to the investor.
• In order to meet the nation’s strategic needs, to strive for self-reliance by
indigenization of materials and components.
• To retain the technological leadership of the company in Defense and
other chosen fields of electronics through in-house research and development
as well as through Collaboration / Co-operation with Defense/National
Research Laboratories, International Companies, Universities and Academic
Institutions.
• To progressively increase overseas sales of its products and services.
• To create an organizational culture which encourages members of the
organization to realize their full potential through continuous learning on the
job and through other HRD initiatives.
 Manufacturing Units:
BANGALORE (KANARATAKA)
BEL started its production activities in Bangalore on 1954 with 400W high
frequency (HF) transmitter and communication receiver for the Army. Since then,
the Bangalore Complex has grown to specialize in communication and
Radar/Sonar Systems for the Army, Navy and Air force.
BEL’s in-house R&D and successful tie-ups with foreign Defense companies and
Indian Defense Laboratories has seen the development and production of over
300 products in Bangalore alone. The Unit has now diversified into
manufacturing of electronic products for the civilian customers such as DoT,
VSNL, AIR and Doordarshan, Meteorological Dept., ISRO, Police, Civil Aviation
and Railways. As an aid to Electorate, the unit has developed Electronic Voting
Machines that are produced at its Mass Manufacturing Facility (MMF).

GHAZIABAD (UTTER PRADESH)

The second largest Unit at Ghaziabad was set up in 1974 to manufacture
special types of radar for the Air Defense Ground Environment Systems (Plan
ADGES). The Unit provides Communication Systems to the Defense Forces and
Microwave Communication Links to the various departments of the State and
Central Govt. and other users. The Unit’s product range included Static and
Mobile Radar, Tropo scatter equipment, professional grade Antennae and
Microwave components.

PUNE (MAHARASHTRA)
This Unit was started in 1979 to manufacture Image Converter Tubes.
Subsequently, Magnesium Manganese-dioxide Batteries, Lithium Sulphur
Batteries and X-ray Tubes/Cables were added to the product range. At the
present the Laser Range Finders for the Defense services.

MACHILIPATNAM (ANDHRA PRADESH)

The Andhra Scientific Co. at Machilipatnam, manufacturing Optics/Opto-
electronic equipment was integrated with BEL in 1983. the product line includes
passive Night Vision Equipment, Binoculars and Goggles, Periscopes, Gun
Sights, Surgical Microscope and Optical Sights and Mussel Reference Systems
for tank fire control systems. The Unit has successfully diversified to making the
Surgical Microscope with zoom facilities.

PANCHKULA (HARYANA)
To cater the growing needs of Defense Communications, this Unit was
established in 1985. Professional grade Radio-communication Equipment in VHF
and UHF ranges entirely developed by BEL and required by the Defense
services are being met from this Unit.

CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)

In 1985, BEL established another Unit at Chennai to facilitate manufacture
of Gun Control Equipment required for the integration and installation and the
Vijay anta tanks. The Unit is now manufacturing Stabilizer Systems for T-72
tanks, Infantry Combat Vehicles BMP-II, Commander’s Panoramic Sights & Tank
Laser Sights are among others.

KOTDWARA (UTTER PRADESH)

In 1986, BEL STARTED a unit at Kotdwara to manufacture
Telecommunication Equipment for both Defense and civilian customers.
Focus is being given on the requirement of the Switching Equipment.
TALOJA (MAHARASHTRA)
For the manufacture of B/W TV Glass bulbs, this plant was established in
collaboration with coming, France in 1986. The Unit is now fully mobilized to
manufacture 20’’ glass bulbs indigenously.

HYDERABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH)

To coordinate with the major Defense R&D Laboratories located in
Hyderabad, DLRL, DRDL and DMRL, BEL established a Unit at Hyderabad in
1986. Force Multiplier Systems are manufactured here for the Defense services.
 Joint Ventures:
BE-Delft Electronics Limited
BE-Delft Electronics Limited, Pune, the first joint venture of the company
with Delft Instruments, Holland and UTI was established in the year 1990 for
conducting research, development and manufacture of Image Intensifier Tubes
and associated high voltage power supplies for use in military, security and
commercial systems. Its products include night vision goggles and binoculars,
night vision weapon sights and low light level input applications.

GE BE Private Limited
GE BE Private Limited, Bangalore, a JV with General Electric Medical
Systems, USA has been established in 1997-98 for manufacture of High End
Routing Anode Medical Diagnostic X-ray tube called CT MAX, which is used in
CT Scanners. The joint venture unit will also establish a reloading facility for X-
ray tubes and will also market the conventional X-ray tubes made at Pune Unit of
BEL. South East Asia markets are addressed by this joint venture.

BEL- Multitone Private Limited

 A joint venture between Bharat Electronics and Multitone Electronics Plc,
UK has also been established in Bangalore in 1997-98 to manufacture state-of-
art Mobile Communication for the workplace. Multitone invented paging in 1956
when it developed the world’s first system to serve the “life or death” environment
of St. Thomas Hospital, London. With the strength of Bharat Electronics in the
Radio Communications fields and the technology of Multitone, in the field of
Radio Paging, the joint venture company is in a position to offer tailor made
solution to the Mobile Communication needs at workplace in various market
segments.

Customer Profile & BEL Product Range

Equipment
Defense
Army Tactical and Strategic Communication
Equipment and Systems, Secrecy
Equipment, Digital Switches, Battlefield
Surveillance Radar, Air Defense and Fire
Control Radar, Opto-Electronic Instruments,
Tank Fire Control Systems, Stabilizer
Systems, Stimulators and Trainers.
Navy Navigational, Surveillance, Fire Control
Radar, IFF, SONAR Systems, Torpedo
Decoys, Display Systems, EW Systems,
Simulators, Communication Equipment and
Systems.
Air Force Surveillance and Tracking Raiders,
Communication Equipment and Systems, IFF
and EW Systems.

Non-Defense

Para-Military Communication Equipment and Systems.

Space Department Precision Tracking Radar, Ground
Electronics, Flight and On-board Sub-
Systems.
All India Radio MW, SW &FM Transmitters.
Doordarshan Low, Medium and High Power Transmitters,
(TV Network) Studio Equipment, OB Vans, Cameras,
Antennae, Mobile and Transportable Satellite
Uplinks.
NCERT TV Studios on turnkey Basis for Educational
Programs.
Department of Transmission Equipment (Microwave and
Telecommunication UHF) and PCM Multiplex, Rural and Main
Automatic Exchanges, Flyaway Satellite
Terminals, Solar Panels for Rural
Exchanges.
Videsh Sanchar Nigam MCPC VSAT, SCPC VSAT, Flyaway Earth
and other Corporate Stations. Hub Stations, Up/Down Converters,
Bodies Civil Aviation LNA Modems.
Civil Aviation Airport Surveillance Radar, Secondary
Surveillance Radar.
Meteorological Cyclone Warning and Multipurpose
Department Meteorological Radar.
Power Sector Satellite Communication Equipment.
Oil Industry Communication Systems, Radar.
Forest Departments, Communication Systems.
Irrigation & Electricity
Boards
Medical & Health Care Clinical and Surgical Microscope with Zoom,
Linear Accelerators.
Railways Communication Equipment for Metros,
Microwave Radio Relays and Digital
Microwave Radio Relays.
1.2.1 Components

Defense Transmitting Tubes, Microwave Tubes,

Lasers, Batteries, Semiconductors-Discrete,
Hybrid and Circuits.
Non-Defense
All India Radio, Transmitting Tubes, Microwave Tubes, and
Doordarshan Vacuum Tubes.
(TV Network),
Telecommunications and
Civil Industries
Entertainment Industry B/W TV Tubes, Silicon Transistors,
Integrated Circuits, Bipolar and CMOS,
Piezo-Electric Crystals, Ceramic Capacitors
and SAW Filters.
Telephone Industry Integrated Circuits, Crystals.
Switching Industry Vacuum Interrupters.
Instrumentation Industry Liquid Crystal Displays.

Medical & Health Care X-ray Tubes.

Systems/Network
Identity Card Systems Software, Office
Automation Software, LCD On-line Public
Information Display Systems and Communication
Networks / VSAT Networks.
Financial Performance
BEL has a unique history of profit making Public Sector Enterprise right
from its inception. There have been events of decrease in turnover and profit
after Tax due to reasons beyond reasonable control of the company. But the
company’s strength lies in its capability to combat the threats, for example US
Embargo on exports to BEL.
BEL hopes to generate 25 per cent increase in turnover with a 15 per cent
rise in net profit in the current fiscal year over the previous. Corrective measures
against western sanctions have been undertaken, which are likely to translate
into higher turnover and profitability. The company is putting all efforts to
minimize the effect of the restrictions by early establishments of alternative
arrangements. The Defense Research Laboratories and Academic Institutions
are also being persuaded with for indigenization of certain special category of
devices and components. The company is also opening an office in Singapore to
procure components from Asian markets. Thus in the long run the restrictions will
prove as blessings resulting in self-dependence and better profit margins.
Also several R&D projects with long gestation periods will go into
commercial production during the current fiscal.
 BEL GHAZIABAD UNIT
Formation:
In the mid 60’s, while reviewing the Defense requirement of the country, the
government focused its attention to strengthen the air Defense system, in
particular the ground electronics system support, for the air Defense network.
This led to the formulation of a very major plan for an integrated Air Defense
Ground Environment System known as the plan ADGES with Prime Minister as
the presiding officer of the apex review committee .At about the same time,
Public attention was focused on the report of the Bhabha committee on the
development and production of electronic equipment. The ministry of Defense
immediately realized the need to establish production capacity for meeting the
electronic equipment requirements for its plan ADGES.
BEL was then inserted with the task of meeting the development and production
requirement for the plan ADGES and in view of the importance of the project it
was decided to create additional capacity at a second unit of the company.
In December 1970 the Govt. sanctioned an additional unit for BEL. In 1971, the
industrial license for manufacture of radar and microwave equipment was
obtained, 1972 saw the commencement of construction activities and production
was launched in 1974.
Over the years, the unit has successfully manufactured a wide variety of
equipment needed for Defense and civil use. It has also installed and
commissioned a large number of systems on turnkey basis. The unit enjoys a
unique status as manufacture of IFF systems needed to match a variety of
primary raiders. More than 30 versions of IFF’s have already been supplied
traveling the path from vacuum technology to solid-state to latest microwave
component system.
Product Range
The product ranges today of the company are:
Radar System
• 3-Dimensional High Power Static and Mobile Radar for the Air Force.
• Low Flying Detection Radar for both the Army and the Air force.
• Tactical Control Radar System for the Army.
• Battlefield Surveillance Rader for the Army.
• IFF Mk-X Radar systems for the Defense and export.
• ASR/MSSR systems for Civil Aviation.
• Radar & allied systems Data Processing Systems.
Communications
• Digital Static Tropo scatter Communication Systems for the Air
Force.
• Digital Mobile Tropo scatter communication System for the Air Force
and Army.
• VHF, UHF & Microwave Communication Equipment.
 • Bulk Encryption Equipment.
• Turnkey communication Systems Projects for Defense & civil users.
• Static and Mobile Satellite Communication Systems for Defense.
• Telemetry /Tele-control Systems.
Antennae
• Antennae for Radar, Terrestrial & Satellite Communication Systems.
• Antennae for TV Satellite Receive and Broadcast applications.
• Antennae for Line-of-sight Microwave Communication Systems.
Microwave Component
• Active Microwave components like LNAs, Synthesizer, and Receivers etc.
• Passive Microwave components like Double Balanced Mixers, etc.

Most of these products and systems are the result of a harmonious

combination of technology absorbed under ToT from abroad, Defense
R&D Laboratories and BEL’s own design and development efforts.
Organization:
The operations at BEL Ghaziabad are headed by General Manager with
Additional / Deputy General Manager heading various divisions as follows:
• Design & Engineering Divisions
• Development and Engineering-R
• Development and Engineering-C
• Development and Engineering – Antenna .

1. Equipment Manufacturing Divisions

• Radar
• Communication
• Antenna
• Systems
• Microwave Components
2. Support Divisions
• Material management
• Marketing & Customer Co-ordination
• Quality Assurance & Torque
• Central Services
• PCB & Magnetics
• Information Systems
• Finance & Accounts
• Personnel & Administration
• Management Services.

Design & Engineering

The pace of development and technological obsolescence in their field of
electronics necessitates a strong Research and Development base. This is more
important on the area of Defense Electronics. BEL Ghaziabad has since its
inception laid a heavy emphasis on indigenous research and development. About
70% its of manufacture today relate to items developed in-house. For the
development and production of the Mobile Torpo scatter System and the
equipment, BEL was awarded the Gold Shield for Import Substitution.
Design facilities are also constantly being modernized and substantial
computer-aided design facilities are being introduced including installation of
mini- and microcomputers and dedicated design application. About 170 graduate
and post-graduate engineers are working on research and indication of the
importance R&D has in BEL’s growth.
Three Design and Engineering group are product based viz. Communication,
Radar and Antenna. These divisions are further divided into different
departments to look after products of a particular nature. each of them has a
drawing office attached to them, which are equipped with latest drafting and
engineering software. The PCB layout and PCB master making is done at CADD
Center. A central Records & Printing section takes care of the preserving the
engineering documents and distribution thereof. Most of the engineering
documents are available online.
Equipment Manufacturing Divisions
As a supplier of equipment to the Defense services and professional users,
strict adherence to specifications and tolerances, has to be in-built into the
design and manufacturing process. For this BEL Ghaziabad has well defined
standards and processes for as well as manufacturing and testing activities.
Activities are divided into various departments like Production Control, Works
Assembly, and QC WORKS. The manufacture and control of production is
through a central systems , BELMAC, BEL’s own homegrown ERP system.
Apart from conventional machines, BEL Ghaziabad has been equipped
with several repeat occurrences and increased throughput. A separate NC
programming cell has been set up to develop the programs for execution on the
CNC machines.

Microwave Component Group

Frequencies greater than 1 GHz are termed as Microwaves.
Microwaves Integrated Circuits (MIC) used extensively in the production of
subsystems for Radar and Communication equipment constitutes a very vital part
of the technology for these systems and is generally imported. Owing to the
crucial and building block nature of the technology involved, BEL is currently
setting up a modern MIC manufacturing facility at a planned expenditure of Rs. 2
crore. When in full operation, this facility will be the main center for the MIC
requirements of all the units of the company.
The manufacturing facilities of hybrid microwave components available at
BEL, Ghaziabad includes facility for preparation of substrates, assembly of
miniaturized component viz. directional couplers, low noise amplifiers, phase
shiftier, synthesizers etc. involves scalar as well as vector measurements. For
this state of the network analysis are used.
Material Management
Material Management division is responsible for procurement, storage
handling, issue of purchased parts as well as raw materials required to
manufacture various equipment and spares. It also takes care of disposal of
unused or waste material.
The division is divided into purchase, Component store, Raw material
store, Chemical store, Custom Clearance Cell, Inventory management &
disposal.
Marketing and Customer Co-ordination
This division is responsible foe acquisition and execution of customer
orders and customer services. Marketing department looks after order
acquisition. Commercial department looks after order execution. Shipping takes
care of packing and dispatch of material to customer.
Quality Assurance & Torque
In the area of professional Defense electronics, the importance of Quality
and Reliability is of utmost importance. BEL has therefore established stringent
processes and modern facilities and systems to ensure product quality- from the
raw material to the finished product. IGQA, Environmental Labs, Test Equipment
Support and QA departments are grouped under this division.
 All material for consumption in the factory passes through stringent inward
goods screening in IGQA department before being accepted for use.
Subsequent to manufacture and inspection, the end product is again put
through a rigorous cycle of performance and environmental checks in
Environmental Labs.
The testing, calibration and repair facility of test Instruments used in the
factory is under the control of Test Equipment Support. All the instruments come
to this department for periodic calibration.
Quality Assurance department facilitates ISO 9000 certification of various
divisions. All production divisions of BEL Ghaziabad are ISO9000 certified. The
microwave division is ISO9001 certified whereas the remaining three division viz.
Radar, Communication and Antennae are also ISO9002 certified.
Central Services
Central services Division looks after plant and maintenance of the estate
including electrical distribution, captive power generation, telephones, transport
etc.
PCB Fabrication & Magnetics
PCB Fabrication, Coil and Magnetic, Technical Literature, Printing Press
and Finished Goods are the areas under this division.
Single sided PCB blanks- having circuit pattern on one side of the board
and double sided- having circuit pattern on both sides of the board are
manufactured in house. However, Multi-layered PCBs, having many layers of
circuit, are obtained from other sources.
Magnetic department makes all type of transformers & coils that are used
in different equipment. Coils and transformers are manufactured as per various
specifications such as number of layers, number of turns, types of windings, gap
in core, dielectric strength, insulation between layers, electrical parameters,
impedance etc. laid down in the documents released by the D&E department.
Information Systems
 IS Department is responsible for BEL’s own home grown manufacturing
and control systems called BELMAC .It comprises of almost all modules a
modern ERP systems but is Host and dumb terminal based.
Finance & Accounts
The F&A division is divided into Budget & Compilation, Cost and Material
Accounts, Bills Payable, Bill Receivable, Payrolls, Provident Fund, Cash
Sections.

Personal & Administration

There are at present about 2300 employees at BEL Ghaziabad, of which
more than 400 are graduate and postgraduate engineers.
P&A Division is divided into various departments like Recruitment,
Establishment, HRD, Welfare, Industrial Relations, Security and MI Room.

Personal & Administration

Recruitment HRD

Establishment Welfare

Security and MI Room.

Management Services
This department deals with the flow of information to or from the company.
It is broadly classified into three major sub-sections – Management Information
System, Industrial Engineering Department and Safety.
 P.C.B. FABRICATION

P.C.B. stands for Printed Circuits Board. It’s an integral part of the Electronics
equipment as well as all the components are mounted on it. It consists of the
fiberglass sheet having a layer of copper on both sides.

Types of PCBs
1. Single Sided Board : Circuits on one side.
2. Double Sided Board : Circuit on Both sides.
3. Multi-layer Board : Several layers are inter-
-Connected through metal-
-ization
Raw material for PCB’s
Most common raw material used for manufacturing of PCBs is copper cladded
glass epoxy resin sheet. The thickness of the sheet may vary as 1.2, 2.4 and
3.2mm and the standard size of the board is 610mm to 675mm.
Operation in process
Following steps are for PCB manufacturing:-
• CNC Drilling
• Drill Location
• Through Hole Plating
• Clean Scrub and Laminate
• Photo Print
• Develop

• Cu electroplate

• Tin electroplate

• Strip

• Etching and cleaning

• Tin Stripping
• Gold plating

• Liquid Photo Image able Solder Masking (LPISM)

• Photo print

• Develop

• Thermal Baking

• Hot Air leaving

• Non Plated Hole Drilling

• Reverse Marking

• Sharing & Routing

• Debarring & Packing

P.C.B. is a non-conducting board on which a conductive board is made. The

base material, which is used for PCB plate are Glass Epoxy, Bakelite and Teflon
etc.

Procedure for through hole metallization

Loading-Cleaner-Water Rinse-Spray Water-Rinse-Mild Etch-Spray Water-Rinse-
Hydrochloric Acid-Actuator-Water Rinse-Spray Water-Rinse-Accelerator Dip-
Spray Water- Rinse- Electrolyses Copper-Plating-Plating- Spray water-Rinse-Anti
Tarnish Dip-Hot Air Drying- Unloading.

After through whole metallization, photo tool generation is done which is followed
by photo printing. In this the PCB is kept b/w two blue sheets and the ckt. is
printed on it. A negative and positive of a ckt are developed. To identify b/w the
negative and positive, following observation is done. If the ckt. is black and the
rest of the sheet is white, it is positive otherwise negative.

Next, pattern is done. The procedure for pattern plating follows :

Loading- Cleaner- Water rings- Mild etch- Spray- Water Rinse-Electrolytic-

Copper plating- Water rinse- Sulfuric acid-Tin plating- Water rinse- Antitarnic dip-
Hot air dry- Unloading.
To give strength to the wires so that they can not break. This is done before
molding. Varnishing is done as anti fungus prevention for against environmental
hazard.

After completion of manufacturing proceeds it is sent for testing. This is followed

by resist striping and copper etching. The unwanted copper i.e. off the tracks is
etched by any of the following chemicals. After this tin is stripped out from the
tracks.

After this solder marking is done. Solder marking is done to mark the tracks to
get oxidized & finally etch. To prevent the from getting etched & making the
whole circuit unfunctional done.

There are three types of solder marking done in BEL.

• Wet solder mask: Due to some demerits this method is totally
ruled out. The demerit was non alignment which was due to
wrong method applied or wrong machine.
• Dry pin solder mask: Due to wastage of films about 30% this
method is also not used now.
• Liquid photo imaginable solder mask (LPISM): In this first
presoaking is at 80 degree Celsius for 10 to 20 minutes. Next,
screen preparation is done . the board is covered by a silk
cloth whose mesh is T-48. The angle to tilt of the board is 15
degree to 22.5 degree. The ink is Ink preparation : Ink +
Hardener

71 % : 29 %

150 gms : 300gms

Butayae solo solve 50gms/kg.

Ink preparation-
It uses:-
Ink-----100gm
Catalyst----10% of total weight

Reducer-----10% of total weight

The catalyst is used as binder and prevents the following, while reducer is used
as thinner. The three things are then fully mixed.

For wash out, following procedure takes place.

Water-Lactic acid-Water-Bleaching power-Water-caustic Soda-Water-Air dry-

TCE.

After wash out, final baking for one hour at the temp. Of 20 degree C is done.
After this shearing or routing is done which is followed by debarring and packing.