RAYMOND

UNDERSTANDING THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF RAYMOND AND GIVING OBSERVATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SAME

SUBMITTED TO MR. MANNATHAM PERUMAL SENIOR MANGER HR

SUBMITTED BY DEBA PRASANNA SAHOO XAVIER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BHUBANESWAR

5/31/2012

XAVIER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BHUBANESWAR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Dr. Asit Mohapatra, Director-HR Textiles, for giving me an opportunity to work in Raymond as a Summer Trainee. His expertise in Human Resources area and knowledge about understanding life is amazing which would be remembered for life.

I would to like to thank Mr. Mannatham Perumal, Senior Manager Textiles, without whom this project would not have been completed. His practical insights were immensely helpful in shaping up the project and giving the final touch. His way of structuring and delivering things and handling people is something to be learned.

I would also like to thank Mr. Aditya Chopra, Mr. Girish Yadav, Ms. Jasmine Sebastian, Ms Minakshi, MS. Samvedna Rana and Mr. Vishal Kharse for helping me in carrying out this project.

CONTENTS Title
Executive Summary Page Number

Introduction

Objectives of performance management system

Data Analysis

Observation and Recommendation about current performance management

11

system in Raymond.

Comparison between Raymond and MF&L

13

Design Framework for Implementation of 360 degree appraisal method

17

Design Framework for the implementation of Balance score card Method

24

Conclusion

29

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report investigates the Performance Management System followed at Raymond Ltd. A detailed analysis of the Performance Management System workbook 2012 13 was done and discussed with Mr. Mannatham Perumal, Senior Manager-HR. the points came out of it has been reported in this report. After the study of the process a perception mapping of the effectiveness of the performance management was done through questionnaire analysis. A comparison of the performance management system prevailing at Raymond and that of Madura Fashion and Lifestyle was done covering all important points. 360 degree Performance Evaluation Method and Balance Score card Approach method was thoroughly studied and a design framework suitable for the company is suggested. The methodology adapted was exploratory approach as relevant articles were reviewed before giving observation, recommendation and design frame work for the methods to be inserted in the performance management system.

INTRODUCTION
Incorporated in 1925, Raymond Limited has five divisions comprising of Textiles, Denim, Engineering Files & Tools, Aviation and Designer Wear. Raymond Textile is India's leading producer of worsted suiting fabric with over 60% market share. With a capacity of 25 million meters of wool & wool-blended fabrics, Raymond Textiles is the worlds third largest integrated manufacturer. The company exports its suiting to more than 50 countries including USA, Canada, Europe, Japan and the Middle East. Over the years, Raymond Textile has developed strong in-house skills for research & development, which has resulted in path-breaking new products. Perceived as pioneer and innovator, Raymond Textile has been responsible for raising the standard of the Indian textiles industry. Garment companies have been successful in the Indian market using different approaches and distribution methods. Raymond, with its history of more than 75 years, relies on its long-standing reputation; loyal customer base and well-established, extensive retails network in over 400 towns through 30,000 retailers and over 270 exclusive Raymond Shops. In fact, Raymond initiated the entire business of developing the menswear apparel business. It started the development work through the introduction of its first brand, Park Avenue. The readymade garments division has since then growth rapidly. It has created many a pioneering trend such as ready to wear suits. Raymond has now become the leader among ready-mades, in India, achieving a business turnover of over Rs. 200 crores with its three brands-Park Avenue formal wear, Parx casual wear and Manzoni, a premium range of shirts, suits and ties. Raymond as a group enjoys a huge advantage over the competition that of vertical integration right from manufacturing, to ready-to-wear to distribution. The main components of a successful integrated ready-made garments manufacturer are Fabric design, Garment design, State-of-the-art, Manufacturing systems, integrated logistics.

To participate on a global platform, one cannot do without any one of these components. Logistics has to do with supply chain has to do with supply chain management.

It starts from the procurement of the basic raw material till the finished product reaches the end consumer. In the ready-to-wear segment, the maintenance of the logistical chain is challenging due to the various fits, collections and seasonality and also the challenges in terms of colour and design, as requirements of both design and fabric change with season. At Raymond, the entire supply chain management is managed through a state-of-the-art software system, developed and tailored to meet its specific needs. With a capacity of 25 million meters of wool & wool blended fabrics, Raymond ranks among the top three integrated products in the world and has a 60 per cent market share in India alone. Internationally it is known to be a quality supplier of fabric to many leading global brands, having a consolidated position in the global fabric exports market. It exports suiting to more than 50 countries including the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan and West Asia. Exploring potential markets for expansion is one of its prime focuses.

GROUP COMPANIES
Incorporated in 1925, the Raymond Group is a Rs. 1959 crore plus conglomerate having businesses in textiles, readymade garments, engineering files & tools, prophylactics and toiletries. The group is the leader in textiles, apparel, & files & tools in India and enjoys a pronounced position in the international market. Raymond believes in excellence, quality and leadership.

The group companies are:

Raymond Ltd. Raymond Apparel Ltd. ColorPlus Fashions Ltd. Silver Spark Apparel Ltd. Everblue Apparel Ltd. Celebrations Apparel Ltd. J.K. Files and Tools Ring Plus Aqua Ltd. J.K. Helene Curtis Ltd. J.K. Investo Trade (India) Ltd.

Objectives of Performance Management System

Performance Management process carried out should meet the following objectives: 1. Work plan for the entire year. 2. Undertaking productive activities. 3. Utilizing competencies in the best possible manner. 4. Constant learning and developing ones own capabilities. 5. Continuous improvement in performance. To check out if the performance management process carried out achieves the following objectives or not a questionnaire was designed which captured the complete process of performance management process and the after effects of it. The questions were based on likert scale and the data obtained were analyzed. The analysis done was Demographic Analysis, Percentage Analysis and Chi square Analysis.

Sample Brief:
All the departments functioning in the Raymond campus at Thane was taken into consideration for the study. Raymond has employee strength of 750 in the corporate office. As per standards a sample population of 10% would have been apt for the study. The questionnaire designed (100 copies) was floated in all the departments of which only 72 came back. Thus the study was carried out on a sample size of 72.The following table shows the sampling frame considered for the analysis: Departments/D Exec esignations utive Offi cers Assistant Manager s HR Finance Accounts Sales Design Product Development IT SCM Others 3 4 3 5 1 3 3 1 2 1 7 11 8 2 2 2 7 2 2 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 5 4 and 1 3 3 Deputy Manager s 2 1 1 1 Man ager Senior Deputy Tot al

Manage General r 1 1 1 Manager

7 8

Total

26

19

72

The number of males was 49 and females 32. The average year of service in Raymond is 6.83 years. The grades covered were from executive to Deputy General Manager i.e. basically lower level and middle level management.

Data Analysis
The questionnaire designed consisted of 15 questions capturing the essence of the Performance Management Process carried out at Raymond. The respondents were asked to answer the questions on a 5 point Likert Scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree and Strongly Agree). The average and standard deviation was calculated for each question in all and also segregated department wise. The results obtained are shown below: Total Questions:

Question No average Standard Deviation

1 3.36 0.92

2 3.67 0.63

3 3.72 0.77

4 3.76 0.74

5 4.22 0.48

6 3.85 0.90

7 3.32 0.89

8 3.50 0.82

9 3.64 0.70

10 2.57 0.75

11 2.54 0.73

12 2.38 0.57

13 2.50 0.67

14 3.15 0.73

15 2.56 0.58

Department wise segregation: Human Resource:

Finance and Accounts:

Question No average Standard Deviation

1 3.00 0.76

2 3.75 0.46

3 3.38 0.92

4 3.00 0.76

5 4.13 0.35

6 3.13 0.64

7 2.63 0.52

8 2.88 0.64

9 3.63 0.52

10 2.13 0.64

11 2.00 0.76

12 2.50 0.76

13 2.13 0.35

14 2.75 0.71

15 2.13 0.64

Sales:

Question No average Standard Deviation

IT:
Question No average Standard Deviation

1 3.45 0.96

2 3.73 0.77

3 3.95 0.72

4 4.05 0.58

5 4.27 0.55

6 4.45 0.51

7 4.00 0.76

8 4.14 0.47

9 4.14 0.35

10 2.77 0.92

11 2.73 0.83

12 2.36 0.49

13 2.82 0.80

14 3.27 0.77

15 2.73 0.63

1 2.57 0.79

2 3.00 0.58

3 3.71 0.76

4 4.00 0.00

5 4.29 0.49

6 3.43 0.79

7 2.86 0.90

8 2.86 0.69

9 3.00 0.58

10 2.57 0.79

11 2.71 0.95

12 2.29 0.76

13 2.57 0.79

14 3.57 0.53

15 2.29 0.49

SCM:
Question No average Standard Deviation 1 3.64 0.81 2 3.91 0.54 3 3.64 0.81 4 3.82 0.87 5 4.00 0.45 6 3.91 0.94 7 3.27 0.79 8 3.55 0.82 9 3.45 0.82 10 2.36 0.50 11 2.45 0.52 12 2.36 0.50 13 2.45 0.69 14 3.00 0.77 15 2.73 0.47

Design:
Question No average Standard Deviation 1 3.00 1.00 2 3.60 0.55 3 3.80 0.84 4 3.40 0.89 5 4.40 0.55 6 3.20 0.84 7 3.00 0.71 8 2.80 0.84 9 3.20 0.84 10 2.80 0.84 11 2.60 0.55 12 2.20 0.84 13 2.20 0.45 14 2.80 0.84 15 2.60 0.55

Product:
Question No average Standard Deviation 1 3.25 0.96 2 3.75 0.50 3 3.50 0.58 4 3.75 0.50 5 4.50 0.58 6 4.25 0.96 7 3.25 0.96 8 3.50 0.58 9 3.75 0.50 10 2.50 0.58 11 2.25 0.50 12 2.75 0.50 13 2.00 0.00 14 3.00 0.82 15 2.25 0.50

Others:
Question No average Standard Deviation 1 3.13 0.64 2 3.38 0.52 3 4.00 0.76 4 4.25 0.46 5 4.25 0.46 6 4.25 0.71 7 3.38 0.74 8 3.50 1.07 9 3.50 0.76 10 2.38 0.52 11 2.75 0.71 12 2.63 0.52 13 2.38 0.52 14 3.63 0.52 15 2.75 0.46

Graphic interpretation: For the better interpretation of the data the five point likert scale is converted to Disagree (D, Strongly Disagree and Disagree), Neutral and Agree (A, Agree and Strongly Agree) zones. The consolidated result is as follows:

Question No D NS A

1 15 23 34

2 1 27 44

3 3 25 44

4 5 15 52

5 0 2 70

6 6 17 49

7 14 27 31

8 9 24 39

9 6 17 49

10 38 25 9

11 35 31 6

12 42 30 0

13 43 22 7

14 14 33 25

15 33 37 2

Percentage Distribution:

Question No D NS A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20.83 1.39 4.17 6.94 0.00 8.33 19.44 12.50 8.33 52.78 48.61 58.33 59.72 19.44 45.83 31.94 37.50 34.72 20.83 2.78 23.61 37.50 33.33 23.61 34.72 43.06 41.67 30.56 45.83 51.39 47.22 61.11 61.11 72.22 97.22 68.06 43.06 54.17 68.06 12.50 8.33 0.00 9.72 34.72 2.78

Graphical Distribution:

Q1
47.22 20.83 31.94 6.94 D NS A D

Q4
72.22 20.83

NS

Q2
61.11 37.50 1.39 D NS A 0.00 D

Q5
97.22

2.78 NS A

Q3
61.11 34.72 4.17 D NS A 8.33 D

Q6
68.06 23.61

NS

Q7
Series1 19.44 D 37.50 43.06 58.33

Q 12
41.67 0.00

NS

NS

Q8
33.33 54.17 59.72

Q 13
30.56

12.50 D

9.72 A

NS

NS

Q9
68.06 8.33 D 23.61 19.44

Q 14
45.83 34.72

NS

NS

Q 10
52.78 34.72 45.83 12.50 A D

Q 15
51.39 2.78 NS A

NS

Q 11
48.61 43.06 8.33 D NS A

Chi Square Analysis:

1 observed expected chisqares 15 5 20 23 13 7.69 34 54 7.41 35.10 Chisquares Dist Chisquares test 0.99989161 2.38888E-08 chisquares Dist chisquares test 5 observed expected chisquares 0 5 5 2 13 9.307692308 70 54 4.740740741 19.04843305 1 7.3061E-05

D NS A

D NS A

D NS A

2 observed expected chisquares 1 5 3.2 27 13 15.07692308 44 54 1.851851852 20.12877493

D NS A

6 observed expected chi squares 6 5 0.2 17 13 1.230769231 49 54 0.462962963 1.893732194

chisquares Dist chisquares test

1 4.25689E-05

chisquares Dist chisquares test

1 0.387954934

D NS A

3 observed expected chisquares 3 5 0.8 25 13 11.07692308 44 54 1.851851852 13.72877493

D NS A

7 observed expected chisquares 14 5 16.2 27 13 15.07692308 31 54 9.796296296 41.07321937

chisquares Dist chisquares test

1 0.001044322

chisquares Dist chisquares test

0.998308375 1.20521E-09

D NS A

4 observed expected chisquares 5 5 0 15 13 0.307692308 52 54 0.074074074 0.381766382

D NS A

8 observed expected chisquares 9 5 3.2 24 13 9.307692308 39 54 4.166666667 16.67435897

chisquares Dist chisquares test

1 0.826229094

chisquares Dist chisquares test

1 0.000239447

D NS A

9 observed expected chisquares 6 5 0.2 17 13 1.230769231 49 54 0.462962963 1.893732194

D NS A

13 observed expected chisquares 43 5 288.8 22 13 6.230769231 7 54 40.90740741 335.9381766 4.79447E-36 1.12707E-73

chisquares Dist chisquares test

1 0.387954934

Chisquares Dist chisquares test

D NS A

10 observed expected chisquares 38 5 217.8 25 13 11.07692308 9 75 58.08 286.9569231

D NS A

14 observed expected chisquares 14 5 16.2 33 13 30.76923077 25 54 15.57407407 62.54330484

chisquares Dist chisquares test

9.43638E-28 4.87636E-63

Chisquares Dist chisquares test

0.752830517 2.62358E-14

D NS A

11 observed expected chisquares 35 5 180 31 13 24.92307692 6 54 42.66666667 247.5897436

D NS A

15 observed expected chisquares 33 5 156.8 37 13 44.30769231 2 54 50.07407407 251.1817664

Chisquares Dist chisquares test

2.15884E-21 1.72413E-54

chisquares Dist chisquares test

5.85751E-22 2.86136E-55

D NS A

12 observed expected chisquares 42 5 273.8 30 13 22.23076923 0 54 54 350.0307692

chisquares Dist chisquares test

1.70559E-38 9.8126E-77

Observations from the data obtained:

After the analysis of the data following observations came up

KRA setting: Only 61% of the employees have an complete understanding of the meaning of KRA. While 97% said they are aware of their key business deliverables. 97% of the employees face difficulties in writing KRA according to SAMRT. 72% of the employees have perception that their work is related to the organizational goals and priorities. Only 61% have vouched that their managers communicates the goals and priorities of the organizations. Discussions: Only 43% are sure that they have periodic and continuous discussions with their manager regarding job performance. 54% of the employees have agreed that they are allowed to give valuable inputs on how to improvise their problem areas. 68% of the employees think that their managers give practical and valuable suggestions to improve the problem areas. Performance Evaluation: Only 13% of the employees agree that they are able to figure out their strengths and weakness. Only 8.33% of the employees agree that there is a fair evaluation system.

Input for training: none of the employees think any training is provided to them for improving their performance. Reward and recognition: only 9% of the employees think that the reward and recognition system is fair. Performance improvement plan: Only 3% of the employees think that they have gone through performance improvement procedures.

Observation and Recommendation about the current Performance Management System Process going at Raymond
Employees do not understand the actual meaning of Key Result Areas (KRA) and the correct way to write those Key Result Areas. In this scenario it becomes important for people managers and the Human Resource team to make the employees understand the Key Result Areas. One of the initiatives already taken by the Human Resource Department is to conduct KRA Workshops for each business unit. In the workshop people a detailed explanation of KRA is given and instructions were laid out about the mathematical approach to write KRA, which is according to SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time bound). But there was lot of confusion about on what guiding principles the KRA was to be written.

To overcome this type of confusion the organization should go for Balance Score card approach based on which every employee should write their KRA. The detailed explanation of the approach is given at a latter part in this report.

The KRA written are primarily divided into three components such as Business Deliverables, Strategic Initiative and People Processes. The weightages assigned to these depend on the designation of the person. GM level and above which includes Director, Vice Presidents and President have the same distribution of weightages i.e. 50% Business Deliverables, 30% Strategic Initiatives and 20% People Processes. This division works well for the GM level. But Strategic Initiative should have a higher weightage for the Director, Vice President and President Level.

The time slot given for writing KRA is almost 45 days and more, which covers half of the first quarter. This can be reduced to a month so that enough time could be given for the performance review process to be carried on.

The matrix reporting system followed is confusing when it comes to performance evaluation. The final ratings obtained by an employee are the average of the rating given by the functional boss and administrative boss. This actually leads to the

dilution of the ratings which is why the actual performance never comes out in front. To overcome this 360 degree performance evaluation system should be implemented. The detailed explanation of 360 degree evaluation is done at a later part in his report.

Mid-year review is done to assess the achievement for the six months and to plan for the next six months. If the same review process is done quarterly, then the process would become more robust.

The rating grid adopted here is confusing and complicated. Though the rating system given handles the biasing error but it can be made more simplified.

The online interface of filling up KRA can be made more users friendly. Moreover the KRA can be made transparent i.e. every employee can look into each other KRA. This would help in building trust among employees and one employee can what are the responsibilities of other employee.

Comparison of Performance Management System between Raymond and Madura Fashion & Lifestyle (MFL).
1. Performance Review Process: The performance review process of MFL and Raymond are on the same line. The process followed is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Review and revision of goals/KRAs, if required Self-Appraisal Managers Review Performance rating normalization Feedback Sessions Escalation resolution if necessary Closure of final rating.

MFL is very clear in Escalation Resolution process while its not the same with Raymond.

2. Different departments:

Raymond follows the same Performance Management

system across all its departments whereas MFL has a different performance Management system for its retail employees. MFL retail employees have a monthly appraisal. So the KRAs are set in the first week of every month.

3. Rating methods: The rating grid of MFL is as follow: Rating Far Exceeds Expectation (FEE) Exceed Expectation (EE) Met Expectation (ME) Below Expectation (BE) Far Below expectation (FBE) Overall Goal Achievement > 120% 110% 119% 90% - 109% 60-89% <60%

The rating grid followed by Raymond is: Rating Does not meet expectation Partially meets expectation Meets expectation Exceeds Expectation Exceptional Performance Goal Achievement Below 90% 90 to 92% 93 to 96% 97 to 103% Above 103%

The rating grid of MFL is very demanding on the higher side as higher percentage is set for met expectation, exceeds expectation and far exceeds expectation. Raymond on the other hand is liberal on meets expectation, exceed expectation and exceptional performance. 4. Performance Improvement Plan: MFL follows a systematic and rigorous performance improvement plan where in low performance employees are identified and a developmental framework is designed to develop the required skills and competencies so as to perform at a desired stage. The employees who have been evaluated as below expectation and far below expectation are covered under this process. The cases identified for development are either put in Performance improvement plan, if the problems are internally correctible or in organizational development plan if the problem is externally correctible. After this a performance development plan is prepared and acted regularly with regular feedback. A total of three months is given for performance improvement, extendable up to 3 months. Raymond does not have a detailed Performance development plan as of now. Though manager or supervisor in charge is advised to design the individual development plan but no detailed plan or structure exists over here. 5. Normalization process: MFL has a clear definition of the Normalization process going on like taking into account the whole organization performance, business unit performance, team performance and employee performance. Raymond does not have a clear cut Normalization process defined. 6. Error handling process: Error handling is an important aspect in performance management system as it leads to biasing in the ratings given because of favoritism. Thus

MFL gives error handling training to manager to counterfeit those. This kind of procedure is not available at Raymond. 7. KRA/goal setting: MFL and Raymond both follow the same principle of setting KRA according to SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time bound). The main objective of KRA setting is to disseminate business plan and target till last level in the organization along with it building accountability. MFL uses Balance Score card technique to ensure synergy and focus throughout the organization. The Balanced Score Card uses the balanced metrics which link strategy to business performance. It covers the following four Business Perspectives Financial How do we look to our Objectives that will lead to maximize shareholders? the return on capital and shareholders value Customer Centricity How do customers see us? Objectives where our customers

evaluate us on our product, product quality, ease of accessibility delivery time and service excellence

Internal Process

What we must excel at?

Objectives focusing on key Business Process, existing operational process.

Learning Innovation

& How can we continue to Objectives focusing on new products improve and create Value and services introduced and time spent in developing and enhancing the

knowledge base and competencies level for future challenges and new ideas implemented.

Raymond sets the key priority areas on Growth in Revenue, Profitability and Cash flow from operations. The points mentioned before focuses only on the financial aspect. But while setting goals employees are asked to set goals beyond financial numbers like customer alignment, internal process optimization and people processes. On a broader view though it covers four points of Balance Score card approach, main emphasis is laid on the financial aspect only, which in away lessens the focus on the other three points. Moreover at Raymond KRA of a person is again divided into three points i.e. Business Deliverables, Strategic

Initiatives and People Process. The weightage given to each of these is dependent on the designation of the person as given below: Designation President and Vice Presidents Director & GM DGM, Senior manager, Manager Deputy Manager & below Business Deliverables 50% 50% 70% 90% Strategic Initiatives 30% 30% 20% 0% People Process 20% 20% 10% 10%

MFL doesnt have this kind of division in their system. At Raymond maximum weightage given to a KRA is 25% and minimum weightage given to a KRA is 5%, but MFL doesnt have this kind of system. At MFL an employee can write as much KRA and give weightages accordingly.

IMPLEMENTATION OF 360DEGREE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

The 360 degree feedback process helps in development of objectives at two levels i.e. at an individual level and an organizational level. For the individual level it helps the employees in knowing their abilities through the perspective of their supervisors, peers, direct subordinates and self-examination. The perspectives given from supervisors, peers, direct subordinates and self-examination are converted into numerical data. These data are used for the design of personal development plan to address the areas of concern. For the organization level it helps in improving organizational performance because it improves the abilities to work, manage and lead the performance and attitudes of corresponding workgroups.

Competencies at Raymond

CUSTOMER CENTRICITY

BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE

PROCESS ORIENTATION

PEOPLE DEVLOPEMENT

LEADERSHIP COMPETENCE FRAMEWORK

CREATIVITY & INNOVATION

COMMUNICATION

PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE

Leadership archetype:
show courage be honest demonstrate respect keep commitments genuinely contribute

Personalized 360 degree report

Each employee should have his own personalized 360 degree report. It should contain the following points: Introduction to 360 degree. Explanation of competencies and leadership archetype. Scores and pattern of scoring. Interpretation of data. Overall 360 degree profile Open ended question listing Scores Summary Personal Development Planning

Blue Print for 360 degree implementation

Defining Scores Competency Scores: For each of the seven competencies, scores are calculated taking

the mean of related item scores from everyone who completed the assessment on the employee. The persons responsible for completing the assessment on an employee are his/her supervisor, direct subordinates and peers. The self-assessment score is not incorporated into this account.
Itemized Scores: The respondents have to rate employees on a 5 point rating scale i.e.

Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Feel Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5) on how strongly they agree or disagree with the statements describing the various competencies. Standard Deviation is calculated for each item to know the variance i.e. how well individuals agree with one another on the item. The higher the deviation, the more the group disagreed.
Overall Score: It is the average score of all items or the overall rating score. Comparison score: Several data points for assessment purposes are presented to

provide a reference for relative comparison. There are two types of comparison data. The first type, Internal Comparisons, compares an employee scores with each other and to the employees overall score to determine his/her relative areas of strength and concern. The second, External Comparisons, compares an employees scores to those

of the organization and to the benchmark scores. This can help to determine in which areas an employee is truly exceeding the averages.
Assessors:

SUPERVISOR

PEERS

EMPLOYEE

DIRECT SUBORDINATES

SELF

Calculation of individual competency score:

The competency score for each of the competency is calculated separately. The steps taken to do the same are as follows: 1. Define 8 to 10 statements which represent that competency. 2. Ask the employees (supervisors, peers, direct subordinates and self) to rate on those defined statements. 3. Calculate the mean of each statement. 4. Calculate standard deviation 5. Calculate the overall mean. 6. Data representation and comparison. Example: The above points are shown through an example. Consider the competency Business Perspective and suppose there are 10 respondents divided into 2supervisors, 5 peers, 2 direct subordinates and 1 self.

Step 1: Define statements: 10 statements are formulated that represents Business Perspective appropriately. Step 2: Rating those statements: Employees or respondents are then asked to rate. The interface to a respondent should look like Business Perspective Statement 1 Statement 2 Statement 3 Statement 4 Statement 5 Statement 6 Statement 7 Statement 8 Statement 9 Statement 10 1 2 3 4 5

10 respondents (including self) have to fill up above form (each respondent has to fill up a single form) for a single employee. Thus in total for Business perspective competency 10 forms is collected. After all the forms have been filled mean is calculated for each of the statements. Step3: Calculation of Mean: A single statement would have 9 respondents divided into different categories i.e. supervisors, peers and direct subordinates. It is represented in the following table with fictional data Statement 1 Supervisor 1 Supervisor 2 Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Rating 4 4 3 4 4 4 4.6 Mean 4.0

Peer 5 Direct Subordinates 1 Direct Subordinates 2

4 3 4 3.5

Similarly the means of all the other statements are calculated. Step 4: calculation of standard deviation: For each statement standard deviation are calculated according to the categories. It is represented in the following table with fictional data.

Statement 1 Supervisor 1 Supervisor 2 Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Direct Subordinates 1 Direct Subordinates 2

Rating 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4

Mean 4.0

Standard deviation 0

0.44

4.6

3.5

0.70

Similarly the standard deviations are calculated for each of the statements, which give valuable information about the variance. Step 5: calculate the overall mean: The overall mean is calculated by taking the rating mean of all the statements together. It is represented below in the tabular form with fictional data. Here self-rating score is taken into account for calculation of mean and past rating scores are also taken for comparison.

Statements

Supervisor Peer

Direct Report

Self

Your

Standard

Past

Remarks

Score Deviation Score 5.0 3.90 4.12 4.67 3.75 4.06 4.23 3.86 4.36 4.34 4.21 3.71 0.56 0.45 0.65 0.74 0.34 0.44 0.89 0.72 0.59 0.36 -

Statement 1 Statement 2 Statement 3 Statement 4 Statement 5 Statement 6 Statement 7 Statement 8 Statement 9 Statement 10 Overall Mean

4.0

4.6

3.5

Thus for Business Perspective competency the employee has got an overall rating of 3.71 out of 5.0. Step 6: Data Representation and comparison: The above obtained data is represented in a simple manner where the employee is able to figure out everything about his performance. Also the scores are compared with organization score and bench mark score and it is represented in the graphical form. The representation format is described below as in:

Business Perspective
4.05 3.6 4.12 3.71

past score

0rganization score

benchmark score

competency score

Calculation of total competency score: the total competency score is the mean of all the individual competency score. It is represented graphically as shown below

Total Competency Score

4.7 4.2 3.71 4.5 4.2 4.4 3.67

IMPLEMENTATION OF BALANCED SCORE CARD TECHNIQUE

Strategy and strategic planning process are two pillars of the organizations. An organization to be successful has to include both financial and non-financial indicators together in sheet, which is termed as Balance Score Card. Financial goals are also called as lagging indicators as they tell about what has happened and to succeed in future depends on nonfinancial goals also called as leading indicators. A typical strategic planning process consists of the following steps: 1. Stakeholders and strategic objectives 2. Stakeholders need 3. Performance gap 4. Performance improvement linked to internal process 5. Process improvement priorities 6. Performance metrics 7. Communicating performance metrics 8. Performance evaluation 9. Feed back Steps 6 to 9 of the strategic planning process relate to performance measurement, communication and evaluation. These steps are dubbed as the Balance Score Card. The current model of Balance Score Card looks at four perspectives i.e. financial, customer, internal process and learning development. Perspectives Financial Description Customer Internal Processes Learning and development Succeed Financially Appearance to shareholders Achieving vision. Appearance to Customers Satisfy shareholders and customers Business process to excel. Sustain. Continuous change and improvement.

Building a Balance Score Card for Raymond:

The Balance Score Card focuses on the link between business processes and decisions and results. It is considered as a guiding tool to strategy formulation, implementation and communication. The steps required to design a frame work for a balance score card is: 1. Strategic Analysis 2. Strategic Mapping 3. Measurement of Objectives
Strategic Analysis: It means defining the areas of strength and finding the areas of concern. It

can be done by SWOT analysis. For Example SWOT analysis of Raymond can be as follows: Strength: High brand equity Incongruence with the fashion trend. Large retail network. State of art machinery in plants. Highly adaptive to change. Good Infrastructure.

Weakness: Ageing workforce Slow decision making due to multilevel transaction High non-productive work processes Knowledge gap Compartmentalized mindset Inadequate IT infrastructure.

Opportunity: Exploring other similar markets outside India. More focus on casual wear. Focus on women wears.

Threats: FDI in textile. Price competition from China, Thailand and Malaysia. Design competition from local players.

SWOT analysis gives a clear picture of strategic vision which helps in creating value for stakeholders. This can be called as strategic theme.
Strategic Mapping: It is the pictorial description of the strategy and its elements. The also

shows the linkages and interaction between various variables. It is believed if strategy is shown systemically in map, it increases the chances of success. Thus strategic mapping helps in integrating and kinking all elements and variables with each other and with the organizations overall objectives. The following diagram depicts the different element of strategy under four perspectives.

Perspectives Financial

Description Longterm Shareholder value Cost Reduction Revenue Growth

Customer Customer Retention Low value customers to high value customers

Customer Satisfaction

Customer Profitability

Market Share Internal Processes Operation s Manage Customer Innovation Process Regulatory and Social

Increase Service, product, delivery

Aggressiv e marketing

New Product Develop ment

Manager of customer erosion

Political & environment

Learning and Development

Human Capital (Skills, knowledge, Attitude)

Organizational Capital (Culture, Leadership, Attitude)

Informational Capital (System, Data base, Networks)

Attract and retain employe e

OCTAPA CE Profiling

IT skill develo pment

Competency development KM

Innovation

Following conditions are necessary for the proper implementation of Balance Score Card:
Top Management support and commitment: The top management and senior manager should be committed to drive it down through the organization. It is essential that the top and senior management fully understand the concept and the process of balance score card. Determination of critical success factors: The entire organization should be involved in finding the critical success factors which should be of superior quality, minimum defects, higher returns, after sales service, competency etc. Translate critical success factors to measurable objectives: It is very important to transfer the factors into measures as the organization would not lead to anywhere without these. Financial measures are easy to define but it is a challenge to define non-financial measures as a number of them could be unique to organization for

which no standards exist. The measures should be precise and consistent surrogate for achieving the desired objectives. Link performance measures to rewards: A reward system that is easily understood and is prompt in rewarding employees motivates them to attain greater heights. Install a simple tracking service: A performance metrics ant targets are of no value if they are not tracked quickly, feedback not provided and lessons not learnt. Create and link the balance score cards at all level of the organizations: An organization will better serve its purpose of providing delight to all its stake holders if it develops score card at corporate, divisional and individual levels. There should be a link between these scorecards. The divisional score card should follow from corporate score card and the individual score card should follow from divisional score card.

Communication: the balance score card is a communication device which communicates strategy and its components to all levels of organization. Linking strategic planning, balance score card and budgeting process: The strategic planning process that builds a balance score card should be linked to the budgeting process to set priorities and to allocate resources to strategic initiatives.

CONCLUSION:
The Performance Management System is at nascent stage in Raymond. Lots of activities are being initiated by the Human Resource Department to stream line the process but still lot of loop holes exists. IT infrastructure available can be leveraged to a great extent to support the Performance Manage System. Better method of setting KRA and Appraisal System can be implemented to make it near perfect. Internship at Raymond was an enriching experience that would be remembered for life. It helped me both professionally and personally. Professionally I had a holistic view of HR world in the corporate life. I got to know the nuances of the HR field which would help me in shaping my corporate career.