Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Chapter: One
Background of the study and Problem statement

Page 1

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

1.1 Background of the study Performance appraisal is the process of evaluating the performance and qualification of the employees in terms of the administration including for promotion, providing financial rewards and other placement, selection actions which require differential treatment among the members of a group as distinguished from actions affecting all members equally. 1.2 Definition of Performance Appraisal: Performance appraisal is the systematic evaluation of individual with respect to his/her performance on the job and his/her potential for development. Performance appraisal is the systematic description of employees job relevant strength and weakness. The purpose is to find out how well the employee is performing his job and establish a plan of improvement. Performance appraisal is arranged periodically according to a definite plan. Performance appraisal is not job evaluation. Performance appraisal refers to how well someone is doing the assigned job. Job evaluation determines how much a job is worth to the organization and, therefore, what range of pay should be assigned to the job. Once the employee has been selected, trained and motivated, he is then appraised for his performance. Performance appraisal is essential in escapable managerial activity for enhancing organizational performance. It administrative and training and development decisions and motivating employees. A performance of a job in terms of its requirements observes, it is the process of evaluating the performance of qualification of the employees in terms of the requirements of the job to which he is employed for the purpose of administration including placement, selection for promotions, providing finance rewards and other actions which require differential treatment among the members of a group as distinguished from action affecting all members equally. Initially the appraisal system was started for the purpose of making administrative decisions relating to promotions transfers and salary increments, however over the years the performance appraisal system are being upon to serve a variety of purpose. They are

Administrative purpose Motivational purpose Development purpose Performance improvement


Page 2

HRM-422 1.3 Importance of performance appraisal:

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Performance appraisal is an essential and inescapable managerial activity. Appraisal is necessary for all important decisions relating to people, such as placement and promotion, remuneration and reward, training and development, as well as long-term man power planning and organization development. In recent years, efforts have been made to use appraisal systems for motivation, for more effective communication, for strengthening superior-subordinate relationships, for goal setting and work planning and for improving the total performance of the organization. But in spite of its importance, uneasiness about appraisal has been a long-standing feature of management. There is no doubt during the past three decades, many developments have taken place and many innovations, have been made in managerial appraisal system. Still, many issues remain unresolved. Available literature on the subject reveals than even in the western countries, where systematic appraisals have been widely practice over a much longer period than in India and where a fair amount of empirical as well as theoretical research on the relevant issues has been conducted, serious doubts continue to persist about various aspects of appraisal. In this present situation performance appraisal become important aspect for the growth and development of the organization. As beverages industries are recruiting their employees day to day and providing the best remunerations and facilities, the student researcher thought to do her survey in Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Ltd, Vishakhapatnam to know about the fact in that organization. The student researcher again tried to compare the theories available in the books, journals etc with the practical implementation in that company. She revealed the situation and found that the appraisal system adopted by the company was good and satisfactory among all the employees. Further she quoted points and suggested few points for the development of the employees. 1.4 Objective of Performance Appraisal System 1. To create and maintain a satisfactory level of performance. 2. To contribute to the employee growth and development through training, self and management development programmes. Tata Power aims at employee development through performance appraisal. 3. To help the superiors to have a proper understanding about their subordinates 4. to guide the job changes with the help to continuous ranking 5. To facilitate fair and equitable compensation based on performance. 6. To facilitate for testing and validating selection tests, interview techniques through comparing their scores with performance appraisal ranks. 7. To prove information for making decisions regarding lay off, retrenchment etc as in the case of Hyundai Engineering.

Page 3

HRM-422 1.5 Methods of Performance Appraisal System

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

There are three existent approaches for measuring performance appraisal. These are 1. Absolute standards 2. Relative standards 3. Objectives 1. Absolute standards: - Measuring an employee's performance against established standards. This process assesses employee job traits and/or behaviors. Included in this group are the following methods: the critical incident appraisal, the checklist, the graphic rating scale, forced choice, and behaviorally anchored rating scales. 2. Relative standards: - The Method in which individual is compared against other individuals. These methods are relative standards rather than absolute measuring device. The most popular relative standard methods are group order ranking, individual ranking, and paired comparison. 3. Objectives: - The third approach of appraisal makes use of objectives. Employees are evaluated on how well they accomplished a specific set of objectives that have been determined to be critical in the successful completion of their job. This approach is frequently referred to as Management by Objectives (MBO). It consists of four step goal setting, action planning, self control and periodic reviews. 1.6 Guidelines for Employee Performance Appraisal Goal setting: - Goal setting is a powerful motivational tool. Goal setting consists of performance goals that are specific, moderately challenging and accepted. Goal setting within performance appraisal has been associated with greater appraisal satisfaction and increased performance. Employee Participation: - If the employee perceive the appraisal system as biased and unfair then it is unlikely that they will accept the outcomes of the system. Participation gives an opportunity to the employee to raise their voice into the appraisal process. Performance standard, criteria for evaluation and the evaluation form itself can be developed with the help of employees. Greater employee participation generates a cooperation and support, which facilitates the development of a coaching or counseling relationship, thereby reducing appraisal related tension and rater-ratee conflict. Developing Performance Standards: - Standards to be developed that measure the essential job duties and responsibilities. Employee participation facilitates developing reliable, valid, fair and useful performance standards. Sound Performance Appraisal Interview: - If the appraisal interview conducted poorly, the efficiency of the appraisal system is lost. The interviewer must be aware about sensitivity to

Page 4

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

employee needs for privacy and confidentiality. It is of utmost importance to provide undivided attention during the interview and reserve adequate time for a full discussion of the issues. Revise Performance Appraisal: - It is important to systematically and regularly review system operations to make sure that process and practices are being followed are effective. Self Evaluation: - Employee who has an opportunity to assess their own performance often comes up with creative solutions that would not have surfaced in the one-sided managerial evaluation. Management feedback: - Evaluating each employee as average, without specifically mentioning weaknesses, diminishes the value of the appraisal process. When an employees Strengths and weaknesses are explained; the employee can build on his or her strengths and correct weaknesses. Employees cannot improve their job performance unless they are told where their performance is inadequate Develop User Friendly Procedure:-Performance criteria and rating procedure should be simple enough and they should be well understood by the raters and rates, It should be user friendly. Performance criteria should encompass the key aspects of employees job. Design Specific and Relevant Appraisal: - Appraisal system will be successful only when the items appraised address the requirements and essential functions of job. The criteria used should be specific and directly related to the job. Evaluator Training: - Main reason for employee and supervisor's frustration with the performance appraisal forces is that large number of managers are poorly trained in how to give feedback to employees. 1.7 Rating Error in Performance Appraisal System Rating errors are factors that mislead or blind us in the appraisal process. Armstrong warned that "appraisers must be on guard against anything that distorts reality, either favorably or unfavorably." These are the 10 rating errors seen most often. Theyre where we can really go off track. Halo Effect: - This term refers to a rater's tendency to rate all aspects of performance based on the observance of one trait. For instance, if you observe that a certain employee is a meticulous and thorough worker, you might rate the employee high on all characteristics. This is a very common error among evaluators. Horn Effect: - The opposite of the "halo" effect, this refers to a supervisor's tendency to let one poor rating influence all other ratings -- resulting in a lower overall evaluation than is really deserved.

Page 5

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Error of Central Tendency: - This is both the most common and most serious type of error. The error of central tendency describes the tendency of an appraiser to cluster appraisals around a central point -- usually an "average" or middle" point on a scale. This can result from the fear of rating too high or too low. It may seem safer to cluster all scores toward the center to lend greater "validity" to the appraisal. Latest Behavior or Regency: - We have a tendency to forget about past problems or past accomplishments and to focus on what's been happening recently. Recent events are thus afforded more weight or carry more influence. Leniency or Generosity Error: - This attitude involves high ratings for most employees, perhaps because of a reluctance to "rock the boat" by seeming too critical. A harried manager may find it much easier and more pleasant to offer unconditional praise to employees than to bring up instances of substandard performance. Strictness: - This is the opposite of leniency; to be overly harsh when rating employees. Stereotyping or Initial Impression: - This may be the hardest type of error to deal with. Stereotypes may be either conscious or subconscious -- often we may be unfairly biased toward an employee without actually being aware of the bias. First impressions really do make lasting impressions. Because of this, it is extremely important to base any evaluation on observable, objective behaviors rather than subjective opinions. Favoritism: - Pat is such a nice person and really means well. . . . Overlooking poor performance because an employee is extremely pleasant or easy-to-get- along-with. This error can also be overcome by basing evaluations on observable, objective behaviors. Projection or Similarity Error: - "Birds of a feather flock together..." It's easy to realize that we tend to like people who are like us and to dislike people who are unlike us. This can become a problem in the rating process when we give high scores to employees because they either consciously "remind me of myself when I was just starting out, or low scores to other employees who "just don't have the ambition that I have." Spillover Error: - This refers to allowing past evaluations to reflect, positively or negatively, on the current rating, even though actual behavior during the current rating period has not been the same. Inter-individual Error: - Basing each employee's evaluation on a comparison with other employees causes this error. This can be especially unfair since one employee may have received very high marks. Grudge Holding: - Results from not letting go of or forgiving prior negative behavior of an employee. Evaluations must reflect the entire rating period without undue weight being placed

Page 6

HRM-422 on one specific incident.

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

1.8 History of Unilever


Lever Brothers was founded in 1885 by William Hesketh Lever. Lever established soap factories around the world. In 1917, he began to diversify into foods, acquiring fish, ice cream and canned foods businesses. In the Thirties, Unilever introduced improved technology to the business. The business grew and new ventures were launched in Latin America. The entrepreneurial spirit of the founders and their caring approach to their employees and their communities remain at the heart of Unilever's business today. Unilever was formed in 1930 when the Dutch margarine company Margarine Unie merged with British soap maker Lever Brothers. Companies were competing for the same raw materials, both were involved in large-scale marketing of household products and both used similar distribution channels. Between them, they had operations in over 40 countries. Margarine Unie grew through mergers with other margarine companies in the 1920s. In a history that now crosses three centuries, Unilever's success has been influenced by the major events of the day economic boom, depression, world wars, changing consumer lifestyles and advances in technology. And throughout they've created products that help people get more out of life cutting the time spent on household chores, improving nutrition, enabling people to enjoy food and take care of their homes, their clothes and themselves. Through this timeline you'll see how UBL brand portfolio has evolved. At the beginning of the 21st century, path to Growth strategy focused us on global high-potential brands and vitality mission is taking us into a new phase of development. More than ever, how brands are helping people 'feel good, look good and get more out of life' a sentiment close to Lord Leverhulme's heart over a hundred years ago Timeline 19th century: Although Unilever wasn't formed until 1930; the companies that joined forces to create the business we know today were already well established before the start of the 20th century. 1900s: Unilever's founding companies produced products made of oils and fats, principally soap and margarine. At the beginning of the 20th century their expansion nearly outstrips the supply of raw materials. 1910s: Tough economic conditions and the First World War make trading difficult for everyone, so many businesses form trade associations to protect their shared interests.

Page 7

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

1920s: With businesses expanding fast, companies set up negotiations intending to stop others producing the same types of products. But instead they agree to merge - and so Unilever is created. 1930s: Unilever's first decade is no easy ride: it starts with the Great Depression and ends with the Second World War. But while the business rationalizes operations, it also continues to diversify. 1940s: Unilever's operations around the world begin to fragment, but the business continues to expand further into the foods market and increase investment in research and development. 1950s: Business booms as new technology and the European Economic Community lead to rising standards of living in the West, while new markets open up in emerging economies around the globe. 1960s: As the world economy expands so does Unilever and it sets about developing new products, entering new markets and running a highly ambitious acquisition program. 1970s: Hard economic conditions and high inflation make the 70s a tough time for everyone, but things are particularly difficult in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector as the big retailers start to flex their muscles. 1980s: The business expands into Central and Eastern Europe and further sharpens its focus on fewer product categories, leading to the sale or withdrawal of two- thirds of its brands. 1990s: The business expands into Central and Eastern Europe and further sharpens its focus on fewer product categories, leading to the sale or withdrawal of two- thirds of its brands. The 21st Centuries: The decade starts with the launch of Path to Growth, a five-year strategic plan, and in 2004 further sharpens its focus on the needs of 21st century consumers with its Vitality mission.

1.9 Unilever Bangladesh at a glance


Over the the last four decades, Unilever Bangladesh has been constantly bringing new and world-class products for the Bangladeshi people to remove the daily drudgery of life. Over 90% of the countrys households use one or more of our products. Type of business Fast Moving Consumer Goods Company with local manufacturing facilities, reporting to regional business groups for innovation and business results.

Page 8

HRM-422 Operations Home and Personal Care, Foods Constitution

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Unilever - 60.75% shares, Government of Bangladesh - 39.25% Product categories Household Care, Fabric Cleaning, Skin Cleansing, Skin Care, Oral Care, Hair Care, Personal Grooming, Tea based Beverages. Our brands Wheel, Lux, Lifebuoy, Fair & Lovely, Pond's, Close Up, Sunsilk, Taaza, Pepsodent, Clear, Vim, Surf Excel, Rexona, Axe, Dove, & Vaseline. Manufacturing facilities The company has a Soap Manufacturing factory and a Personal Products Factory located in Chittagong. Besides these, there is a tea packaging operation in Chittagong and three manufacturing units in Dhaka, which are owned and run by third parties exclusively dedicated to Unilever Bangladesh. Employees Unilever Operations in Bangladesh provide employment to over 10,000 people directly and through its dedicated suppliers, distributors and service providers. 99.5% of UBL employees are locals and we have equal number of Bangladeshis working abroad in other Unilever companies as expatriates.

1.10 Mission
Unilever's mission is to add Vitality to life. They meet everyday needs for nutrition; hygiene and personal care with brands that help people feel good, look good and get more out of life.

1.11 Purpose & principles


Our corporate purpose states that to succeed requires "the highest standards of corporate behavior towards everyone we work with, the communities we touch, and the environment on which we have an impact."

Page 9

HRM-422 Always working with integrity

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Conducting our operations with integrity and with respect for the many people, organizations and environments our business touches has always been at the heart of our corporate responsibility. Positive impact We aim to make a positive impact in many ways: through our brands, our commercial operations and relationships, through voluntary contributions, and through the various other ways in which we engage with society. Continuous commitment Were also committed to continuously improving the way we manage our environmental impacts and are working towards our longer-term goal of developing a sustainable business. Setting out our aspirations Our corporate purpose sets out our aspirations in running our business. Its underpinned by our code of business Principles which describes the operational standards that everyone at Unilever follows, wherever they are in the world. The code also supports our approach to governance and corporate responsibility. Working with others We want to work with suppliers who have values similar to ours and work to the same standards as we do.

1.12 Organizational Structure of Unilever Bangladesh


In terms of Unilever, they have two chairmen leading the company worldwide. They have seven top directors leading seven different departments. They have divided their worldwide business into different region and have different business groups to manage them. Unilever Bangladesh limited falls under the Southeast Asian region. On a more micro scale, Unilever Bangladesh ltd is monitored by Hindustan lever Ltd. which oversees operation in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Srilanka. The chairman of Unilever Bangladesh Limited is known as the managing director. The management staff of the company consists of six layers, starting from junior manager (who are local managers) to manager grade 5 (who are Unilever managers). Apart from this the company also hires many non management staff as well as operatives to work in the factories. Unilever Bangladesh Limited structured in the following manner:
Page 10

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Unilever Bangladesh Limited has five departments to carry out all the organizational functions. Respective directors head are head of all departments. These departments are: 1. Customer Development Department Headed by Customer Development Director (CDD) 2. Brands & Development Department headed by the Brands and Development Director (B&DD) 3. Supply Chain Department headed by the Supply Chain Director (SCD) 4. Finance Department headed by Finance Director (FD) 5. Human Resources Department headed by the Human Resources Director (HRD)

1.13 Problem Statement


Employees are an important human resource in any organization, as an effective tool, an organization is interested in assessing the performance of the employees. For this purpose it may be use various methods of performance appraisal of their employees, therefore it becomes necessary to analyze how the appraisal system of employees is testing the working efficiency of employees, as the ultimate objective is to achieve the organizational goal.

Page 11

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Chapter: Two
Objective of the study And Methodology.

Page 12

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

2.1 Objective of the Study


Broad Objective To study the practical application of performance appraisal system of Unilever Bangladesh Limited (UBL). Specific Objective To explore the impact of performance appraisal system on the working efficiency of company employees. To explore performance appraisal as an effective tool to achieve organizational efficiency. To suggest policy recommendations for the effective application of performance appraisal system.

2.2 Methodology
Research is a systemized effort to gain a new knowledge. It is a systematic process of collecting and analyzing information in order to understanding of the phenomenon and which we are interested or concerned. The purpose of research is to discover the answers through the applications of scientific procedures. It is directed towards solution of a problem. Data used in this study were collected from the following source Primary source face to face interview survey using questionnaires personal observation while visiting the company Secondary data annual report internet newspaper

2.3 Scope of the study


This study is carried to judge the effectiveness of performance appraisal system in an organizational system. To determine the main purpose of performance appraisal in organization, to analyze the factors that contributes to effective performance appraisal system. The scope of

Page 13

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

study is limited to Unilever Bangladesh Limited employees. It will help employees to attain greater responsibilities in the future and will lead to achieve the objectives of the organization. Research Design To fulfill the above stated objectives descriptive statistics has been used. It describes the situation that exists in any organization. Descriptive research describes systematically a situation or problem to provide information about whatever is prevalent with respect to issues or problem. Sample Size A questionnaire is designed and filled from working employees of UBL. It includes 100 employees of UBL .The information is collected from both categories of employees executive and workmen level. Sampling Techniques In order to get information of 100 employees of UBL, First of all employees were considered in two categories i.e. executive and workmen level employees. There are around 30 executive level employees in all working in the company. Therefore all the employees at this level were considered. Here in a way complete enumeration" method was used. There are around 700-800 workmen in company, in the study, 70 workmen from this category was chosen. For this simple random sampling method was used to provide every employee equal chance of being selected for the sample. Therefore a sample of 100 employees of UBL has been considered for the study.

2.4 Limitations of the Study


The study is limited to UBL employees. Sometimes respondent are not interested to provide appropriate information. Respondents were influenced by their peers in answering the questions. There is no concrete basis to prove that response given by employee is true measure of opinion of employees as whole.

2.5 Rationale of the Study


Employees objective is to satisfy customers. So they always try to satisfy customer through their work and service. So for providing better customer service company recruits qualified employees. So we want to know about employees involvement with the job and th eir performance. The main intention of this study is to show how UBL practiced performance appraisal to assess employees perception towards management policy and on their jobs. By observing the process we get the opportunity to understand the extent of employees level of job satisfaction and employees psychological contract with the organization.

Page 14

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Chapter: Three
Data Analysis and Interpretation

Page 15

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

3.1 Data Analysis and Interpretation


This section studies the viewpoint of UBL employees on performance appraisal system. For this employees are categorized in two ways i.e. Executive level employees and workmen level employees. Thus to study the effectiveness of performance appraisal system, the view point as study the attitude of both level employees have been studied and analyzed separately. The study states two sections: Section-1: Executive Level Analysis Section-2: Workmen Level Analysis Questionnaires have been designed for executive and other for workmen level to analyze effectiveness of Performance Appraisal system in UBL. To analyze the data chi square test, to ensure the independence/association of two categorical variables has been used. Two variables age and work experience of employees are considered and compared to the viewpoints of employees regarding performance appraisal system, the response of employees with respect to mentioned variables has been analyzed.

3.2 Executive Level Analysis

a. Need for performance Appraisal System Consider the viewpoints of employees regarding need of performance appraisal system, the table 3.2a shows that different employees have different viewpoints regarding the same. By analyzing the table, we find that out of 30 employees. 21 (70%) employees strongly agree that performance appraisal system is required in the company. 5 (16.7%) employees are neutral towards need of performance of performance appraisal system, they dont provide any View point regarding the need of performance appraisal system in the company and 4 (13.3 %) employees agree that performance system is needed in company.

Page 16

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

View Points of employees towards Need of Performance Appraisal System Age Group 20-30 30-40 Total Experience 1-5years 5-10 years 10-15 years Total Neutral 1(20.0%) 4(80.0%) 5(100.0%) Neutral 1(20.0%) 4(80.0%) 0(.0%) 5(100.0%) Agree 0(0%) 4(100.0%) 4(100.0%) X2 = 2.045, P = 0.360 Agree 1(25.0%) 2(50.0%) 1(25.0%) 4(100.0%) X2 = 1.947, P = 0.746 Table: 3.2a Need for Performance Appraisal Consider the viewpoints of employees regarding the need of performance appraisal system with respect to age, in all maximum 22 out of 30 employees i.e. 73.3% % employees are in the age group of 30-40 years. Here the value of X2 = 2.045 for which P>0.05, this shows that the Study does not find any conception between age of employee and their viewpoint that performance appraisal system is required in the company. Maximum percentage of employees are strongly agree to follow performance appraisal system regardless their age. Strongly agree 7(33.3%) 14(66.7%) 21(100.0%) Strongly agree 7(33.3%) 11(52.4%) 3(14.3%) 21(100.0%) Total 8(26.7%) 22(73.3%) 30(100.0%) Total 9(30.0%) 17(56.7%) 4(13.3%) 30(100.0%)

So far as relationship between employees viewpoints regarding need of performance appraisal system and working experience is concerned, different employees have different viewpoints regarding the same. If we analyze the table, we find that out of 30 employees, 21(70%) of employees strongly agree that performance appraisal system is needed in the company. 5(16.7%) employees are neutral towards the need of performance of performance appraisal system, they arent provide any view point regarding the need of performance appraisal system in the company and 4(13.3%) employees agree that performance system is needed in company.

Page 17

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

We consider the employees viewpoints regarding need of performance of performance appraisal system with respect to working experience; in all maximum 17 out of 30 employees i.e. 56.7% employees have work experience of 5-l0 years.

Here the value of X2=1.947 for which P>005, this shows that the study does not find any association between working experience of employee and their viewpoint that performance appraisal system is required in the company. Maximum percentage of employees with different work experience prefers the company to follow PAS. b. Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal System We consider viewpoints of employees regarding satisfaction with performance appraisal system, table 3.2b shows that different employees have different viewpoints regarding the same. We analyze the table, we find that out of 30 employees 18 (60 %) of employees are neutral that are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in the company, they dont provide any viewpoint regarding satisfaction with performance appraisal system. l 1 (36.7%) employees are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in the company and l (3.3) employee is strongly agree regarding satisfaction with existing performance appraisal system.

View Points of employees regarding satisfaction with Performance Appraisal System Age Group 20-30 years 30-40 years Total Experience 1-5years 5-10 years 10-15 years Total Neutral 6(33.3%) 12(66.7%) 18(100.0%) Neutral 4(22.2%) 10(55.6%) 4(22.2%) 18(100.0%) Agree 1(9.1%) 10(90.9%) 11(100.0%) X2 = 4.897, P = 0.086 Agree 4(36.4%) 7(63.6%) 0(.0%) 11(100.0%) X2 = 5.476, P = 0.242 Table: 3.2b Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal System Strongly agree 1(100.0%) 0(.0%) 1(100.0%) Strongly agree 1(100.0%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 1(100.0%) Total 8(26.7%) 22(73.3%) 30(100.0%) Total 9(30.0%) 17(56.7%) 4(13.3%) 30(100.0%)

Page 18

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

We consider viewpoints of employees regarding satisfaction with existing performance appraisal system with respect to age, in all maximum 22 out of 30 employees i.e.73.3% employees are in the age group of 30-40 years. Here value of X2 = 4.897 for which p>0.05 this shows that the study does not find any association that age of employee and their viewpoint regarding satisfaction with performance appraisal system. So as relationship between employees viewpoints regarding satisfaction with performance appraisal system in relation to working experience is concerned, different employees have different viewpoints regarding the same. Analyze the table, we find that out of 30 employees18 (60 %) of employees are neutral that are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in the company, they dont provide any view regarding satisfaction with performance appraisal system. 11 (36.7%) employees are Agree that they are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in the company and 1(3.3%) employees are strongly agree regarding satisfaction with existing performance appraisal system.

We consider the viewpoints of employees regarding satisfaction with performance appraisal system with respect to working experience, in all maximum 17 out of 30 employees i.e. 56.7% employees have work experience of 5-10 years.

Here the value of X2=5.476 for which p>0.05, this shows that the study does not find any association between working experience of employee and their viewpoint regarding satisfaction with performance appraisal system. c. Performance Appraisal System and Employee Motivation We consider viewpoints of employees that performance appraisal system increases the employee motivation. The table shows that different employees have different viewpoints regarding the same. We analyze the table 3.2c, we find that out of 30 employees 20 (66.7 %) of employees are agree that performance appraisal system increase employee motivation. 9(30%) employee are neutral that performance appraisal system increase employee motivation, they dont provide any viewpoint and 1(23%) employee strongly agree regarding performance appraisal system increase employee motivation.

Page 19

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

View Points of employees regarding Performance Appraisal System enhance employee motivation. Age Group 20-30 years 30-40 years Total Experience 1-5years 5-10 years 10-15 years Total Neutral 1(11.1%) 8(88.9%) 9(100.0%) Neutral 1(11.1%) 3(33.3%) 5(55.6%) 9(100.0%) Agree 8(40.0%) 12(60.0%) 20(100.0%) X2 = 2.910, P = 0.233 Agree 6(30.0%) 5(25.0%) 9(45.0%) 20(100.0%) X2 = 3.985, P = 0.408 Table: 3.2c Performance Appraisal System and Employee Motivation Strongly agree 0(.0%) 1(100.0%) 1(100.0%) Strongly agree 1(100.0%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 1(100.0%) Total 9(30.0%) 21(70.0%) 30(100.0%) Total 8(26.7%) 8(26.7%) 14(46.7%) 30(100.0%)

We consider the viewpoints of employees regarding performance appraisal system increases employee motivation with respect to age, in all maximum 21 out of 30 employees i.e. 70% employees are in age group of 30-40 years.

Here the value of X2 =2.9l0 for which P>0.05, this shows that the study does not find any association between age of employee and their viewpoint that performance appraisal system increase employee motivation. Maximum percentage of employees is agreed that performance system helps to motivate employees regardless their age.

d. Performance Appraisal System as a Promotional Tool Consider the viewpoint of employees that performance appraisal system provides employees promotion. The table shows that different employees have different viewpoint regarding the same.

Page 20

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Viewpoints of employee regarding performance appraisal system provide Employee promotion Age Group 20-30 years 30-40 years Total Experience 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years Total Agree 5(45.5%) 6(54.5%) 11(100.0%) Agree Strongly agree 4(21.1%) 15(78.9%) 19(100.0%) X2 = 1.975, P = 0.160 Total 9(30.0%) 21(70.0%) 30(100.0%)

Strongly Total agree 8(72.7%) 0(.0%) 8(26.7%) 2(18.2%) 6(31.6%) 8(26.7%) 1(9.1%) 13(68.4%) 14(46.7%) 11(100.0%) 19(100.0%) 30(100.0%) X2 = 19.542, P = 0.000

Table: 3.2d Performance Appraisal System as a Promotional Tool Analyze the table 3.2d we find that, out of 30 employees, 19(63.3%) of employee are strongly agreed that performance appraisal system provide employee promotion 11(36.7%) employees does not agree that performance appraisal system provide employee promotion.

3.3 Workmen Level Analysis

a. Performance Appraisal System and Workmen Motivation Consider the viewpoint of workmen that performance appraisal system increase workmen motivation. The table 3.3a shows that different workmen have different viewpoint regarding the same.

Page 21

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Viewpoint of workmen regarding Performance Appraisal System increase Motivation Age Group 20-30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years Total Experience 10-15 years 15-20 years Above 20 years Total Disagree 2(33.3%) 2(33.3%) 2(33.3%) 6(100.0%) Disagree 2(33.3%) 2(33.3%) 2(33.3%) 6(100.0%) Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1(10.0%) 6(60.0%) 3(30.0%) 10(100.0%) Strongly Agree 0(.0%) 6(60.0%) 4(40.0%) 10(100.0%) Total 18(25.7%) 37(52.9%) 15(21.4%) 70(100.0%) Total 8(11.4%) 37(52.9%) 25(35.7%) 70(100.0%)

7(25.9%) 8(29.6%) 15(55.6%) 14(51.9%) 5(18.5%) 5(18.5%) 27(100.0%) 27(100.0%) X2 = 2.782, P = 0.836 Neutral 4(14.8%) 13(48.1%) 10(37.0%) Agree 2(7.4%) 16(59.3%) 9(33.3%)

27(100.0%) 27(100.0%) X2 = 5.284, P = 0.508

Table: 3.3a Performance Appraisal System and Workmen Motivation

We consider the viewpoints of workmen that performance appraisal system increases motivation with respect to working experience, in all maximum 37 out of 70 i.e. 52.9% having work experience of 15-20 years. Here the value of X2 = 5.284 for which P>0.05, this shows that the study are not association between working experience of workmens and their viewpoints that performance appraisal system increase workmen motivation. b. Performance Appraisal System as a basis of Incentives and Increment We consider the viewpoints of workmens that performance appraisal system is a basis of incentives and increment, the table 3.3b shows that different workmens has different viewpoints regarding the same. We analyze the table, we find that out of 70 workmen 51(72.9%) are strongly agreed that performance appraisal system is basis of incentives and increment. If we consider the workmens viewpoints regarding performance appraisal system is basis of incentives and increment with respect to age, in all maximum 37 out of 70 i.e. 52.86% are in the age group of 30-40 years.

Page 22

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Viewpoints of workmen regarding performance appraisal System is basis of Incentives and Increment Age Group 20-30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years Total Experience 10-15 years 15-20 years Above 20 years Total Strongly Agree 5(26.3%) 13(25.5%) 9(47.4%) 28(54.9%) 5(26.3%) 10(19.6%) 19(100.0%) 51(100.0%) X2 = .443, P = 0.801 Agree 2(7.4%) 11(59.3%) 6(33.3%) Strongly Agree 6(11.8%) 26(50.9%) 19(37.3%) Agree Total 18(25.7%) 37(52.9%) 15(21.4%) 70(100.0%) Total 8(11.4%) 37(52.9%) 25(35.7%) 70(100.0%)

19(100.0%) 51(100.0%) X2 =.269, P = .874

Table: 3.3b Performance Appraisal System as a basis of Incentives and Increment

Here the value of X2 = .443 for which P > 0.05, this shows that the study does not find any association between age of workmen and their view point that PAS is basis of incentives and increments. We points out that viewpoints of workmens that performance appraisal is basis of incentives and increments in relation to working experience is concerned, different workmens have different viewpoints regarding the same.

Analyze the table, we find that out of 70 workmens, 51(72.9%) workmens are strongly agreed that performance appraisal system is basis of incentives and increment and 19 (27.14%) workmens are agree that performance appraisal system is basis of incentives and increment.
Page 23

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Consider workmens viewpoints regarding performance appraisal system is basis of incentives and increment, in all maximum 37 out of 70 i.e. 52.9 % workmens have work experience of 1520 years. Here the value of X2 =.269 for which P >0.05. This shows that the study does not find any association between working experience of workmen and their view point that performance appraisal system is basis of incentives and increment. c. Performance Appraisal System as a Promotional Tool We consider the viewpoint of workmens that performance appraisal system provides workmens promotion; the table 3.3c shows that different workmens has different viewpoints regarding the same. Viewpoints of workmen regarding performance appraisal System provide promotion Age Group 20-30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years Total Experience 10-15 years 15-20 years Above20 years Total Agree Strongly Agree 14(63.6%) 4(8.3%) 5(22.7%) 32(66.7%) 3(13.6%) 12(25.0%) 22(100.0%) 48(100.0%) X2 = 24.362, P = 0.000 Agree 6(27.3%) 12(54.5%) 4(18.2%) Strongly Agree 2(4.2%) 25(52.1%) 21(43.8%) Total 18(25.7%) 37(52.9%) 15(21.4%) 70(100.0%) Total 8(11.4%) 37(52.9%) 25(35.7%) 70(100.0%)

22(100.0%) 48(100.0%) X2 = 9.826, P = .007

Table: 3.3c Performance Appraisal System as a Promotional Tool Analyze the table, we find that out of 70 workmens 48 (68.6%) of workmens are strongly agree that the performance appraisal system provides workmen promotion and 22(31.4%) workmens agree that performance appraisal system provides workmen promotion.

Page 24

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Consider the workmens viewpoints regarding performance appraisal system provides promotion with respect to age, in all maximum 37 out of 70 i.e. 52.9% are in the age group of 30-40 years Here the value of X2 =24.362 for which P <0.05 shows that the study find significant association between age of workmen and their view point that performance appraisal system provides workmens promotion. Viewpoints of workmens that performance appraisal system provides workmens promotion in relation to working experience is concerned, different workmens have different viewpoints regarding the same. d. Workmens Regarding Satisfaction with exiting Performance Appraisal System We consider the viewpoint of workmens are satisfied with the existing performance appraisal system, the table 3.3d shows that different workmens has different viewpoints regarding the same.

Workmens Regarding Satisfaction with exiting Performance Appraisal System

Age Group 20-30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years Total Experience 10-15 years 15-20 years Above 20 years Total

Neutral 7(41.2%) 6(35.3%) 4(23.5%) 17(100.0%) Neutral 3(17.6%) 10(58.8%) 4(23.5%) 17(100.0%)

Strongly Agree 8(33.3%) 3(10.3%) 12(50.0%) 19(65.5%) 4(16.7%) 7(24.1%) 24(100.0%) 29(100.0%) X2 = 7.083, P = 0.132 Agree 3(12.5%) 14(58.3%) 7(29.2%) Strongly Agree 2(6.9%) 13(44.8%) 14(48.3%)

Agree

Total 18(25.7%) 37(52.9%) 15(21.4%) 70(100.0%) Total 8(11.4%) 37(52.9%) 25(35.7%) 70(100.0%)

24(100.0%) 29(100.0%) X2 = 4.001, P = 0.406

Table: 3.3d Workmens Regarding Satisfaction with exiting Performance Appraisal System

Page 25

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Analyze the table, we find that out of 70 workmens 29 (41.4%) workmens are strongly agree that they are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system. 24 (34.3%) workmens are agree that they are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in the company and 17(24.3%) workmens are neutral that they are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in the company. They dont provide any viewpoint regarding satisfaction with existing performance appraisal system with respect to age, in all 37 out of 70 workmens i.e. 52.9% are in the age group of 30 40 years. Here the value of X2 = 7.083 for which P >0.05, this shows that the study does not find any association between age of workmens and their viewpoint regarding satisfaction with existing PAS. Majority of workmens are strongly agree that they are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system regardless their age.

Page 26

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

Chapter: FOUR
Conclusion and Recommendation.

Page 27

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

4.1 Conclusion
Analyzing the data, it is observed that performance appraisal system is practiced in UBL periodically. It is mediatory plan and performed six monthly .So performance appraisal system is practiced in company periodically .It is time based plan and it changes from time to time. Hierarchy level of UBL consists: 1. Manager and Executives 2. Workmens. Performance of workmens is judged by executives and performance of executives is judged by line managers. UBL uses two parameters to judge the performance of an employee. 1. Technical basis 2. Behavioral basis If employee is sound both technically and behaviorally then he will get promoted. If employee is technically sound but not behaviorally sound then he will not get promoted .lf employee is behaviorally sound but not technically sound, and then also he will not get promoted. UBL use rating scale to judge the performance of employees. UBL use 1 to 5 rating scale to evaluate the performance of employees. Executive Level Analysis After analyzing the executive level, it is observed that employees think that PAS is required in the company. We found that maximum employees think that performance appraisal system improves the skills of employees. We found that majority of employees think that performance appraisal system communicates associations of employees so that superiors can know about the problems of subordinates and can know about the expectations of superiors. So it provides necessary feedback to employees regarding their performance. Majority of employees agree that performance appraisal system provide clear and consistent expectation to employees. It helps employees to identify their goals .it helps employees to identify their duties and responsibilities. Employees observed that Performance appraisal system provides carrier path and growth perspective to employees; it helps employees to decide about the future goals of the organization. So performance appraisal system leads to development of employees as well as organization. PAS as an effective tool provides promotion as well as increments to employees who are performing well in their jobs so deserving employees get benefit from performance appraisal system.
Page 28

HRM-422 Workmens Level Analysis

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

After analyzing the workmens level data it is observed that workmens are aware about performance appraisal system. Majority of workmens are satisfied with the existing PAS. Workmens found that PAS provide them promotion and also give them incentive and increment. PAS also increase their motivational level. It leads to the conclusion that PAS helps to increase their competency level.

4.2 Recommendation
Performance appraisal system should be strengthening in the company as experienced and aged employees are satisfied with the existing performance system. Employees should be given feedback about their performance at successive intervals so that they can make improvements in the field required. Standard should be set against individuals so that employee performance can be measured against set standards. Management should try to identify area in which employee lacks and should provide proper training and develop their skills so that employee can achieve the desired goals of the organization. Employee appraisal system should be transparent so that there should be discussion between subordinate and superior about the goals of the organization. So that subordinates can know about the expectations of senior designated employees. Job expected from employee should be decided well in advance. Senior designated employees should talk with their subordinates about the role expected from them so that on the basis of these parameters their performance can be judged. Performance appraisal is a formal structured system of measuring and evaluating employees job related behaviors and outcomes to discover how and why the employee is presently performing on the job and how the employee can perform more effectively in the future so that the employee, organization and society all benefited. Performance appraisal system in UBL is found to be satisfactory and all employees are satisfied with existing performance appraisal system .UBL has structured performance appraisal system and performance of employees is judged periodically. Employeesin the organization think that performance appraisal system is necessary for the success of the organization, as it is an effective measure to improve the performance of organization as well individual as whole. So performance appraisal system determines the success of the organization.

Page 29

HRM-422

Performance Appraisal System of UBL

References
Books James, E. Neal Jr. 2009. Effective Phrases for Performance Appraisals: A Guide to Successful Evaluations. 12th Edition. Dessler Gary, 2005. Human resource management. 10th edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, Davis Keith & werther William. 1996. Human resource Management. 5th edition. McGraw Hall. North America. Mike Deblieux. 2003. Performance Appraisal Source Book. SHRM. Internet www.unilever.com.bd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_appraisal http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/performance-appraisal-methods/

Page 30